Federal Register/Vol. 73, N6. 81/Friday, April 25, 2008/Proposed Rules

withoutthepermission ofthe Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

(c)Effective Date.The third week in October. The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.

11. Add § 100.918 toread as follows: §100.918 Detroit APBAGold Cup, Detroit, MI.(a)RegulatedArea.A regulated area is established toinclude all waters ofthe DetroitRiver, Belle Isle, Michigan, bound on the west by the Belle Isle Bridge (position 42'20'20" N, 083°00'00" W to 42'20'24" N, 083059'45- W), and

onthe east by a north-south line drawn: throughWaterworks Intake CribLight (LightList Number 8350; position 42°21'06" N, 082058'00"W) (NAD 83).

(b)SpecialLocalRegulations.The regulations of§ 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without thepermission ofthe Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

(c)Effective Date. The first or second week inJune. The exact dates and times forthis event willbe determined annually. 12. Add §100.919 to read as follows:
§100.919 International Bay City River Roar, Bay City, MI.

(a) Regulated Area.A regulated area is established to include allwaters ofthe Saginaw River bounded on the north by the Liberty Bridge, located at 43°36.3 ' N, 083'53.4' W, and bounded onthe south bythe Veterans Memorial Bridge, located at 43035.8' N, 083053.6 ' W. (NAD 83).

(b) SpecialLocalRegulations.The regulations of §100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within theregulated area without the permission ofthe Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

(c)Effective Date.The third or fourth week inJune. The exact dates andtimes forthis event will be determined annually.

13. Add § 100.920 to read as follows: §100.920 Tug Acrossthe River, Detroit, Mi.(a)RegulatedArea.A regulated area is established to include all waters ofthe DetroitRiver, Detroit, Michigan, bounded onthe south by the International boundary, on the west by 083003 'W, on the eastby 083'02' W, and on the north by the U.S. shoreline (DATUM: NAD 83). This position is located on the DetroitRiver in front of Hart Plaza,Detroit, MI. (b) SpecialLocalRegulations.The regulations of§ 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within theregulated area without the permission ofthe Coast Guard Patrol Commander. (c)EffectiveDate.Thethird or fourth week in June. The exact dates and times forthis event willbe determined annually.

Dated: April4, 2008. John E. Crowley,Jr., RearAdmiral,U.S. CoastGuard,Commander, Ninth CoastGuardDistrict. [FRDoc.E8-8864 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0306; FRL-8558-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation. Plans; Designation of Areas forAirQuality Planning Purposes; State ofCalifornia; PM-10; Revision of Designation; Redesignation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin PM-10 Nonattainment Area toAttainment; Approval of PM-10 Maintenance Plan forthe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin; Approval of Commitments forthe East Kern PM-10 Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA isproposing toapprove the State ofCalifornia's request torevise the designation for the SanJoaquin Valley (SJV) serious nonattainment area forparticulate matter often microns or less (PM-IO) (SJVnonattainment area) by splitting the area intotwo separate nonattainment areas: The SanJoaquin Valley Air Basin serious PM-10 nonattainment area andthe East Kern serious PM-10 nonattainment area. EPA is also proposing to redesignate the
SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment forthe PM-10national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and proposing to approve the PM-10 maintenance plan, motor vehicle emissionsbudgets and conformity trading mechanism for the area. EPA is alsoproposing to exclude fromuse in determining that the area has attained the standard two exceedances that EPA has concluded were caused by exceptional events that occurred onJuly 4, 2007 andJanuary 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve enforceable commitments bythe Kern County Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board to install

aPM-10 monitor in theEast Kern nonattainment area andto address Clean Air Actrequirements under section 189(d) asnecessary forthe area. DATES: Any comments must arrive by May27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2008-0306, by one ofthe following methods:

1. FederaleRulemakingPortal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

2. E-mail:lo.doris@epa.gov. 3. Mailordeliver:Doris Lo (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online athttp://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 shouldbe clearly identified as such and should notbe submitted through http://www.regulations.gov ore-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an "anonymous access" system, andEPA will not know youridentity or contact information unless youprovide it inthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send email directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthepublic comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment.

Docket:The index to-thedocket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, someinformation maybe publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and

somemay not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we" "us" and "our" refer to EPA.

Table ofContents
I.Background II. Summary ofEPA's Proposed Actions III. Proposed Revised Boundary Redesignation 

### 22307

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22307 2008

### 22308 Federal Register

### /Vol. 73, No. 81

### /Friday, April 25, 2008/Proposed Rules

A. State's Submittal B. EPA's Evaluation ofRequest to Revise

Boundary Designation IV. Proposed Redesignation ofthe SJV Air Basin to Attainment for the PM-10 Standard and Approval ofPM-10 Maintenance Plan A. EPA has determined that the area has

attained theNAAQS B. The applicable implementation plan has

been fully approved by EPA under section 110(k) ofthe CAA C. EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable.reductions in emissions D. The State has met all applicable

requirements for the area under section 110 andPart D oftheCAA 1. Basic SIPRequirements under CAA

Section 110 2. SIP Requirements under PartD E. EPA has fully approved a maintenance

plan, including a contingency plan, for the area undersection 175A ofthe CAA 1.An attainment emissions inventory to

identify the level ofemissions in the area sufficient to attain theNAAQS 2. A demonstration ofmaintenance ofthe

NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation 3. Verification of continued attainment

through operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring network 4. Contingency provisions to promptly

correct any violation ofthe NAAQS that

occurs after redesighation ofthe area F.Transportation conformity and motor

vehicle emissions budgets 1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-.

10 in the Emissions Budgets 2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan's Budgets 3. Trading Mechanism V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern V1. Proposed Actions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Background

On May 26, 2004, EPA approved the
serious area PM-10 plan for the SV nonattainment area, "2003 PM10 Plan,
San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller" submitted by
the State on August 19, 2003 and amendments to that plan submitted on December 30, 2003 (collectively, 2003 Plan). See 69 FR 30006; 40 CFR 81.305. This plan provided for, among other things, the implementation ofbest available control measures (BACM). In addition, since the SJV nonattainment

area had failed to meet its original
serious area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001, the State was required under section 189(d) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to submit a plan that provided for an annual reduction in PM-10 or PM-10
precursors of not less than five percent until attainment. A detailed discussion of the history ofPM-10 planning in the
SJV nonattainment area and ofEPA's approval of the 2003 Plan can be foulad in its proposed and final actions andthe associated dockets. 69 FR 5412 (February 4, 2004); 69 FR 30006.

On October 30, 2006, EPA determined thatthe SJVnonattainment area had attained the 24-hour PM-10 standard' based on airquality data from 2003 through 2005. Inthis action we noted that there were several exceedances of the PM-10 standard that were likely due
to exceptional events which EPA would address in subsequent actions. 71 FR 63642. Subsequently EPA issued afinal action affirming that the PM-10 standard has been attained in the SJV nonattainment area based on air quality data from 2004 through 2006. 73 FR 14687 (March 19, 2008).

OnNovember 16,2007, the State submitted to EPA the "2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan andRequest for Redesignation," September 20, 2007, for the San Joaquin Valley AirPollution Control District (SJVAPCD orthe Distritt) (2007 Plan).2 On January 31, 2008, the State submitted arequest to split the existing SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area into-two separate nonattainment areas: (1)The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the
western portion ofthe Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCDL Letter fromJames N. Goldstene, California Air Resources Board (CARB),
to Deborah Jordan, EPA, with attachments, January 31, 2008- (Goldstene letter).

On February 29, 2008, the State submitted enforceable commitments by CARB and the KCAPCD tomonitor for PM-10 in the western portion ofthe KCAPCD and to address CAA State Implementation Plan (SIP)requirements for this area as necessary. Letter from James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, February 29, 2008.

Finally, onJanuary 23, 2008, the State submitted toEPA the "Exceptional Event Documentation, PM10, Fireworks, Bakersfield, CA,July 4, 2007" and on

IThe level ofthe national primary24-hour ambient air qualitystandard for particulate matter is 150 micrograms percubic meter (pg/im 3).The standardis attained whenthe expected numberof dayspercalendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 gg/m3, as determined in accordance withappendix K to 40 CFR part50, is equal to or less than one. See 40 CFR 50.6.

2TheSJVAPCD District adopted the 2007 Plan on September 20, 2007 and submitted itto the State

on September 21, 2007. The State " * * updated the attainment inventory * * *to reflect emission reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that had notbeen accounted for" before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on November 16, 2007. (Staff Report, Analysis ofthe San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, Air Resources Board, Release Date: October 12, 2007 (ARB StaffReport),
pp. 7-8 and Appendix B). Thus the applicable emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan are found in the ARB StaffReport. April 15, 2008, the State submitted to EPA the "Natural Event Documentation, Bakersfield, California, January 4, 2008."

11. Summary ofEPA's Proposed Actions

First, EPA is proposing to grant the State's request to split the existing SJV nonattainrent area into two separate nonattainment areas. EPA is then proposing to grant the State's request to redesignate the portion ofthe SJV nonattainment area located inthe San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to attainment for the PM-10 standard and to approve the PM-l0 maintenance plan, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the

area. EPA is also proposing to exclude from use in determining that the area has attained the PM-10 standard data showing exceedances caused by exceptional events that occurred onJuly 4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve commitments by CARB andthe KCAPCD to monitor for PM-10 inthe
western portion ofthe KCAPCD andto address CAA SIP requirements forthe

area as necessary. 

### M. Proposed Revised Boundary Designation A. State'sSubmittal

As stated above, onJanuary 31, 2008, the State submitted arequest to EPA to split the existing SJV PM-10 nonattainment area into two separate nonattainment areas: (1)The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the
western portion ofthe KCAPCD. The State's submittal states that "[t]his change will address the inconsistency between California's adopted airbasin boundary for the San Joaquin Valley and the boundary U.S. EPA is using for PM10 planning." The State's submittal includes information aboutjurisdiction, geography, population anddegree of urbanization, employment and traffic/ commuting patterns, and emissions and airquality which supports therevised boundary designation. See Goldstene letter.

B. EPA'sEvaluationof RequestTo Revise BoundaryDesignation

The existing SJVnonattainment area includes the entire counties ofSan Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and Tulare and part ofKern County.The part ofKern County inthe existing SJV nonattainment area is a region that straddles the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi mountains and is located in two separate airbasins: the SJV Air Basinand the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The dividing line between

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22308 2008Federal Registei/Vol. 73, No. 81/Friday, April 25, 2008/Proposed Rules-3

these two airbasins coincides with the jurisdictional boundary between the KCAPCD and the SJVAPCD. This dividing line also coincides with the boundary that we are today proposing to draw between the two nonattainment

areas which we are proposing to designate as the SJV Air Basin (SJVAB)' PM-10 nonattainment area and the East Kern PM-10 nonattainment area.3 Thus, ifwe finalize the revisionto the boundary designation, the SVAB nonattainment area will include only those areas that are in the SJV Air Basin (i.e., all ofthe seven counties mentioned above and the part ofKern County that is underthe jurisdiction ofthe SJVAPCD) and the East Kern PM-10 nonattainment area will include thepart ofKern County thatis currently in the existing SJVnonattainment area, is in the MDAB and is under thejurisdiction ofthe KCAPCD. 4 Together, these two

new PM-10 nonattainment areas will

cover the same geographic area as the original SJV PM-10 nonattainment area.

Under section 107(d)(3)(D)-of the CAA, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submitto EPA a revised designation of any area or portion thereof within the state. 5 EPA is required to approve ordeny asubmittal ofa revised designation within 18 months ofreceipt. The type ofrevised designation that the State ofCalifornia submitted on January 31, 2008 involves

aboundary change only and does not involve a change in status (e.g., from "nonattainment," to "attainment" or "unclassifiable") ofany area.

In determining whether to approve or deny a state's submittal ofa request for

a revised boundary designation under section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA uses the same factors Congress directed EPA to consider when the Agency initiates a revision to a designation ofan area on its own motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). These factors include "air quality data, planning andcontrol considerations, or any other air qualityrelated consideratibns the Administrator deems appropriate." In addition, because the State's revised designation involves nonattainment areas, we also take into account CAA section 107(d)(1)(A), which provides that nonattainment areas are to include the geographic area thatdoes not meet, or

3 We areproposing to call the new area "East Kern" because itis the eastern part ofKern County that is currently within the existing SJV nonattainment area.

4The KCAPCD'sjurisdiction also includes the remaining part ofKern County which extends eastwardbeyond the proposed East Kern area.

5Boundary changes are an inherent part ofa designation orredesignation ofan area under the CAA. SeeCAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). thatcontributes to ambient air quality in

a nearby area that does not meet,the NAAQS for agiven pollutant.

California has provided a compelling technical justification asto why the proposed SJVAB and East Kern nonattainment areas should be designated as separate PM-10 planning

areas. A summary ofthe State's reasoning follows:.

Jurisdiction. The proposed SJVAB

area is under the jurisdiction ofthe SJVAPCD and the proposed East Kern

area is under the jurisdiction ofthe KCAPCD. The proposed revised

- designation will align the boundary along these jurisdictional lines. This realignment will make the air quality planning and implementation process
more efficient and straightforward since the local air pollutioncontrol agencies, SJVAPCD andKCAPCD, can only adopt andimplement plans and rules in the

area forwhich they have jurisdiction. Geography. The East Kern area is in the MDAB, a different airbasin than the SJVAB area; it is separated from the SJVAB area by the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges at elevations up to 7,500 feet. The Kern River Valley and the Cummings Valley in the East Kern area are located at approximately 2600 feet and 3800 feet, respectively. These elevations are comparable to other areas in the MDAB and much higher than the average elevation in the western portion ofKern County in the SJVAB which is between 450 and 500 feet. Eastern Kern County, which includes the proposed East Kern nonattainment area, is a vast arid desert while the SJVAB portion ofKern County ispart ofthe urbanized, agricultural, and industrial SJV. The mountains surrounding the SJVAB form a bowl trapping airpollutants in the SWAB, but the East Kern area is located above the inversion layer which traps air pollutants in the SJVAB andthus, experiences different weather from the SWAB.

PopulationandDegreeof Urbanization. There are no major orfast growing population centers in eastern Kern County. Eastern Kern County

covers approximately 3800 square miles, with a totalpopulation of approximately 131,000 (in 2005) and a low population density of approximately 35 persons per square mile. In the last decade (1995-2005), population increased by 15,000 persons. The Kern River Valley and Cummings Valley, which arein the East Kern area, - are sparsely populated; the greater Lake Isabella region in the Kern River Valley has approximately 15,000 inhabitants; .and the west Tehachapi area in the Cummings Valley has approximately" 13,000 inhabitants. In contrast, the western portion ofKern County in the SJVAB extends over 4400 square miles, includes the urban Bakersfield area, housed 640,000 persons (in 2005), and has a population density of approximately 145 persons per square mile, which is four times the population density ofeastern Kern County. In the last decade, the total population in western Kern County grew by 136,000 persons, nine timesthe population growth in eastern Kern County.

EmploymentandTraffic/Commuting Patterns. Eastern"Kern County, which. includes the proposed East Kern nonattainment area, is.not strongly integrated economically with western Kern County. People tend to live and work in eastern Kern County, and because ofits geographic isolation there is no convenient commute to cities outside the region. The economy of western Kern is largely based on the oil and agricultural industries. The primary employer in eastern Kern County is the Tehachapi StatePrison. Dueto the geographic isolation, there is no convenient commute to cities outside the area. In 2005, vehicles traveled approximately 5.1 million miles per day throughout eastern Kern County. In contrast, in western Kern County vehicles traveled approximately 19.8 millionmiles per day, close to 4 times the average travel in eastern Kern County. Also, eastern Kern residents are not dependent on western Kern for economic activities such as employment, shopping, or other services. There are no significant commute patterns fromeastern Kern County into the SWAB, the MDAB, or" the South Coast Air Basin or vice versa.

Emissions.There are only a handful of major emission sources in eastern Kern County, which includes the proposed East Kern area, and projected source and industrial growth is minimal. Total primary PM-10 emissions as well as nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx),the main precursor ofsecondary PM-10 in the area, are declining. Major sources of primary PM-10 include the Tehachapi State Prison (11.5 tons per year (tpy)in 2005), followed bytwo aggregate operations (9.7 tpy and 8.5 tpy); thetwo largest NOx sources are the Tehachapi State Prison (12.8 tpy) andtwo natural gas pumps that liftwater to Tehachapi (14.8 tpy and 12.2 tpy). In contrast, western Kern County houses 35 major

sources ofprimary PM-10 with emissions over 10 tpy and 47 major

sources of NOx with emissions over 10 tpy. Compared to the entire SJV PM-10 nonattainment area, sources in all of eastern Kern County contributed only eight percent ofthe direct PM-10

### 22309

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22309 2008

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

emissions and eightpercent ofthe NOx County, NOx has been determined to be monitor located in the Kern River emissions in 2005. the only significant precursor for the Valley. This IMPROVE monitor has,

AirQuality.The chemical SJVAB area. 69 FR 30006. Currently since February 2000, consistently composition ofPM-10 ineastern Kern there is no Federal Reference Method measured PM-10 concentrations far County, which includes the proposed (FRM) or Federal Equivalent Method below the PM-Ia standard. A summary East Kern area, differs significantly from (FEM)monitoring ofPM-la inthe East ofthe maximum PM-Ia daily values at the PM-la chemical composition in the Kern area. However, there is an the IMPROVE monitor isprovided in SJVAB area.While dust is the main Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Table I below. component ofPM-10 ineastern Kern Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PM-10 DAILY VALUES FOR THE DOMELANDS IMPROVE MONITOR (tg/m 3)

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

2001

................................................................................................................. 33 33 32 32 2002

............................................................................................... 109 53 49 49 2003

........................................................................................... .......... ............ 66 42 37 37 2004

...................................... s.......................................................................... 52 50 47 45 2005

................................................................................................................. 21 14 6' 5 2006

................................................................................................................. 39 36 35 34
Source: IMPROVE Web site,.http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm

Based onthe factors setforth above, EPA has considered the State's request in accordance with the criteria listed in CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). We find that the State has sufficiently demonstrated that the SVAB and East Kern should be separate nonattainment areasbecause they lie in separate airbasins, are under different local jurisdictions, have different population densities and growth levels, donot share commute patterns, have different emissions

sources and have different types ofair pollutants. Pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA is therefore proposing
to approve the State's request to revise the boundary designation ofthe existing SJV PM-10 nonattainment area by splitting the area intotwo separate PM-l0 nonattainment areas, the SVAB and East Kern.

As explained below, we are further proposing to redesignate the SJVAB to attainment for PM-lO. Pending further airquality monitoring and until such time as the East Kern nonattainment

area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation, the East Kern area would be classified as a serious PM-la nonattainment area. Thus the East Kern nonattainment area wouldretain the classification andnonattainment designation that applied to itwhen it

was part ofthe SJV nonattainment area andwould likewise retain the attainment determination applicable to thatarea. In order to address the serious

area PM-IO statutory requirements, KCAPCD and CARB have made the enforceable commitments discussed in section V. below.

IV. Proposed Redesignation ofthe SJVAB toAttainment forthe PM-10 Standard

On November 16, 2007, the State submitted to EPAthe 2007 Plan which addresses PM-10 maintenance plan requirements and includes a discussion ofhow the SJVAB (i.e., the portion of the current nonattainment area under thejurisdiction ofthe SJVAPCD) meets the CAA redesignation requirements. Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA states that an area can be redesignated to attainment ifthe following conditions

aremet:

(1)EPA has determined that the area has attained theNAAQS.

(2) The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by EPA under section 110(k) ofthe CAA. (3)EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

(4) The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under section 110 andPart D ofthe CAA.

(5) EPA has fullyapproved a maintenance plan,including a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A ofthe CAA. These requirements are discussed in

more detail in a September 4, 1992 EPA Memorandum, "Procedures for Processing Request to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division" (Calcagni memo). We discuss how these requirements are met for the SJVAB in detail below.

A. EPAHasDeterminedThattheArea HasAttained theNAAQS

The Calcagni memo states thatthere

are two components involved in meeting this requirement. The first component relies on an analysis of quality-assured ambient airquality data and an ambient airmonitoring network that is representative ofthe area of highest concentrations. ForPM-IO in the SWAB, EPA has reviewed the ambient airquality data and determined and affirmed thatthe PM-10 NAAQS has been attained for the years 2003 through 2006. See 71 FR.40952, 7i FR 63642, 72 FR 49046 and 73 FR 14687. Thesedeterminations also discuss the adequacy ofthe monitoring network for the SWAB.

EPA has also evaluated the air quality datain EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database for 2007 and through February 2008. This data has been included in the docket for this proposed rule. A summary ofthe 2005-2007 data is provided in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF 2005-2007 PM-10 ATTAINMENT STATISTICS [Based on Federal Reference Method PM-10 monitors] Observed Estimated 24- three year 24- hour exceed- Attainment Monitoing shte hour maximum status (jIg/m 3) ance days

Fresno-Drummond

.......................................................................... : .................................................. 0 Fresno-1 st Street

............................................................................................................................... 

### 22310

0 1Attainment. 0 Attainment.

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22310 2008Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 81/ Friday, April 25, 2008 /Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF 2005-2007 PM-10 ATTAINMENT STATISTIcS-Continued [Based on Federal Reference Method PM-10 monitors] Observed Estimated 24- Attainment threeyear 24- h ctatus Monitoring site hour maximum hourexceed- (gig/m 3) ance days

Clovis

.. .................................................................... 116 0 Attainment. Bakersfield-Golden State Highway

.................................................................................................... 154 0 Attainment. Bakersfield-California Ave

................................................................................................................. 153 0 Attainment. Oildale

............................................................................................................................................... 145 0 Attainment. Corcoran

............................................................................................................................................ 140 0 Attainment. Hanford

.............................................................................................................................................. 142 0 Attainment. M derced

............................................................................................................................................... 94 0 Attainment. Stockton-Hazelton.

............................................................................................................................. 82 0 Attainment. Stockton-Wagner

............................................................................................................................... 69 0 Attainment. Modesto

............................................................................................................................................. 96 0 Attainment. Turlock

................................................. ......... ...................................... 97 0 Attainment. Visalia

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

Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database.

One exceedance ofthe PM-10 standard was recorded atthe Bakersfield-Golden FEM 6onJuly 4, 2007. The State has flagged this exceedance asbeing caused by an. exceptional event, fourth ofJuly fireworks celebrations. EPA has reviewed the documentation for this event and has concurred with the State's request. Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Mary D. Nichols, California Environmental Protection Agency, April 21, 2008. For 2008, one exceedance of the PM-10 standard was recorded also at the Bakersfield-Golden federal equivalent monitor 7 onJanuary 4. The State has flagged this exceedance as being caused byan exceptional event, high winds. EPA has reviewed the documentatibn for this event and has concurred with the State's request. Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Mary D. Nichols, California Environmental Protection Agency, April 21, 2008.

Under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, the Agency may exclude data from regulatory determinations related to exceedances orviolations ofthe NAAQS ifthe state adequately demonstrates that

an exceptional event caused the exceedance orviolation. 40 CFR Sections 50.1, 50.14. Therefore, for the

reasons setforth in the concurrence letters, EPA is proposing to exclude data showing exceedances onJuly 4, 2007 and January 4, 2008 in determining

6The Bakersfield-Golden monitoring site includes

a special purpose FEM known as a Tapered'Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM)continuous. automated analyzer. The exceedances onJuly 4. 2007 and January 4, 2008 were recorded on the TEOM. Data are collected at the site using both a TEOM, which provides continuous PM-10 datafor public reporting purposes, and ahigh-volume FRM. The FRM operates at a less than everyday schedule,

as allowed byEPA regulations, and was not operating on July 4, 2007 orJanuary 4, 2008.

7See footnote 6above. whether the SJVAB has continued to attain the PM-10 standard-in 2007 and through February 2008. The

concurrence letters explain how the State has met its burden to demonstrate that these exceedances qualify as exceptional events. Thus, EPAbelieves that according to the ambient air monitoring datafor the SJVAB, the PM10 NAAQS has beei attained.
•The second component that nay be included inthe showing that a PM-10

area has met the requirement that the NAAQS has been attained involves an analysis using airquality modeling. This component is addressed underthe maintenance plan requirements discussion below.

B. TheApplicableImplementationPlan HasBeen FullyApprovedbyEPA Under Section 110(k)ofthe CAA

The Calcagni memo states that the SIP for the area mustbe fully approved under section 110(k) ofthe CAA and
must satisfy all requirements that apply tothe area. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As stated above, onAugust 19, 2003 and December 30, 2003, the State submitted the 2003 Plan. This plan addressed all applicable requirements forthe SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area. On May 24, 2004, EPA approved all components ofthe 2003 Planexcept for the plan's contingency measures. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni memo, p. 3; Southwestern PennsylvaniaGrowthAlliancev. Browner,144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wallv.EPA, 265 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2001). The contingency

measure requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9) was subsequently suspended on October 30, 2006 pursuant to EPA's determination of attainment under its Clean Data Policy. See 71 FR 63642, 63663. Thus, since contingency measures are no longer a required element for the SJVAB, all applicable requirements have been approved under 110(k) ofthe CAA. See also section IV.D. below.

C.EPAHasDeterminedThat the ImprovementinAirQualityIsDue to Permanent andEnforceableReductions in Emissions

The Calcagni memo states that the

state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement inair quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable, (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) and the improvement should not be aresult of temporary reductions (e.g., economic downturns or shutdowns) or unusually favorable meteorology. In making this showing, the state should estimate the emission reductions from adopted and implemented Federal, State and local control measures, and consider the emission rates, production capacities, and other related information to show thatthe airquality improvements are the result of implemented controls. The 2007 Plan provides a discussion and comparison ofthe air quality, meteorology and emissions trends since 1990. See 2007 Plan, pp. 23-28. First, the 2007 Plan discusses the significant' improvements in PM-10 air quality since 1990, noting that from 1990 to 1992 there were 33 estimated exceedance days, from 1998 to 2000 there were 5.9 exceedance days and from 2002 to 2004 there were 2.9 exceedance days. Id. Next the 2007 Plan states thatthis improvement has occurred while airquality plans and regulations have been adopted and
notes that in the late 1980's,,before the adoption ofplans andregulations, "* * * it was not uncommon to have 50 

### 22311

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22311 2008Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 81/ Friday, April 25, 2008 /Proposed Rules

or more estimated annual exceedances ofthe 24-hour PM10 standard [with] peak measurements well above 250 micrograms per cubic meter (Ig/m3), and annual averages of 80 pg/m3. ' Id.

The 2007 Plan also states that since 1990 th& Valley has experienced rapid economic growth, citing to increases in population and vehicle miles traveled (2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 3), while atthe

same time the PM-10 and PM-10

- precursor emissions were decreasing (2007Plan, p. 26, Figure 4). The 2007 Plan also did not find any major sectorwide shutdowns, identifying at most "* * * about 2tons per day ofPM-10 reductions from shutdowns during the attainment period ofinterest." 2007 Plan, p. 25. Thus, it does not appear that the air quality improvements were due to any economic downturns or shutdowns.

The 2007 Plan also provides an analysis ofthe meteorological conditions, including wind speeds, precipitation, temperature and atmospheric stability,to determine if there were any favorable meteorological conditions that may have led to the improvement in air quality during 2003-2006. 2007 Plan,p. 27 and Appendix C.The 2007 Plan found that compared to long-term averages, the period from 2003 to 2006 had: No variation in average annual wind speeds; a higher than average level of precipitation with two dry years (2003 and 2004) and two wet years (2005 and 2006); warmer than average temperatures; and a lower than average stability level. The higher than average precipitation would favor lower PM-10 levels, but it is important to note that 2003 and 2004 were in fact dry years, ranking 98thi and 122nd inwetness over
a period of 128 years (1878 to 2006). The higher than average temperature could haveincreased the potential for high PM-10 levels, but the higher stability level could have decreased the potentialby providing more dispersion. The 2007 Plan concludes thatthese analyses indicate that there is no consistent pattern to show that there

was favorable meteorology leading to the improvement in PM-10 levels during 2003 to_2006. Id.

The 2007 Planfurther states that the SJVAPCD has adopted over 500 new rules and amendments since 1992, many ofwhich are for thepurpose of reducing PM-10 or PM-10precursor emissions. The 2007 Plan shows that all ofthe rules and commitments in the 2003 Plan have been adopted by the SJVAPCD andmany ofthem have been approvedby EPA and are thus federally enforceable. The SJVAPCD has adopted rules which control NOx and PM-iO emissions from cotton gins, boilers
steam generators, and process heaters, agricultural sources, dryers, dehydrators and ovens, glass melting furnaces,

. fugitive dust sources, open burning and other source categories. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and Appendix B. In addition, the State has adopted measures to meet its
commitments in'the 2003 Plan to achieve 10 tonsper day (tpd)ofNOx reductions and 0.5 tpd ofPM-10 reductions. 2007 Plan,p. 17. The air quality improvements described above

can be attributed to the reductions in NOx and PM-l0 emissions achieved by these measures.

The 2007 Plan shows decreases in the emissions inventories forthe SJVAB from approximately 1000 tpd in 2000 to approximately 900 tpd in 2005 andto approximately 800 tpd in 2010. ARB StaffReport, Appendix B.. As discussed further in Section E.1. below, the emissions inventories are a summary of all source categories in the SJVAB and

are developed based on information about emission rates, production capacities, and other source-related information. The emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan also include reductions from adopted and implemented Federal, State and local control measures. ARB StaffReport, Appendix B.

EPAbelieves gat the 2007 Plan has demonstrated that the improvement in PM-10 air quality forthe SJVAB is a result ofpermanent and enforceable reductions in emissions and the improvement is not a result of temporary reductions orunusually favorable meteorology. The fact that, as discussed above, there were no economic downturns, shutdowns or meteorology impacting air quality and thatthe number ofexceedance days and the estimated emissions have decreased

over time while the population and vehicle miles traveled inthe SJVAB have increased showsthat the improvement inair quality can reasonably be attributed to the adoption ofair quality plans andregulations during this time.
D. The StateHasMetAllApplicable Requirements fortheArea Under Section 110 andPartDofthe CAA

The Calcagni memo states that a state must meet those requirements of section 110 and part D ofthe CAA thatwere applicable priorto the submittal ofthe redesignation request. CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

1.Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110

The general SIP elements and requirements set-forth insection 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal ofa SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions forestablishment and operation ofappropriate procedures needed tomonitor ambient air quality; implementation ofa source permit program; provisions forthe implementation ofpart C requirement for Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD); provisions forthe implementation ofpartD requirements for New Source Review (NSR)permit programs; provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation inplanning and emission control rule development.

On numerous occasions overthe past 35 years, CARB and the SJVAPCD have submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved applicable section 110 SIP submittals with respect to the State and the SJVAPCD.8 We propose to conclude that CARB and SJVAPCD have met all SIPrequirements for the SJVAB area applicable for purposes ofredesignation under section 110 ofthe CAA (General SIP Requirements).

Moreover, we note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain

measures to prevent sources in astate 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-nonattainmentarea'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 toapply to a stateregardless of the designation -ofany oneparticular

area in the state.

Thus, we do notbelieve that these requirements should be construed tobe 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

8The applicable California SIPfor.the SJV nonattainment area can be found at: http:// yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform& count=1 OO1&state-California. I I I II I I I I I I I 

### 2Z312

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22312 2008

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

redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements after the SJVAB area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked to a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant

measures to evaluate inreviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability ofthe conformity SIP requirement for redesignations. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings at 61 FR 53174-53176, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See also the discussion ofthis issue in the Cincinnati redesignation at 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements notlinked tothe area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
2. SIP Requirements Under Part D

Subparts 1 and4 ofpart D, title 1 of the CAA contain air quality planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment

areas. Subpart I ofpartD contains general requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. Subpart 4 ofpart D contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for particulate matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 ofpart D, section 189(a), (b) and (c) requirements apply to moderate and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas and 189(d) applies to areas which failed to attain by their serious area deadline. These requirements include: (1)An approved permit program for construction ofnew andmodified major stationary sources; (2) provisions to

ensure that reasonably available control technology (RACT) andreasonably available control measures (RACM) are implemented; (3)provisions to ensure that best available control measures (BACM) are implemented; (4)' quantitative milestones to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate reasonable furtherprogress (RFP) toward attainment by the applicable attainment date; (5) provisions to ensure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources ofPM-10 also applyto major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determined that such

sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS inthe area; and(6) a demonstration ofattainment and an annual PM-10 orPM-10 precursor reduction ofnot less than five percent from the mostrecent emission inventory until attainment.

In addition to these specific requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, nonattainment

areas must also meet the general planning requirements in subpart 1, section 172(c). Theserequirements include, among other things, provisions for the implementation ofRACT, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency

measures.

Forthe SJVAB, EPA determined that these requirements were met inits approval ofthe 2003 Planwith the exception ofthe contingency measure requirement that was subsequently suspended by the determination of attainment in accordance with EPA's Clean DataPolicy and the NSR permit program for construction ofnew and modified major stationary sources. 69 FR 30006 and 71 FR 63642.

EPA fully approved SJVAPCD NSR rules 2020 and 2201 on May 17, 2004 (6.9 FR 27837). Recently we proposed to: (1) Correctaspects ofthat approval, and (2) approve revisions to the NSRrules that explicitly exempt certain small or minor agricultural sources from permitting requirements. 73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008). In this proposed rulemaking, we stated that "we believe that the adoption ofthe proposed revisions in place ofthe SIP as proposed
to be corrected would not result in any. change in emissions, any change inair quality, or any change in the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP revision, if approved, willnot interfere with any applicable requirements for attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement ofthe CAA and is approvable under section 110(1)." 73 FR 9265.

Although the SJVAPCD NSR program has been approved, and we have proposed approval ofrevisions to the rule, we also note thatfinal approval of the NSR revisions is not a necessary prerequisite to finalizing our proposed approval ofthe State's redesignation request. EPA has determined in past redesignations that aNSR program does
not have to be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance ofthe standard without part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator forAir and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled "Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment." See the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1996); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).

The requirements ofthe PSD program will apply once the area has been redesignated. Thus, new major sources with significant PM-10 emissions and major.modifications ofPM-10 at major

sources as defined under 40 CFR 52.21 willbe required to obtain a PSD permit. Currently, EPA is the PSD permitting authority in the SWAB under a Federal implementation plan. See 40 CFR 52.270. However, the SJVAPCD can implement the Federal PSD program through a delegation agreement with EPA or, assuming that the SJVAPCD makes necessary modifications to its PSD rules, under an EPA-approved rule.

With respect to the conformity requirement, section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects "conform"
to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act ("transportation conformity") as well as to other Federally supported or funded projects ("general conformity"). State conformity revisions mustbe consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating
to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes ofa redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wallv. EPA, 265f 3d 426 (6thCir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

Thus, EPA concludes that the State has met all requirements applicable under section 110 and part Dfor the

SJVAB forpurposes ofredesignation. CAA Sebtion 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

E. EPA HasFully Approveda Maintenance Plan,Includinga Contingency Plan, fortheArea Under Section 175A ofthe CAA

Section 175A ofthe CAA-provides the requirements for maintenance plans. These requirements are further clarified in the Calcagni memo. The provisions to be included in maintenance plans are: 

### 22313

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22313 2008

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

(1)An attainment emissions inventory toidentify the level ofemissions in the

area sufficient to attainthe NAAQS;

(2) A demonstration ofmaintenance ofthe NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation;

(3) Verification ofcontinued attainment through operation ofan appropriate air quality monitoring network; and

(4) Contingency provisions that EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after rectesignation ofthe area. We discuss how these requirements are met forthe SVAB below.
1. AnAttainment Emissions Inventory To Identify theLevel ofEmissions inthe Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS

Section 172(c)(3) ofthe CAA requires all plan submittals to include a comprehensive, accurate, andcurrent inventory ofactual emissions from all

sources inthe nonattainment area. In demonstrating maintenance in accordance -withCAA section 175A and the Calcagni memo, the state should provide an attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions inthe area sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Where the statehas made

an adequate demonstration that air quality has improved as a result ofthe SIP, the attainment inventory will generally be an inventory ofactual emissions atthe timethe area attained the standard. EPA's primary guidance in evaluating these inventories is the document entitled, "PM-10 Emissions Inventory Requirements," EPA, OAQPS, EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994) which can be found at: http:!! www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/ pmloeir.pdf.
The 2007Plan includes detailed emissions inventories forNOx, directly emitted PM-10,volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of sulfur (SOx).9 The emissions inventories are projected from a 2002 baseyear irfventorybecause it was the most comprehensive inventory available. The baseyear inventory meets the CAA requirement for a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory and is used as the basis for forecasting future year inventories.

The 2007 Plan includes projected inventories for 2005, 2010 and 2020 for NOx, PM-10, VOC and SOx. The baseyear and projected year inventories all include a detailed breakdown ofthe stationary and mobile source emissions categories: The emissions for each ofthe categories are estimated based onthe best available information on number of
sources, size ofsources, growth, control
measures, emissions factors, and other criteria.

The 2007 Plan selects the 2005 PM10 and NOx inventories asthe attainment emission inventories because the SJV nonattainment area first attained the PM-10 standard during 2003-2005 (and continues to attain the standard through February 2008). 2007 Plan, pp. 5-6. The 2007 Plan also includes inventories for VOC and SOx; however, EPA has determined that NOx is the only significant PM-10 precursor forthe SJV nonattainment area and thus the proposed SJVAB. 69 FR 30006. Table 3 summarizes the 2007 Plan's NOx and PM-10 emissions.

TABLE 3.-ANNUAL PM-1 0 AND 

### NOx EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PLAN 

### (ARB STAFF REPORT, APPENDIX B)

2005 2010 2020

PM

- 10

......................................................................................................................................... 284 282 290 NOx .......... : ........................................................... : ........................................................ I

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

The NOx emission inventory continues tobe reduced substantially in the future. While the PM-10 emission inventory is projected to increase slightly in 2020, we believe the increase is insignificant when compared tothe substantial NOx decreases. See 2007 Plan, pp. 5-6 and Appendix B ofthe ARB StaffReport.

EPA believes thatthe selection of 2005 for the attainment year inventory and 2020 for the maintenance year inventory is appropriate since the SJVAB was determined to have attained the PM-10 NAAQS in 2005. We have reviewed the 2007 Plan's attainment
year and maintenance year emissions inventories and determined that they

are accurate and comprehensive and
meetthe requirements ofEPA guidance and the CAA.

9The2007 Plan's emissions inventories arefound inAppendix Bofthe ARB StaffReport. As

- mentioned above and inthe ARB StaffReport, the State "- * * updated the attainment inventory * * *toreflect emission reductions achieved by 2. A Demonstration ofMaintenance of theNAAQS for 10 Years After Redesjgnation

Section 175A ofthe CAA requires a demonstration ofmaintenance ofthe NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A state may generally demonstrate maintenance ofthe NAAQS by either showing thatfuture emissions ofa pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level ofthe attainment inventory, orby modeling to show that the future anticipated mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation ofthe NAAQS. Under the Act, the showing should be based onthe

same level ofmodeling used forthe attainment demonstration required as part of the approved attainment plan.

Consistent with EPA's modeling guidance (The Guideline on AirQuality Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W andthe PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (PMSDG), EPA 450/2-86-001, June 1987), the 2003

ARB adopted measures thathad not been accounted for" before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on November 16, 2007..

10The 2007 Plan also includes a maintenance demonstration for theannual PM-10 standard; Plan's attainment demonstration was based on theuse oftworeceptor models: ChemicalMass Balance (CMB) and rollback. 69 FR 5412, 5424-5425 and 69 FR 30006. The 2007 Plan also

uses CMB and rollback to demonstrate maintenance ofthe 24-hour PM-10 standard until 2020.10 See 2007 Plan, pp. 6-11. The results ofthe modeling show that all monitoring sites in the SJVAB nonattainment area will be below the NAAQS in 2020, with the highest projected value of 134 gtg/m3 at Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran. See 2007 Plan, Table 2.

Inaddition to the modeling for the maintenance plan, the 2007 Plan shows that total annual emissions ofNOx will decrease from 606 tpd in 2005to 521 tpd in 2010 and 328 tpd in 2020 and total annual emissions ofPM-10 will decrease from 284 tpd in 2005 to 282 tpd in 2010 and slightly increase to 290 tpd in 2020. As discussed above, the emissions inventories meet EPA

however, the annual PM-10 standard wasrevoked effectiveDecember 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). Therefore we do not address this demonstration here. 

### 22314

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22314 2008

### Federal Register]Vol.. 73, No. 81 , Ffiday, April 25, 2008/,Proposed Rtles

requirements and the general decline in inventories provides assurance that the SJVAB will maintain its attainment levels through 2020.

Based onour review ofthe information presented in the 2007 Plan,

we believe that the State has met EPA requirements for demonstrating maintenance ofthe PM-10 standard for the SWAB.
3. Verification ofContinued Attainment Through Operation ofan Appropriate Air Quality Monitoring Network

In demonstrating maintenance, continued attainment ofthe NAAQS can be verified through operation ofan appropriate air quality monitoring network. The Calcagni memo states that the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation ofaii quality monitors that will provide such verification. The memo also states that states should ensure that they have the legal authority to implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and to maintain the NAAQS. Finally, the memo states that the state submittal should indicate how it will track the progress ofthe maintenance plan (e.g., with periodic emissions inventory updates oimodeling input updates) and monitor the triggers for contingency

measures.

In the 2007 Plan the SJVAPCD commits to continued operation of its air qualitymonitoring network for verification ofattainment. See 2007 Plan, pp. 12-13. The SJVAPCD's authority to continue operating after redesignation to attainment is provided for in the California Health and Safety Code sections'40150 and 40161. Id. at 15. The SJVAPCD alsoplans to verify continued attainment ofth&e PM-10 standard through an annual report to its Board which willinclude, among other things, tracking of adoption and implementation ofcontrol measures, tracking ofair quality data and comparison ofpredicted versus current emissions reductions estimates.Id. As discussed further below, since the SJVAPCD has selected'a contingency

measure trigger that isbased on ambient airquality levels, the continued operation ofthe monitoring network and tracking ofits data will provide adequate notice ofwhen contingency

measures are needed.

4. Contingency Provisions to Promptly Correct AnyViolation ofthe NAAQS That Occurs After Redesignation ofthe Area

Contingency provisions arerequired under section 175A ofthe CAA. These contingency measures are distinguished from those generally required for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)19) in that they are notrequired to be fully adopted measures that will take effect without further action by the State in order forthe maintenance plan to be approved. The Calcagni memo states that the contingency provisions ofthe maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for actionby the state. The memo also states that the contingency provisions should identify indicators or triggers which will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. While the memo suggests inventory ormonitoring indicators, it states that contingency provisions will be evaluated on a case- by-case basis. Finally, the Calcagni

memo states that the contingency provisions must require the state to implement all measures contained in the part Dnonattainment plan for the

area prior to redesignation.

The 2007 Plan selects an action level

ortrigger based on an exceedance ofthe PM-10 NAAQS of 155 gg/m 3.11 See 2007 Plan,p. 16. In addition, the District may also consider other factors such as a succession of valuesjust below but near the level ofthe PM-10 standard. Id. EPA believes that an exceedance of 155 [ig/m3 is an appropriate trigger level. The SJVAB has several continuous PM-10 monitors, and a single measurement of 155 gig/m3 atone ofthese monitors would not constitute a violation ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. Even ifa measurement of 155 gig/m 3 is recorded at aone-in-six day FEM, aviolation is not necessarily being recorded as the State might need to evaluate the possibility that the measurement is due to an exceptional event.

The 2007 Plan states that ifthe SJWAB monitors an exceedance of 155 gg/m 3, the District commits to take appropriate action within 18 months ofthe exceedance date. This :action will first involve a determination ofwhether the exceedance was due to an exceptional event in accordance with EPA's Exceptional Events Rule and an analysis ofwhat caused the exceedance and the necessary controlsito address it. Id.If the exceedance is not due to an exceptional event, the District commits

11

An exceedance is defined as adaily value that is above the level ofthe' 24-hourstandard (150gg/ M3) after rounding to the nearest 10 g./rn (i.e. values ending in 5orgreater are toberounded up). Thus, arecorded value of154 ig/m 3would notbe

an exceedance since itwould be roundedto 150 ig/ m' whereas arecorded value of155 gg/rn3 would be an exceedance since itwould be rounded to 160 jg/rm. See 40 CFRpart 50,appendix K, section 1.0. to determine the possible causes-of the exceedance andto determine if emissions reductions from adopted

measures that are not needed to maintain the PM-10 NAAQS are available to serve as contingency

measures. These measures can be found in the SJVAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan (April 30, 2007) andthe SJVAPCD's Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (March 13, 2008) and include more stringent controls on openburning, gas turbines, boilers, glass melting, residential water heaters, wood burning fireplaces and heaters and commercial charbroiling. See Table 6-1 ofSJVAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan and Table 0-3 ofSJVAPCD's Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Ifthere are no reductions available from adopted measures, the District commits in the 2007 Plan to proceed with identifying control measures from feasibility studies such as those found in its 2007 Ozone Plan and Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (see Table 6-2 of2007 Ozone Plan and Table 6-5 ofProposed PM2.5 Plan) and prioritize measures mostrelevant for reducing PM-10 emissions. 2007 Plan, pp. 16-17. The SJVAPCD has also provided clarification thatif additional control measures are necessary, the SJVAPCD will adopt and implement the control measures within the 18-month timeframe for appropriate action. Letter from Seyed Sadredin, SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA, April 17, 2008.

Finally,the 2007 Plan states that the State, District andlocal governments have adopted and implemented all

measures in the 2003 Plan. 2007 Plan, _p. 17 and Appendix B. Based on the discussion above and EPA's review ofthe 2007 Plan, we believe theplan adequately addresses the contingency measure requirement under section 175A ofthe CAA.

Conclusion

Based on our review ofthe 2007 Plan, and for thereasons discussed above, we conclude that the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for redesignation to attainment and an approvable maintenance plan forthe SJVAB have been met. We are therefore proposing to approve the 2007 Plan as meeting the requirements ofsection 175A ofthe CAA and proposing to redesignate the SVAB nonattainment

area to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS.

F. Transportation ConformityandMotor Vehicle EmissionsBudgets

Under section 176(c) ofthe CAA, transportation plans, programs and projects in the nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or 

### '22MB1

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22315 2008

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

approved undertitle 23 U.S.C. andthe, Federal TransitLaws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53) must conform to the applicable SIP. In short, a transportation plan and program are deemed to conform tothe applicable SIP ifthe emissionsresulting fromthe implementation ofthat transportation plan andprogram are less than orequal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP for the attainment year, maintenance year and other analysis years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93.

The 2007 Plan provides for attainment year MVEBs for 2005 and maintenance year MVEBs for 2020.12 The 2005 attainment year MVEBs will replace the current MVEBs for 2008 and 2010 from the 2003 Plan. See 40 CFR 93.118(a).

Before an emissions budget ina submitted SIP revision maybe used in

aconformity determination, we must first determine that it is adequate. The criteria bywhich we determine whether

a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets

are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have desciibed

our process for determining the adequacy ofsubmitted SIP budgets in the preamble to revisions to EPA's " conformity regulations. 69 FR 40004 (July 1,2004). Applicability ofemission trading between conformity budgets for conformity purposes is described in 40 CFR 93.124(b).

1. CARB Methodology forEstimating PM-10 in the Emissions Budgets

CARB's mobile source emission model, EMFAC2007, was used to estimate direct PM-10 and NOx emissions from motorvehicles inthe 2007 Plan. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA onJanuary 18, 2007 (72 FR 73,3464), foruse in SIPs and transportation conformity analyses. EMFAC2007 produces emissions for a wide range ofmotorvehicles (passenger.
cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses and motor homes) forcalendar years outto 2040. Particulate emissions include tire and brake wear as well as vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions.

The methodology used in the 2007 Plan to estimate fugitive dust (e.g., paved and unpaved road emissions) is consistent with the methods previously approved in EPA's action on the 2003 Plan. 69 FR 30006 and 69 FR 5412, 5414. No further action is required to approve these methodologies foruse in future transportation conformity determinations in the SJVAB.

2. Adequacy ofthe 2007 Plan's Budgets

The 2007 Plan includes county by county subarea motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2005 and 2020 for direct PM-10 and NOx.The 2007 Plan budgets

are first summarized in Table 6, "Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets forthe Attainment Year, (tons
per average annual day)," and in Table 7, "Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Maintenance ofPM10 NAAQS, (tonsper average annual day)," ofthe 2007 Plan; however, these estimates were updated by CARB, based onupdated vehicle activity data, and the updated budgets

were included in the ARB StaffReport (p. 12) as part ofthe 2007 Plan submittal
to EPA. Thus, the budgets found on page 12 of ARB Staff Report supercede thebudgets in Tables 6 and 7 ofthe locally adopted 2007 Plan. See November 16, 2007 submittal letter from James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, enclosure "V. Updated transportation conformity budgets and supporting documentation." Table 4 below reflects the updated and submitted transportation conformity budgets for the 2007 Plan. The direct PM-10 budgets include emissions of reentrained dust from motor vehicle travel

on paved and unpaved roads, vehicular exhaust, vehicle brake and tire wear, and emissions from highway and transit project construction. The emissions budgets for NOx include only exhaust from on-road vehicles. Since the 2007 Plan does not consider VOC to be a significant contributor to the PM-10 nonattainment problem, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii), no VOC budgets are included. Additional details regarding thebudgets are presented in the 2007Plan, Appendix D, "Detailed Conformity Calculations."

Based on our evaluation ofthe criteria outlined in section 93.118(e)(4) ofthe conformity rule, EPA proposesto find the PM-10 andNOx motor vehicle emissions budgets contained inthe 2007 Plan (and in Table 4 below) adequate and proposes to approve them. EPA proposes to approve the budgets because they come from a SIP which EPA concludes demonstrates timely attainment andmaintenance andthe budgets are consistent with all ofthe control measures assumed inthe attainment demonstration and maintenance plan. We also find adequate and propose to approve the individual county level subarea budgets for NOx and PM-10, as shown in Table 4 below, consistent with section 93.124(d), which allows fora " nonattainment area with more than one Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to establish subarea emission budgets for each MPO ormake a collective conformity determination for the entire nonattainment area. Note that, ifan individual MPO cannot show -conformitytoits individual county budget, then the remaining MPOs in the SJVAB cannot make any new" conformity determinations.13 If approved, the 2005 and 2020motor vehicle emissions budgets must be used fortransportation conformity purposes. As mentioned earlier, the county subarea motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA is proposing to approve arelisted in Table 4 below.

TABLE 4.-MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 

### 2007 PM-1 0 PLAN *

2005 2020 County PM-10 NO PM-10 NOFresno

................................................................... . . ........................... Kern **
.............................................................................................................. Kings

................................................................................................................ Madera

..................................................................................................... Merced

....................................................................................................... San Joaquin

..................................................... :

............................................... Stanislaus

........................................................................................................ 13.5 12.1 3.1

-- 3.6 6.2 9.1 5.6

12See footnotes 2 and9 above. 13CAA section 176(c) states that conformity applies to SIPs in nonattainment andmaintenance
areas, rather than individual metropolitan planning

areas within a single state.When subareabudgets

area created for each MPO. the sum ofthe subarea budgets equals the total amount ofemissions the

area can have from thetransportation sector and still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When one. subarea lapses, then the otherMPOs cannot show that their planned transportation activities would conformto the SIP forthe whole area until the lapse isresolved. See "Companion Guidance forthe July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment andMaintenance Areas for Existing andNew Air Quality Standards" (EPA 420.-B-04- 012). 

### 22316

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22316 2008Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 81/Friday, April 25, 2008/Proposed Rules

TABLE 4.-MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 

### 2007 PM-1 0 PLAN 

### *--Continued

2005 2020 PM-10 NO,

- PM-10 NO,

Tulare

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

Total

......................................................................................................... 60.5 314.7 72.2 127.4
:The budgets are based on attainment and maintenance ofthe24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. *MVEBs inTable2 are onlyfor theSJVAB portion of Kern County.

3. Trading Mechanism

Transportation conformity is demonstrated for each county in the SJVAB when emissions for both PM-10 and NOx are estimated to be below the motorvehicle emission budgets foreach pollutant for all analysis years. However,-for analysis years beyond 2010, in our prior approval ofthe 2003 Plan, we approved a trading mechanism that allows emissions tobe traded from NOx toPM-10 budgets. 69 FR .30006 and 69 FR 5412, 5414.

The trading mechanism specified that if, after including reductions from additional measures, the direct PM-10 budget still cannot be met, an MPO could adjust (i.e.,increase) its PM-10 subarea budget by trading from its NOx budget. This trade from the NOx subaref budget to the PM-10 subarea budget can only occur ifthe estimated emissions of NOx from the planned transportation network are less than theNOx subarea budget for agiven analysis year. The 1.5 tpd NOx to 1tpd PM-10 ratio would be used, as follows, to determine the NOx reductions needed to offset the excess directPM-10 emissions: (PM-10 estimate-PM-1O budget) * 1.5

=tpd ofNOx reductions needed to offset excessPM-10 A subarea has demonstrated conformity if, after trading, the estimates ofNOx and PM-l0 emissions fromthe planned transportation network are at or below the adjusted NOx and directPM-10 budgets. For every analysis year, and in each subsequent conformity determination, the transportation agency mustrepeat these steps to determine whether the budgets canbe met, or whether they need to be adjusted usingthis trading mechanism.

The 2007 Planrequests that this trading mechanism remain unchanged, but available for use after 2005, the revised attainment year. Since the first analysis year, for conformity purposes, will be 2010, EPA is proposing to continue to approve use ofthe trading mechanism forconformity analysis
years after 2005. As stated in the 2003 Plan approval (69 FR 5412, 5414-5417; 69 FR 30006), EPA continues to believe that trading mechanisms cannot be reviewed through the adequacy process, and instead need full EPA approval before they can be used.

V. Proposed Commitments forEast Kern

In order to address CAA requirements for the East Kern nonattainment area, the State submitted on February 29, 2008 enforceable commitments to install

a FRM/FEM in East Kern andif a violation is recorded to submitthe appropriate SIP. Specifically, the State submitted a resolution approved by-the Governing Board ofthe KCAPCD on February 27, 2008 committing to, with assistance from the State, install aFRM/ FEM. Kern County Air Pollution Control Board Resolution 2008-001-02. Further, the resolution states that the KCAPCD will develop for submittal through the State to EPA, a serious nonattainment

area SIP thatmeets the requirements of CAA section 189 inthe eventof a violation ofthe PM-10 standard. Id. On March 3, 2008, CARB's Executive Officer issued Executive Order S-08- 004 approving as a SIP revision the KCAPCD commitments and committing to submit a SIP addressing section 189 in the event thatthe area violates the PM-la standard. Given the low concentrations recorded atthe IMPROVE monitor and therelatively minimal expected growth, webelieve this is a reasonable approach for the

area.
VI.Proposed Actions

Based on our review ofthe State's request, EPA believes the State has addressed all the necessary requirements for a revised designation andis proposing to approve the State's request under section 107(d)(3)(D) to revise the designation for the SJV PM10 nonattainment area by splitting the

area into two separate serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, the SJVAB PM-la nonattainment area andthe East Kern PM-10 nonattainment area. Also, based

onEPA's review ofthe 2007 Plan submitted by the State, EPAbelieves that the CAA requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) forredesignations and section 175A for maintenance plans have beenmet for the SJVAB and EPA is therefore proposing to redesignate the newly created serious SVAB nonattainment area to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS and to approve the SJVAPCD's PM-10 maintenance plan, budgets and conformity trading mechanism forth6 area. EPA is also proposing to exclude from use in determining that the SJVAB has attained the PM-la NAAQS two exceedances that it has concluded were caused by exceptional events onJuly 4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve commitments from KCAPCD andCARB to install a FRM/FED in the newly created East Kern serious PM-la nonattainment area and to address section 189(d) CAA requirements for it in the event the FRM/FED records a violation ofthePM10 standard'

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and-therefore is not subject to review bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. Forthis reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve a revised boundary designation, a redesignation to attainment for the SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the

area and commitments for East Kern, all ofwhich are either requested or submitted by the State, anddoes not impose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis proposed rulewill not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this proposed rule does not impose any additional enforceable duty, itdoes not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

### 22317

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22317 2008Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 81/Friday, April 25, 2008/Propbsed Rules

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 10474).

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely inputby tribal officials in the'development of regulatory policies thathave tribal implications." Seven Indian tribes have reservations located within the boundaries ofthe proposed SJVAB. EPA plans to consult with representatives of the seven Tribes and will continue to work with the Tribes, as provided forin Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent that it applies to this action. This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does nothave substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This proposed action merely proposes to approve requests or submittals from the State and does not alterthe relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency actions by directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheir programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Today's.action involves proposed approvals ofa revised boundary designation, a redesignation to attainment for the SJVAB,a maintenance plan for the SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the area and commitments for EastKern. Itwill not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority and lowincome communities.'

This proposed rule also is not subject toExecutive Order 13045 "Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. The requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collectionburden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.). List ofSubjects

40 CFRParts52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: April 21, 2008. Laura Yoshii, ActingRegional Administrator, Region

### IX. [FR Doc.E8-9139 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 

### am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40CFR Part 79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071; FRL-8557-7]
RIN 2060-AN94
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Revised Definition of SubstantiallySimilar Rulefor Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing torevise an interpretive rule defining the term "substantially similar" forunleaded gasoline as that phrase is used in section 21i(f) ofthe Clean Air Act (theAct). To meet the current definition, fuel or fuel additives must possess, at thetime of manufacture, allofthephysical and chemical characteristics of an unleaded gasoline as specified inASTM Standard D 4814-88 for at least one ofthe Seasonal and Geographical Volatility Classes specified inthe standard. EPA proposes to amend the definition to allow some additional flexibility for the vapor/liquid ratio specification for fuel introduced into commerce in the state of Alaska. In the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthisFederal Register, we are amending the "substantially similar" definition as a direct final rule without

a priorproposed rule. Ifwereceive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. DATES: Comments must be received by May 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identified byDocket IID No. EPA-HQOAR-2007-0071, by mail to Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may alsobe submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section ofthe direct final rule located in the rules section ofthis Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaimee Dong, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office ofAir and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9672; fax number: (202) 343-2800; e-mail address: Dong.Jaimee@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

This document proposes to revise the "substantially similar" interpretive rule. EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct notice and comment rulemaking when amending this interpretive rule. SeeAPA section 553(b)(A);CAA section 307(d). However, as ithas done when previously amending thisrule, EPA desires to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on this amendment. We have published a direct final rule amending the "substantially similar" interpretive rule inthe "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register because we view this asa noncontroversial action andanticipate

no adverse comment. Wehave explained our reasons forthis action in the preamble to the direct final rule.

Ifwe receive no adverse comment, we" will not take further action on this proposed rule. Ifwe receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and itwill not take effect. We would address allpublic comments in any subsequent final rule based onthis proposed rule.

We do not intend to institute a second comment period onthis action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so atthis time. For further information, please see the information provided inthe ADDRESSES section of this document.
U. General Information

A. Does ThisActionApply toMe?

Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved with the production or importation ofunleaded gasoline for use in Alaska. Categories and entities affected bythis action include: 

### 22318

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22318 2008