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

without the permission of the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander.

(c) Effective Date. The third week in

October. The exact dates and times for

this event will be determined annually.

11. Add § 100.918 to read as follows:

§ 100.918 Detroit APBA Gold Cup, Detroit,

MI.

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is

established to include all waters of the

Detroit River, Belle Isle, Michigan,

bound on the west by the Belle Isle

Bridge (position 42'20'20" N, 083°00'00"

W to 42'20'24" N, 083059'45- W), and

on the east by a north-south line drawn:

through Waterworks Intake Crib Light

(Light List Number 8350; position

42°21'06" N, 082058'00" W) (NAD 83).

(b) Special Local Regulations. The

regulations of § 100.901 apply. No

vessel may enter, transit through, or

anchor within the regulated area

without the permission of the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander.

(c) Effective Date. The first or second

week in June. The exact dates and times

for this event will be determined

annually.

12. Add § 100.919 to read as follows:

§100.919 International Bay City River

Roar, Bay City, MI.

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is

established to include all waters of the

Saginaw River bounded on the north by

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

083'53.4' W, and bounded on the south

by the Veterans Memorial Bridge,

located at 43035.8' N, 083053.6 ' W.

(NAD 83).

(b) Special Local Regulations. The

regulations of § 100.901 apply. No

vessel may enter, transit through, or

anchor within the regulated area

without the permission of the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander.

(c) Effective Date. The third or fourth

week in June. The exact dates and times

for this event will be determined

annually.

13. Add § 100.920 to read as follows:

§ 100.920 Tug Across the River, Detroit,

Mi.

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is

established to include all waters of the

Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan,

bounded on the south by the

International boundary, on the west by

083003 ' W, on the east by 083'02' W,

and on the north by the U.S. shoreline

(DATUM: NAD 83). This position is

located on the Detroit River in front of

Hart Plaza, Detroit, MI.

(b) Special Local Regulations. The

regulations of § 100.901 apply. No

vessel may enter, transit through, or

anchor within the regulated area

without the permission of the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander.

(c) Effective Date. The third or fourth

week in June. The exact dates and times

for this event will be determined

annually.

Dated: April 4, 2008.

John E. Crowley, Jr.,

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

Ninth Coast Guard District.

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

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0306; FRL-8558-7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation. Plans; Designation of

Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of California; PM-10;

Revision of Designation;

Redesignation of the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin PM-10 Nonattainment

Area to Attainment; Approval of PM-10

Maintenance Plan for the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin; Approval of

Commitments for the East Kern PM-10

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the State of California's request to revise

the designation for the San Joaquin

Valley (SJV) serious nonattainment area

for particulate matter of ten microns or

less (PM-IO) (SJV nonattainment area)

by splitting the area into two separate

nonattainment areas: The San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin serious PM-10

nonattainment area and the East Kern

serious PM-10 nonattainment area. EPA

is also proposing to redesignate the

SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment

for the PM-10 national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) and

proposing to approve the PM-10

maintenance plan, motor vehicle

emissions budgets and conformity

trading mechanism for the area. EPA is

also proposing to exclude from use in

determining that the area has attained

the standard two exceedances that EPA

has concluded were caused by

exceptional events that occurred on July

4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally,

EPA is proposing to approve enforceable

commitments by the Kern County Air

Pollution Control District and the

California Air Resources Board to install

a PM-10 monitor in the East Kern

nonattainment area and to address

Clean Air Act requirements under

section 189(d) as necessary for the area.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by

May 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments,

identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2008-0306, by one of the

following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

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

on-line instructions.

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

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions: All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through

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

http://www.regulations.gov is an "anonymous access" system, and EPA

will not know your identity or contact

information unless you provide it in the

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the public

comment. If EPA cannot read your

comment due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification,

EPA may not be able to consider your

comment.

Docket: The index to -the docket for

this action is available electronically at

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

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California. While

all documents in the docket are listed in

the index, some information may be

publicly available only at the hard copy

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

some may not be publicly available in

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we" "us"

and "our" refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

III. Proposed Revised Boundary

Redesignation

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 of Request to Revise

Boundary Designation

IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJV Air

Basin to Attainment for the PM-10

Standard and Approval of PM-10

Maintenance Plan

A. EPA has determined that the area has

attained the NAAQS

B. The applicable implementation plan has

been fully approved by EPA under

section 110(k) of the CAA

C. EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable. reductions in

emissions

D. The State has met all applicable

requirements for the area under section

110 and Part D of the CAA

1. Basic SIP Requirements under CAA

Section 110

2. SIP Requirements under Part D

E. EPA has fully approved a maintenance

plan, including a contingency plan, for

the area under section 175A of the CAA

1. An attainment emissions inventory to

identify the level of emissions in the area

sufficient to attain the NAAQS

2. A demonstration of maintenance of the

NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation

3. Verification of continued attainment

through operation of an appropriate air

quality monitoring network

4. Contingency provisions to promptly

correct any violation of the NAAQS that

occurs after redesighation of the area

F. Transportation conformity and motor

vehicle emissions budgets

1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-.

10 in the Emissions Budgets

2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan's Budgets

3. Trading Mechanism

V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern

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 of best

available control measures (BACM). In

addition, since the SJV nonattainment

area had failed to meet its original

serious area attainment deadline of

December 31, 2001, the State was

required under section 189(d) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to

submit a plan that provided for an

annual reduction in PM-10 or PM-10

precursors of not less than five percent

until attainment. A detailed discussion

of the history of PM-10 planning in the

SJV nonattainment area and of EPA's

approval of the 2003 Plan can be foulad

in its proposed and final actions and the

associated dockets. 69 FR 5412

(February 4, 2004); 69 FR 30006.

On October 30, 2006, EPA determined

that the SJV nonattainment area had

attained the 24-hour PM-10 standard'

based on air quality data from 2003

through 2005. In this action we noted

that there were several exceedances of

the PM-10 standard that were likely due

to exceptional events which EPA would

address in subsequent actions. 71 FR

63642. Subsequently EPA issued a final

action affirming that the PM-10

standard has been attained in the SJV

nonattainment area based on air quality

data from 2004 through 2006. 73 FR

14687 (March 19, 2008).

On November 16, 2007, the State

submitted to EPA the "2007 PM10

Maintenance Plan and Request for

Redesignation," September 20, 2007, for

the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District (SJVAPCD or the

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

2008, the State submitted a request to

split the existing SJV serious PM-10

nonattainment area into-two separate

nonattainment areas: (1) The San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the

western portion of the Kern County Air

Pollution Control District (KCAPCDL

Letter from James N. Goldstene,

California Air Resources Board (CARB),

to Deborah Jordan, EPA, with

attachments, January 31, 2008-

(Goldstene letter).

On February 29, 2008, the State

submitted enforceable commitments by

CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for

PM-10 in the western portion of the

KCAPCD and to address CAA State

Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements

for this area as necessary. Letter from

James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne

Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, February

29, 2008.

Finally, on January 23, 2008, the State

submitted to EPA the "Exceptional

Event Documentation, PM10, Fireworks,

Bakersfield, CA, July 4, 2007" and on

I The level of the national primary 24-hour

ambient air quality standard for particulate matter

is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/im3 ). The

standard is attained when the expected number of

days per calendar year with a 24-hour average

concentration above 150 gg/m3, as determined in

accordance with appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is

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

2 The SJVAPCD District adopted the 2007 Plan on

September 20, 2007 and submitted it to the State

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

the attainment inventory * * * to reflect emission

reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that

had not been accounted for" before submitting the

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

Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007

PM10 Maintenance Plan, Air Resources Board,

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

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

emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan are found in

the ARB Staff Report.

April 15, 2008, the State submitted to

EPA the "Natural Event Documentation,

Bakersfield, California, January 4,

2008."

11. Summary of EPA'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 of the SJV

nonattainment area located in the San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin to attainment

for the PM-10 standard and to approve

the PM-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 on July

4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally,

EPA is proposing to approve

commitments by CARB and the

KCAPCD to monitor for PM-10 in the

western portion of the KCAPCD and to

address CAA SIP requirements for the

area as necessary.

M. Proposed Revised Boundary

Designation

A. State's Submittal

As stated above, on January 31, 2008,

the State submitted a request to EPA to

split the existing SJV PM-10

nonattainment area into two separate

nonattainment areas: (1) The San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the

western portion of the KCAPCD. The

State's submittal states that "[t]his

change will address the inconsistency

between California's adopted air basin

boundary for the San Joaquin Valley and

the boundary U.S. EPA is using for

PM10 planning." The State's submittal

includes information about jurisdiction,

geography, population and degree of

urbanization, employment and traffic/

commuting patterns, and emissions and

air quality which supports the revised

boundary designation. See Goldstene

letter.

B. EPA's Evaluation of Request To

Revise Boundary Designation

The existing SJV nonattainment area

includes the entire counties of San

Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced,

Stanislaus and Tulare and part of Kern

County. The part of Kern County in the

existing SJV nonattainment area is a

region that straddles the Sierra Nevada

and Tehachapi mountains and is located

in two separate air basins: the SJV Air

Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin

(MDAB). The dividing line between

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

these two air basins coincides with the

jurisdictional boundary between the

KCAPCD and the SJVAPCD. This

dividing line also coincides with the

boundary that we are today proposing to

draw between the two nonattainment

areas which we are proposing to

designate as the SJV Air Basin (SJVAB)'

PM-10 nonattainment area and the East

Kern PM-10 nonattainment area.3 Thus,

if we finalize the revision to the

boundary designation, the SVAB

nonattainment area will include only

those areas that are in the SJV Air Basin

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

above and the part of Kern County that

is under the jurisdiction of the

SJVAPCD) and the East Kern PM-10

nonattainment area will include the part

of Kern County that is currently in the

existing SJV nonattainment area, is in

the MDAB and is under the jurisdiction

of the KCAPCD. 4 Together, these two new PM-10 nonattainment areas will

cover the same geographic area as the

original SJV PM-10 nonattainment area. Under section 107(d)(3)(D)-of the

CAA, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit to

EPA a revised designation of any area or

portion thereof within the state. 5 EPA is

required to approve or deny a submittal

of a revised designation within 18

months of receipt. The type of revised

designation that the State of California

submitted on January 31, 2008 involves

a boundary change only and does not

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

"nonattainment," to "attainment" or "unclassifiable") of any area.

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

a revised boundary designation under

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

factors Congress directed EPA to

consider when the Agency initiates a revision to a designation of an area on

its own motion under section

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

quality data, planning and control

considerations, or any other air qualityrelated 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 that does not meet, or

3 We are proposing to call the new area "East

Kern" because it is the eastern part of Kern County

that is currently within the existing SJV

nonattainment area.

4 The KCAPCD's jurisdiction also includes the

remaining part of Kern County which extends

eastward beyond the proposed East Kern area. 5 Boundary changes are an inherent part of a

designation or redesignation of an area under the

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

that contributes to ambient air quality in

a nearby area that does not meet, the

NAAQS for a given pollutant.

California has provided a compelling

technical justification as to why the

proposed SJVAB and East Kern

nonattainment areas should be

designated as separate PM-10 planning

areas. A summary of the State's

reasoning follows:.

Jurisdiction. The proposed SJVAB

area is under the jurisdiction of the

SJVAPCD and the proposed East Kern

area is under the jurisdiction of the

KCAPCD. The proposed revised -

designation will align the boundary

along these jurisdictional lines. This

realignment will make the air quality

planning and implementation process

more efficient and straightforward since

the local air pollution control agencies,

SJVAPCD and KCAPCD, can only adopt

and implement plans and rules in the

area for which they have jurisdiction.

Geography. The East Kern area is in

the MDAB, a different air basin than the

SJVAB area; it is separated from the

SJVAB area by the Sierra Nevada and

Tehachapi Mountain Ranges at

elevations up to 7,500 feet. The Kern

River Valley and the Cummings Valley

in the East Kern area are located at

approximately 2600 feet and 3800 feet,

respectively. These elevations are

comparable to other areas in the MDAB

and much higher than the average

elevation in the western portion of Kern

County in the SJVAB which is between

450 and 500 feet. Eastern Kern County,

which includes the proposed East Kern

nonattainment area, is a vast arid desert

while the SJVAB portion of Kern County

is part of the urbanized, agricultural,

and industrial SJV. The mountains

surrounding the SJVAB form a bowl

trapping air pollutants in the SWAB,

but the East Kern area is located above

the inversion layer which traps air

pollutants in the SJVAB and thus,

experiences different weather from the

SWAB.

Population and Degree of

Urbanization. There are no major or fast

growing population centers in eastern

Kern County. Eastern Kern County

covers approximately 3800 square

miles, with a total population of

approximately 131,000 (in 2005) and a

low population density of

approximately 35 persons per square

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

population increased by 15,000 persons.

The Kern River Valley and Cummings

Valley, which are in the East Kern area, -

are sparsely populated; the greater Lake

Isabella region in the Kern River Valley

has approximately 15,000 inhabitants;

.and the west Tehachapi area in the

Cummings Valley has approximately"

13,000 inhabitants. In contrast, the

western portion of Kern County in the

SJVAB extends over 4400 square miles,

includes the urban Bakersfield area,

housed 640,000 persons (in 2005), and

has a population density of

approximately 145 persons per square

mile, which is four times the population

density of eastern Kern County. In the

last decade, the total population in

western Kern County grew by 136,000

persons, nine times the population

growth in eastern Kern County.

Employment and Traffic/Commuting

Patterns. Eastern" Kern County, which.

includes the proposed East Kern

nonattainment area, is.not strongly

integrated economically with western

Kern County. People tend to live and

work in eastern Kern County, and

because of its geographic isolation there

is no convenient commute to cities

outside the region. The economy of

western Kern is largely based on the oil

and agricultural industries. The primary

employer in eastern Kern County is the

Tehachapi State Prison. Due to the

geographic isolation, there is no

convenient commute to cities outside

the area. In 2005, vehicles traveled

approximately 5.1 million miles per day

throughout eastern Kern County. In

contrast, in western Kern County

vehicles traveled approximately 19.8

million miles per day, close to 4 times

the average travel in eastern Kern

County. Also, eastern Kern residents are

not dependent on western Kern for

economic activities such as

employment, shopping, or other

services. There are no significant

commute patterns from eastern Kern

County into the 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 of secondary PM-10 in

the area, are declining. Major sources of

primary PM-10 include the Tehachapi

State Prison (11.5 tons per year (tpy) in

2005), followed by two aggregate

operations (9.7 tpy and 8.5 tpy); the two

largest NOx sources are the Tehachapi

State Prison (12.8 tpy) and two natural

gas pumps that lift water to Tehachapi

(14.8 tpy and 12.2 tpy). In contrast,

western Kern County houses 35 major

sources of primary PM-10 with

emissions over 10 tpy and 47 major

sources of NOx with emissions over 10

tpy. Compared to the entire SJV PM-10

nonattainment area, sources in all of

eastern Kern County contributed only

eight percent of the direct PM-10

22309

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22309 2008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008/ Proposed Rules

emissions and eight percent of the 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,

Air Quality. The chemical SJVAB area. 69 FR 30006. Currently since February 2000, consistently

composition of PM-10 in eastern 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 of PM-la in the East of the maximum PM-Ia daily values at

the PM-la chemical composition in the Kern area. However, there is an the IMPROVE monitor is provided in

SJVAB area. While dust is the main Interagency Monitoring of Protected Table I below.

component of PM-10 in eastern Kern Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PM-10 DAILY VALUES FOR THE DOMELANDS IMPROVE MONITOR (tg/m3)

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

200 1 ................................................................................................................. 33 33 32 32

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

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

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

2 005 ....................................................................................................

2 1 14 6' 5

2006 ....................................................................................................

39 36 35 34

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

Based on the factors set forth above,

EPA has considered the State's request

in accordance with the criteria listed in

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

the State has sufficiently demonstrated

that the SVAB and East Kern should be

separate nonattainment areas because

they lie in separate air basins, are under

different local jurisdictions, have

different population densities and

growth levels, do not share commute

patterns, have different emissions

sources and have different types of air

pollutants. Pursuant to CAA section

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

to approve the State's request to revise

the boundary designation of the existing

SJV PM-10 nonattainment area by

splitting the area into two separate

PM-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

air quality monitoring and until such

time as the East Kern nonattainment

area meets the CAA requirements for

redesignation, the East Kern area would

be classified as a serious PM-la

nonattainment area. Thus the East Kern

nonattainment area would retain the

classification and nonattainment

designation that applied to it when it

was part of the SJV nonattainment area

and would likewise retain the

attainment determination applicable to

that area. In order to address the serious

area PM-IO statutory requirements,

KCAPCD and CARB have made the

enforceable commitments discussed in

section V. below.

IV. Proposed Redesignation of the

SJVAB to Attainment for the PM-10

Standard

On November 16, 2007, the State

submitted to EPA the 2007 Plan which

addresses PM-10 maintenance plan

requirements and includes a discussion

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

the current nonattainment area under

the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) meets

the CAA redesignation requirements.

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

that an area can be redesignated to

attainment if the following conditions

are met:

(1) EPA has determined that the area

has attained the NAAQS.

(2) The applicable implementation

plan has been fully approved by EPA

under section 110(k) of the CAA.

(3) EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions.

(4) The State has met all applicable

requirements for the area under section

110 and Part D of the CAA.

(5) EPA has fully approved a

maintenance plan, including a

contingency plan, for the area under

section 175A of the CAA.

These requirements are discussed in

more detail in a September 4, 1992 EPA

Memorandum, "Procedures for

Processing Request to Redesignate Areas

to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director,

Air Quality Management Division"

(Calcagni memo). We discuss how these

requirements are met for the SJVAB in

detail below.

A. EPA Has Determined That the Area

Has Attained the NAAQS

The Calcagni memo states that there

are two components involved in

meeting this requirement. The first

component relies on an analysis of

quality-assured ambient air quality data

and an ambient air monitoring network

that is representative of the area of

highest concentrations. For PM-IO in

the SWAB, EPA has reviewed the

ambient air quality data and determined

and affirmed that the PM-10 NAAQS

has been attained for the years 2003

through 2006. See 71 FR.40952, 7i FR

63642, 72 FR 49046 and 73 FR 14687.

Thesedeterminations also discuss the

adequacy of the monitoring network for

the SWAB.

EPA has also evaluated the air quality

data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)

database for 2007 and through February

2008. This data has been included in the

docket for this proposed rule. A

summary of the 2005-2007 data is

provided in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF 2005-2007 PM-10 ATTAINMENT STATISTICS

[Based on Federal Reference Method PM-10 monitors]

Observed Estimated 24-

three year 24- hour exceed- Attainment

Monitoing shte hour maximum status

(jIg/m3 ) ance days

Fresno-Drummond .......................................................................... : .................................................. 0

Fresno-1 st Street ...............................................................................................................................

22310

0 1Attainment.

0 Attainment.

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22310 2008
Federal 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

three year 24- h ctatus

Monitoring site hour maximum hour exceed- (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 of the PM-10

standard was recorded at the

Bakersfield-Golden FEM 6 on July 4,

2007. The State has flagged this

exceedance as being caused by an.

exceptional event, fourth of July

fireworks celebrations. EPA has

reviewed the documentation for this

event and has concurred with the State's

request. Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA,

to Mary D. Nichols, California

Environmental Protection Agency, April

21, 2008. For 2008, one exceedance of

the PM-10 standard was recorded also

at the Bakersfield-Golden federal

equivalent monitor 7 on January 4. The

State has flagged this exceedance as

being caused by an exceptional event,

high winds. EPA has reviewed the

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 or violations of the NAAQS

if the state adequately demonstrates that

an exceptional event caused the

exceedance or violation. 40 CFR

Sections 50.1, 50.14. Therefore, for the

reasons set forth in the concurrence

letters, EPA is proposing to exclude data

showing exceedances on July 4, 2007

and January 4, 2008 in determining

6 The Bakersfield-Golden monitoring site includes

a special purpose FEM known as a Tapered'Element

Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) continuous.

automated analyzer. The exceedances on July 4.

2007 and January 4, 2008 were recorded on the

TEOM. Data are collected at the site using both a

TEOM, which provides continuous PM-10 data for

public reporting purposes, and a high-volume FRM.

The FRM operates at a less than everyday schedule,

as allowed by EPA regulations, and was not

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

7 See footnote 6 above.

whether the SJVAB has continued to

attain the PM-10 standard-in 2007 and

through February 2008. The

concurrence letters explain how the

State has met its burden to demonstrate

that these exceedances qualify as

exceptional events. Thus, EPA believes

that according to the ambient air

monitoring data for the SJVAB, the PM10 NAAQS has beei attained. • The second component that nay be

included in the showing that a PM-10

area has met the requirement that the

NAAQS has been attained involves an

analysis using air quality modeling.

This component is addressed under the

maintenance plan requirements

discussion below.

B. The Applicable Implementation Plan

Has Been Fully Approved by EPA Under

Section 110(k) of the CAA

The Calcagni memo states that the SIP

for the area must be fully approved

under section 110(k) of the CAA and

must satisfy all requirements that apply

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

stated above, on August 19, 2003 and

December 30, 2003, the State submitted

the 2003 Plan. This plan addressed all

applicable requirements for the SJV

serious PM-10 nonattainment area. On

May 24, 2004, EPA approved all

components of the 2003 Plan except for

the plan's contingency measures. EPA

may rely on prior SIP approvals in

approving a redesignation request. See

Calcagni memo, p. 3; Southwestern

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th

Cir. 1998), 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) of the CAA. See

also section IV.D. below.

C. EPA Has Determined That the

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

in Emissions

The Calcagni memo states that the

state must be able to reasonably

attribute the improvement in air quality

to emission reductions which are

permanent and enforceable, (CAA

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

improvement should not be a result of

temporary reductions (e.g., economic

downturns or shutdowns) or unusually

favorable meteorology. In making this

showing, the state should estimate the

emission reductions from adopted and

implemented Federal, State and local

control measures, and consider the

emission rates, production capacities,

and other related information to show

that the air quality improvements are

the result of implemented controls.

The 2007 Plan provides a discussion

and comparison of the air quality,

meteorology and emissions trends since

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

the 2007 Plan discusses the significant'

improvements in PM-10 air quality

since 1990, noting that from 1990 to

1992 there were 33 estimated

exceedance days, from 1998 to 2000

there were 5.9 exceedance days and

from 2002 to 2004 there were 2.9

exceedance days. Id. Next the 2007 Plan

states that this improvement has

occurred while air quality plans and

regulations have been adopted and

notes that in the late 1980's,,before the

adoption of plans and regulations, "* * * it was not uncommon to have 50

22311

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

or more estimated annual exceedances

of the 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 at the

same time the PM-10 and PM-10 - precursor emissions were decreasing

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

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

"* * * about 2 tons per day of PM-10

reductions from shutdowns during the

attainment period of interest." 2007

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

the air quality improvements were due

to any economic downturns or

shutdowns.

The 2007 Plan also provides an analysis of the meteorological

conditions, including wind speeds,

precipitation, temperature and

atmospheric stability, to determine if

there were any favorable meteorological

conditions that may have led to the

improvement in air quality during

2003-2006. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and

Appendix C. The 2007 Plan found that

compared to long-term averages, the

period from 2003 to 2006 had: No

variation in average annual wind

speeds; a higher than average level of

precipitation with two dry years (2003

and 2004) and two wet years (2005 and

2006); warmer than average

temperatures; and a lower than average

stability level. The higher than average

precipitation would favor lower PM-10

levels, but it is important to note that

2003 and 2004 were in fact dry years,

ranking 98thi and 122nd in wetness over a period of 128 years (1878 to 2006).

The higher than average temperature

could have increased the potential for

high PM-10 levels, but the higher

stability level could have decreased the

potential by providing more dispersion.

The 2007 Plan concludes that these

analyses indicate that there is no consistent pattern to show that there

was favorable meteorology leading to

the improvement in PM-10 levels

during 2003 to_2006. Id.

The 2007 Plan further states that the

SJVAPCD has adopted over 500 new

rules and amendments since 1992,

many of which are for the purpose of

reducing PM-10 or PM-10 precursor

emissions. The 2007 Plan shows that all

of the rules and commitments in the

2003 Plan have been adopted by the

SJVAPCD and many of them have been

approved by EPA and are thus federally

enforceable. The SJVAPCD has adopted

rules which control NOx and PM-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 tons per day (tpd) of NOx

reductions and 0.5 tpd of PM-10

reductions. 2007 Plan, p. 17. The air

quality improvements described above

can be attributed to the reductions in

NOx and PM-l0 emissions achieved by

these measures.

The 2007 Plan shows decreases in the

emissions inventories for the SJVAB

from approximately 1000 tpd in 2000 to

approximately 900 tpd in 2005 and to

approximately 800 tpd in 2010. ARB

Staff Report, Appendix B.. As discussed

further in Section E.1. below, the

emissions inventories are a summary of

all source categories in the SJVAB and

are developed based on information

about emission rates, production

capacities, and other source-related

information. The emissions inventories

in the 2007 Plan also include reductions

from adopted and implemented Federal,

State and local control measures. ARB

Staff Report, Appendix B.

EPA believes gat the 2007 Plan has

demonstrated that the improvement in

PM-10 air quality for the SJVAB is a result of permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions and the

improvement is not a result of

temporary reductions or unusually

favorable meteorology. The fact that, as

discussed above, there were no

economic downturns, shutdowns or

meteorology impacting air quality and

that the number of exceedance days and

the estimated emissions have decreased

over time while the population and

vehicle miles traveled in the SJVAB

have increased shows that the

improvement in air quality can

reasonably be attributed to the adoption

of air quality plans and regulations

during this time.

D. The State Has Met All Applicable

Requirements for the Area Under

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

The Calcagni memo states that a state

must meet those requirements of section

110 and part D of the CAA that were

applicable prior to the submittal of the

redesignation request. CAA section

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

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA

Section 110

The general SIP elements and

requirements set-forth in section

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

the following: Submittal of a SIP that

has been adopted by the state after

reasonable public notice and hearing;

provisions for establishment and

operation of appropriate procedures

needed to monitor ambient air quality;

implementation of a source permit

program; provisions for the

implementation of part C requirement

for Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD); provisions for the

implementation of part D requirements

for New Source Review (NSR) permit

programs; provisions for air pollution

modeling; and provisions for public and

local agency participation in planning

and emission control rule development.

On numerous occasions over the past

35 years, CARB and the SJVAPCD have

submitted and we have approved

provisions addressing the basic CAA

section 110 provisions. There are no

outstanding or disapproved applicable

section 110 SIP submittals with respect

to the State and the SJVAPCD.8 We

propose to conclude that CARB and

SJVAPCD have met all SIP requirements

for the SJVAB area applicable for

purposes of redesignation under section

110 of the CAA (General SIP

Requirements).

Moreover, we note that SIPs must be

fully approved only with respect to

applicable requirements for purposes of

redesignation in accordance with CAA

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

example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)

requires that SIPs contain certain

measures to prevent sources in a state

from significantly contributing to air

quality problems in another state.

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)

requirements for a state are not linked

with a particular -nonattainment area's

designation and classification in that

state. EPA believes that the

requirements linked with a particular

nonattainment area's designation and

classifications are the relevant measures

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation

request. The transport SIP submittal

requirements, where applicable,

* continue to apply to a state regardless of

the designation -of any one particular

area in the state.

Thus, we do not believe that these

requirements should be construed to be

applicable requirements for purposes of

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes

that the other-section 110 elements not

connected with nonattainment plan

submissions and not linked with an

area's attainment status are not

applicable requirements for purposes of

8 The applicable California SIP for. 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 in reviewing a

redesignation request. This policy is

consistent with EPA's existing policy on

applicability of the conformity SIP

requirement for redesignations. See

Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and

final rulemakings at 61 FR 53174-53176,

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

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio

final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 (May 7,

1996); and Tampa, Florida final

rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 (December 7,

1995). See also the discussion of this

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation at

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

Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399

(October 19, 2001). EPA believes that

section 110 elements not linked to the

area's nonattainment status are not

applicable for purposes of

redesignation.

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of

the CAA contain air quality planning

requirements for PM-10 nonattainment

areas. Subpart I of part D contains

general requirements for areas

designated as nonattainment. Subpart 4

of part D contains specific planning and

scheduling requirements for particulate

matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4

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

requirements apply to moderate and

serious PM-10 nonattainment areas and

189(d) applies to areas which failed to

attain by their serious area deadline.

These requirements include: (1) An

approved permit program for

construction of new and modified major

stationary sources; (2) provisions to

ensure that reasonably available control

technology (RACT) and reasonably

available control measures (RACM) are

implemented; (3) provisions to ensure

that best available control measures

(BACM) are implemented; (4)'

quantitative milestones to be achieved

every 3 years and which demonstrate

reasonable further progress (RFP)

toward attainment by the applicable

attainment date; (5) provisions to ensure

that the control requirements applicable

to major stationary sources of PM-10

also apply to major stationary sources of

PM-10 precursors except where the

Administrator determined that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM-10 levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area; and(6) a

demonstration of attainment and an

annual PM-10 or PM-10 precursor

reduction of not less than five percent

from the most recent emission inventory

until attainment.

In addition to these specific

requirements for serious PM-10

nonattainment areas, nonattainment

areas must also meet the general

planning requirements in subpart 1,

section 172(c). These requirements

include, among other things, provisions

for the implementation of RACT, RFP,

emissions inventories, and contingency

measures.

For the SJVAB, EPA determined that

these requirements were met in its

approval of the 2003 Plan with the

exception of the contingency measure

requirement that was subsequently

suspended by the determination of

attainment in accordance with EPA's

Clean Data Policy and the NSR permit

program for construction of new and

modified major stationary sources. 69

FR 30006 and 71 FR 63642.

EPA fully approved SJVAPCD NSR

rules 2020 and 2201 on May 17, 2004

(6.9 FR 27837). Recently we proposed to:

(1) Correct aspects of that approval, and

(2) approve revisions to the NSR rules

that explicitly exempt certain small or

minor agricultural sources from

permitting requirements. 73 FR 9260

(February 20, 2008). In this proposed

rulemaking, we stated that "we believe

that the adoption of the proposed

revisions in place of the SIP as proposed

to be corrected would not result in any.

change in emissions, any change in air

quality, or any change in the area's

ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.

Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP

revision, if approved, will not interfere

with any applicable requirements for

attainment and reasonable further

progress or any other applicable

requirement of the CAA and is

approvable under section 110(1)." 73 FR

9265.

Although the SJVAPCD NSR program

has been approved, and we have

proposed approval of revisions to the

rule, we also note that final approval of

the NSR revisions is not a necessary

prerequisite to finalizing our proposed

approval of the State's redesignation

request. EPA has determined in past

redesignations that a NSR program does

not have to be approved prior to

redesignation, provided that the area

demonstrates maintenance of the

standard without part D NSR in effect.

The rationale for this position is

described in a memorandum from Mary

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,

entitled "Part D NSR Requirements or

Areas Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment." See the more detailed

explanations in the following

redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI

(60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1996);

Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR

20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996);

Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669,

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

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

The requirements of the PSD program

will apply once the area has been

redesignated. Thus, new major sources

with significant PM-10 emissions and

major.modifications of PM-10 at major

sources as defined under 40 CFR 52.21

will be required to obtain a PSD permit.

Currently, EPA is the PSD permitting

authority in the 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 must be consistent with

Federal conformity regulations relating

to consultation, enforcement and

enforceability that the CAA required the

EPA to promulgate.

EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret the conformity SIP

requirements as not applying for

purposes of a redesignation request

under section 107(d) because state

conformity rules are still required after

redesignation and Federal conformity

rules apply where state rules have not

been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265f

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

interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748

(December 7, 1995).

Thus, EPA concludes that the State

has met all requirements applicable

under section 110 and part D for the

SJVAB for purposes of redesignation.

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

E. EPA Has Fully Approved a

Maintenance Plan, Including a

Contingency Plan, for the Area Under

Section 175A of the CAA

Section 175A of the CAA- provides the

requirements for maintenance plans.

These requirements are further clarified

in the Calcagni memo. The provisions to

be included in maintenance plans are:

22313

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22313 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 81/Friday, April 25, 2008/Proposed Rules

(1) An attainment emissions inventory

to identify the level of emissions in the

area sufficient to attain the NAAQS;

(2) A demonstration of maintenance

of the NAAQS for 10 years after

redesignation;

(3) Verification of continued

attainment through operation of an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network; and (4) Contingency provisions that EPA

deems necessary to assure that the State

will promptly correct any violation of

the NAAQS that occurs after

rectesignation of the area. We discuss

how these requirements are met for the

SVAB below.

1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory

To Identify the Level of Emissions in the

Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS

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

all plan submittals to include a

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources in the nonattainment area. In

demonstrating maintenance in

accordance -with CAA section 175A and

the Calcagni memo, the state should

provide an attainment emissions

inventory to identify the level of

emissions in the area sufficient to attain

the NAAQS. Where the state has made

an adequate demonstration that air

quality has improved as a result of the

SIP, the attainment inventory will

generally be an inventory of actual

emissions at the time the area attained

the standard. EPA's primary guidance in

evaluating these inventories is the

document entitled, "PM-10 Emissions

Inventory Requirements," EPA, OAQPS,

EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994)

which can be found at: http:!!

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

pml oeir.pdf.

The 2007 Plan includes detailed

emissions inventories for NOx, directly

emitted PM-10, volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and oxides of sulfur

(SOx).9 The emissions inventories are

projected from a 2002 baseyear

irfventory because it was the most

comprehensive inventory available. The

baseyear inventory meets the CAA

requirement for a comprehensive,

accurate and current inventory and is

used as the basis for forecasting future

year inventories.

The 2007 Plan includes projected

inventories for 2005, 2010 and 2020 for

NOx, PM-10, VOC and SOx. The

baseyear and projected year inventories

all include a detailed breakdown of the

stationary and mobile source emissions

categories: The emissions for each of the

categories are estimated based on the

best available information on number of

sources, size of sources, growth, control

measures, emissions factors, and other

criteria.

The 2007 Plan selects the 2005 PM10 and NOx inventories as the

attainment emission inventories because

the SJV nonattainment area first attained

the PM-10 standard during 2003-2005

(and continues to attain the standard

through February 2008). 2007 Plan, pp.

5-6. The 2007 Plan also includes

inventories for VOC and SOx; however,

EPA has determined that NOx is the

only significant PM-10 precursor for the

SJV nonattainment area and thus the

proposed SJVAB. 69 FR 30006. Table 3

summarizes the 2007 Plan's NOx and

PM-10 emissions.

TABLE 3.-ANNUAL PM-1 0 AND NOx EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PLAN (ARB STAFF REPORT, APPENDIX B)

2005 2010 2020

P M - 10 ......................................................................................................................................... 284 282 290

N O x .......... : ........................................................... : ........................................................ I ............. 606 521 328

The NOx emission inventory

continues to be reduced substantially in

the future. While the PM-10 emission

inventory is projected to increase

slightly in 2020, we believe the increase

is insignificant when compared to the

substantial NOx decreases. See 2007

Plan, pp. 5-6 and Appendix B of the

ARB Staff Report.

EPA believes that the selection of

2005 for the attainment year inventory

and 2020 for the maintenance year

inventory is appropriate since the

SJVAB was determined to have attained

the PM-10 NAAQS in 2005. We have

reviewed the 2007 Plan's attainment

year and maintenance year emissions

inventories and determined that they

are accurate and comprehensive and

meet the requirements of EPA guidance

and the CAA.

9 The 2007 Plan's emissions inventories are found

in Appendix B of the ARB Staff Report. As - mentioned above and in the ARB Staff Report, the

State "- * * updated the attainment inventory * * * to reflect emission reductions achieved by

2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of

the NAAQS for 10 Years After

Redesjgnation

Section 175A of the CAA requires a

demonstration of maintenance of the

NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A

state may generally demonstrate

maintenance of the NAAQS by either

showing that future emissions of a

pollutant or its precursors will not

exceed the level of the attainment

inventory, or by modeling to show that

the future anticipated mix of sources

and emission rates will not cause a

violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act,

the showing should be based on the

same level of modeling used for the

attainment demonstration required as

part of the approved attainment plan.

Consistent with EPA's modeling

guidance (The Guideline on Air Quality

Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51,

Appendix W and the PM-10 SIP

Development Guideline (PMSDG), EPA

450/2-86-001, June 1987), the 2003

ARB adopted measures that had not been accounted

for" before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on

November 16, 2007..

10 The 2007 Plan also includes a maintenance

demonstration for the annual PM-10 standard;

Plan's attainment demonstration was

based on the use of two receptor

models: Chemical Mass Balance (CMB)

and rollback. 69 FR 5412, 5424-5425

and 69 FR 30006. The 2007 Plan also

uses CMB and rollback to demonstrate

maintenance of the 24-hour PM-10

standard until 2020.10 See 2007 Plan,

pp. 6-11. The results of the modeling

show that all monitoring sites in the

SJVAB nonattainment area will be

below the NAAQS in 2020, with the

highest projected value of 134 gtg/m3 at

Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran. See

2007 Plan, Table 2.

In addition to the modeling for the

maintenance plan, the 2007 Plan shows

that total annual emissions of NOx will

decrease from 606 tpd in 2005 to 521

tpd in 2010 and 328 tpd in 2020 and

total annual emissions of PM-10 will

decrease from 284 tpd in 2005 to 282

tpd in 2010 and slightly increase to 290

tpd in 2020. As discussed above, the

emissions inventories meet EPA

however, the annual PM-10 standard was revoked

effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October

17, 2006). Therefore we do not address this

demonstration here.

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 on our review of the

information presented in the 2007 Plan,

we believe that the State has met EPA

requirements for demonstrating

maintenance of the PM-10 standard for

the SWAB.

3. Verification of Continued Attainment

Through Operation of an Appropriate

Air Quality Monitoring Network

In demonstrating maintenance,

continued attainment of the NAAQS can

be verified through operation of an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network. The Calcagni memo states that

the maintenance plan should contain

provisions for continued operation of aii

quality monitors that will provide such

verification. The memo also states that

states should ensure that they have the

legal authority to implement and

enforce all measures necessary to attain

and to maintain the NAAQS. Finally,

the memo states that the state submittal

should indicate how it will track the

progress of the maintenance plan (e.g.,

with periodic emissions inventory

updates oi modeling input updates) and

monitor the triggers for contingency

measures.

In the 2007 Plan the SJVAPCD

commits to continued operation of its

air quality monitoring network for

verification of attainment. See 2007

Plan, pp. 12-13. The SJVAPCD's

authority to continue operating after

redesignation to attainment is provided

for in the California Health and Safety

Code sections'40150 and 40161. Id. at

15. The SJVAPCD also plans to verify

continued attainment of th&e PM-10

standard through an annual report to its

Board which will include, among other

things, tracking of adoption and

implementation of control measures,

tracking of air quality data and

comparison of predicted versus current

emissions reductions estimates. Id. As

discussed further below, since the

SJVAPCD has selected'a contingency measure trigger that is based on ambient

air quality levels, the continued

operation of the monitoring network

and tracking of its data will provide

adequate notice of when contingency

measures are needed.

4. Contingency Provisions to Promptly

Correct Any Violation of the NAAQS

That Occurs After Redesignation of the

Area

Contingency provisions are required

under section 175A of the CAA. These

contingency measures are distinguished

from those generally required for

nonattainment areas under section

172(c)19) in that they are not required to

be fully adopted measures that will take

effect without further action by the State

in order for the maintenance plan to be

approved. The Calcagni memo states

that the contingency provisions of the

maintenance plan should clearly

identify the measures to be adopted, a

schedule and procedure for adoption

and implementation, and a specific time

limit for action by the state. The memo

also states that the contingency

provisions should identify indicators or

triggers which will be used to determine

when the contingency measures need to

be implemented. While the memo

suggests inventory or monitoring

indicators, it states that contingency

provisions will be evaluated on a 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 D nonattainment plan for the

area prior to redesignation.

The 2007 Plan selects an action level

or trigger based on an exceedance of the

PM-10 NAAQS of 155 gg/m 3.11 See

2007 Plan, p. 16. In addition, the

District may also consider other factors

such as a succession of values just

below but near the level of the PM-10

standard. Id. EPA believes that an

exceedance of 155 [ig/m3 is an

appropriate trigger level. The SJVAB has

several continuous PM-10 monitors,

and a single measurement of 155 gig/m3

at one of these monitors would not

constitute a violation of the PM-10

NAAQS. Even if a measurement of 155

gig/m 3 is recorded at a one-in-six day

FEM, a violation is not necessarily being

recorded as the State might need to

evaluate the possibility that the

measurement is due to an exceptional

event.

The 2007 Plan states that if the SJWAB

monitors an exceedance of 155 gg/m 3,

the District commits to take appropriate

action within 18 months of the

exceedance date. This :action will first

involve a determination of whether the

exceedance was due to an exceptional

event in accordance with EPA's

Exceptional Events Rule and an analysis

of what caused the exceedance and the

necessary controlsito address it. Id. If

the exceedance is not due to an

exceptional event, the District commits

11 An exceedance is defined as a daily value that

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

M3) after rounding to the nearest 10 g./rn (i.e.

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

Thus, a recorded value of 154 ig/m 3 would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 ig/ m' whereas a recorded value of 155 gg/rn3 would

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160

jg/rm. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.

to determine the possible causes-of the

exceedance and to determine if

emissions reductions from adopted

measures that are not needed to

maintain the PM-10 NAAQS are

available to serve as contingency

measures. These measures can be found

in the SJVAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan

(April 30, 2007) and the SJVAPCD's

Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (March 13,

2008) and include more stringent

controls on open burning, gas turbines,

boilers, glass melting, residential water

heaters, wood burning fireplaces and

heaters and commercial charbroiling.

See Table 6-1 of SJVAPCD's 2007

Ozone Plan and Table 0-3 of SJVAPCD's

Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

If there are no reductions available

from adopted measures, the District

commits in the 2007 Plan to proceed

with identifying control measures from

feasibility studies such as those found

in its 2007 Ozone Plan and Proposed

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

Ozone Plan and Table 6-5 of Proposed

PM2.5 Plan) and prioritize measures

most relevant for reducing PM-10

emissions. 2007 Plan, pp. 16-17. The

SJVAPCD has also provided clarification

that if additional control measures are

necessary, the SJVAPCD will adopt and

implement the control measures within

the 18-month timeframe for appropriate

action. Letter from Seyed Sadredin,

SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA,

April 17, 2008.

Finally, the 2007 Plan states that the

State, District and local governments

have adopted and implemented all

measures in the 2003 Plan. 2007 Plan,

_p. 17 and Appendix B.

Based on the discussion above and

EPA's review of the 2007 Plan, we

believe the plan adequately addresses

the contingency measure requirement

under section 175A of the CAA.

Conclusion

Based on our review of the 2007 Plan,

and for the reasons discussed above, we

conclude that the CAA section

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

redesignation to attainment and an

approvable maintenance plan for the

SJVAB have been met. We are therefore

proposing to approve the 2007 Plan as

meeting the requirements of section

175A of the CAA and proposing to

redesignate the SVAB nonattainment

area to attainment for the PM-10

NAAQS.

F. Transportation Conformity and Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Under section 176(c) of the CAA,

transportation plans, programs and

projects in the nonattainment or

maintenance areas that are funded or

'22MB1

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22315 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 81/Friday, April 25, 2008/Proposed Rules

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

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

53) must conform to the applicable SIP.

In short, a transportation plan and

program are deemed to conform to the

applicable SIP if the emissions resulting

from the implementation of that

transportation plan and program are less

than or equal to the motor vehicle

emissions budget (MVEB) established in

the SIP for the attainment year,

maintenance year and other analysis

years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93.

The 2007 Plan provides for attainment

year MVEBs for 2005 and maintenance

year MVEBs for 2020.12 The 2005

attainment year MVEBs will replace the

current MVEBs for 2008 and 2010 from

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

Before an emissions budget in a

submitted SIP revision may be used in

a conformity determination, we must

first determine that it is adequate. The

criteria by which we determine whether

a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets

are adequate for transportation

conformity purposes are outlined in 40

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

our process for determining the

adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in

the preamble to revisions to EPA's "

conformity regulations. 69 FR 40004

(July 1, 2004). Applicability of emission

trading between conformity budgets for

conformity purposes is described in 40

CFR 93.124(b).

1. CARB Methodology for Estimating

PM-10 in the Emissions Budgets

CARB's mobile source emission

model, EMFAC2007, was used to

estimate direct PM-10 and NOx

emissions from motor vehicles in the

2007 Plan. EMFAC2007 was approved

by EPA on January 18, 2007 (72 FR

73,3464), for use in SIPs and

transportation conformity analyses.

EMFAC2007 produces emissions for a

wide range of motor vehicles (passenger.

cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses and

motor homes) for calendar years out to

2040. Particulate emissions include tire

and brake wear as well as vehicle

exhaust and evaporative emissions.

The methodology used in the 2007

Plan to estimate fugitive dust (e.g.,

paved and unpaved road emissions) is

consistent with the methods previously

approved in EPA's action on the 2003

Plan. 69 FR 30006 and 69 FR 5412,

5414. No further action is required to

approve these methodologies for use in

future transportation conformity

determinations in the SJVAB.

2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan's Budgets

The 2007 Plan includes county by

county subarea motor vehicle emissions

budgets for 2005 and 2020 for direct

PM-10 and NOx. The 2007 Plan budgets

are first summarized in Table 6,

"Revised Motor Vehicle Emission

Budgets for the Attainment Year, (tons

per average annual day)," and in Table

7, "Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for

Maintenance of PM10 NAAQS, (tons per

average annual day)," of the 2007 Plan;

however, these estimates were updated

by CARB, based on updated vehicle

activity data, and the updated budgets

were included in the ARB Staff Report

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

to EPA. Thus, the budgets found on

page 12 of ARB Staff Report supercede

the budgets in Tables 6 and 7 of the

locally adopted 2007 Plan. See

November 16, 2007 submittal letter from

James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne

Nastri, EPA, enclosure "V. Updated

transportation conformity budgets and

supporting documentation." Table 4

below reflects the updated and

submitted transportation conformity

budgets for the 2007 Plan. The direct

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

on paved and unpaved roads, vehicular

exhaust, vehicle brake and tire wear,

and emissions from highway and transit

project construction. The emissions

budgets for NOx include only exhaust

from on-road vehicles. Since the 2007

Plan does not consider VOC to be a

significant contributor to the PM-10

nonattainment problem, in accordance

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

budgets are included. Additional details

regarding the budgets are presented in

the 2007 Plan, Appendix D, "Detailed

Conformity Calculations."

Based on our evaluation of the criteria

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

conformity rule, EPA proposes to find

the PM-10 and NOx motor vehicle

emissions budgets contained in the 2007

Plan (and in Table 4 below) adequate

and proposes to approve them. EPA

proposes to approve the budgets

because they come from a SIP which

EPA concludes demonstrates timely

attainment and maintenance and the

budgets are consistent with all of the

control measures assumed in the

attainment demonstration and

maintenance plan. We also find

adequate and propose to approve the

individual county level subarea budgets

for NOx and PM-10, as shown in Table

4 below, consistent with section

93.124(d), which allows for a "

nonattainment area with more than one

Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO) to establish subarea emission

budgets for each MPO or make a

collective conformity determination for

the entire nonattainment area. Note that,

if an individual MPO cannot show

-conformity to its individual county

budget, then the remaining MPOs in the

SJVAB cannot make any new"

conformity determinations.13 If

approved, the 2005 and 2020 motor

vehicle emissions budgets must be used

for transportation conformity purposes.

As mentioned earlier, the county

subarea motor vehicle emissions

budgets that EPA is proposing to

approve are listed in Table 4 below.

TABLE 4.-MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PM-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 and 9 above.

13CAA section 176(c) states that conformity

applies to SIPs in nonattainment and maintenance

areas, rather than individual metropolitan planning

areas within a single state. When subarea budgets

area created for each MPO. the sum of the subarea

budgets equals the total amount of emissions the

area can have from the transportation sector and

still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When one.

subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show

that their planned transportation activities would

conform to the SIP for the whole area until the lapse

is resolved. See "Companion Guidance for the July

1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule:

Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing

and New Air Quality Standards" (EPA 420.-B-04-

012).

22316

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22316 2008
Federal 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,

T ulare ............................................................................................................... 7.3 25.1 9.3 10.1

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

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

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

3. Trading Mechanism

Transportation conformity is

demonstrated for each county in the

SJVAB when emissions for both PM-10

and NOx are estimated to be below the

motor vehicle emission budgets for each

pollutant for all analysis years.

However,- for analysis years beyond

2010, in our prior approval of the 2003

Plan, we approved a trading mechanism

that allows emissions to be traded from

NOx to PM-10 budgets. 69 FR .30006

and 69 FR 5412, 5414.

The trading mechanism specified that

if, after including reductions from

additional measures, the direct PM-10

budget still cannot be met, an MPO

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

subarea budget by trading from its NOx

budget. This trade from the NOx subaref

budget to the PM-10 subarea budget can

only occur if the estimated emissions of

NOx from the planned transportation

network are less than the NOx subarea

budget for a given analysis year. The 1.5

tpd NOx to 1 tpd PM-10 ratio would be

used, as follows, to determine the NOx

reductions needed to offset the excess

direct PM-10 emissions:

(PM-10 estimate-PM-1O budget) * 1.5

= tpd of NOx reductions needed to

offset excessPM-10

A subarea has demonstrated

conformity if, after trading, the

estimates of NOx and PM-l0 emissions

from the planned transportation

network are at or below the adjusted

NOx and direct PM-10 budgets. For

every analysis year, and in each

subsequent conformity determination,

the transportation agency must repeat

these steps to determine whether the

budgets can be met, or whether they

need to be adjusted using this trading

mechanism.

The 2007 Plan requests that this

trading mechanism remain unchanged,

but available for use after 2005, the

revised attainment year. Since the first

analysis year, for conformity purposes,

will be 2010, EPA is proposing to

continue to approve use of the trading

mechanism for conformity analysis

years after 2005. As stated in the 2003

Plan approval (69 FR 5412, 5414-5417;

69 FR 30006), EPA continues to believe

that trading mechanisms cannot be

reviewed through the adequacy process,

and instead need full EPA approval

before they can be used.

V. Proposed Commitments for East

Kern

In order to address CAA requirements

for the East Kern nonattainment area,

the State submitted on February 29,

2008 enforceable commitments to install

a FRM/FEM in East Kern and if a

violation is recorded to submit the

appropriate SIP. Specifically, the State

submitted a resolution approved by-the

Governing Board of the KCAPCD on

February 27, 2008 committing to, with

assistance from the State, install a FRM/

FEM. Kern County Air Pollution Control

Board Resolution 2008-001-02. Further,

the resolution states that the KCAPCD

will develop for submittal through the

State to EPA, a serious nonattainment

area SIP that meets the requirements of

CAA section 189 in the event of a

violation of the PM-10 standard. Id. On

March 3, 2008, CARB's Executive

Officer issued Executive Order S-08-

004 approving as a SIP revision the

KCAPCD commitments and committing

to submit a SIP addressing section 189

in the event that the area violates the

PM-la standard. Given the low

concentrations recorded at the

IMPROVE monitor and the relatively

minimal expected growth, we believe

this is a reasonable approach for the

area.

VI. Proposed Actions

Based on our review of the State's

request, EPA believes the State has

addressed all the necessary

requirements for a revised designation

and is proposing to approve the State's

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

revise the designation for the SJV PM10 nonattainment area by splitting the

area into two separate serious PM-10

nonattainment areas, the SJVAB PM-la

nonattainment area and the East Kern

PM-10 nonattainment area. Also, based

on EPA's review of the 2007 Plan

submitted by the State, EPA believes

that the CAA requirements under

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

and section 175A for maintenance plans

have been met for the SJVAB and EPA

is therefore proposing to redesignate the

newly created serious 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 for th6 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 on July 4, 2007 and

January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is

proposing to approve commitments

from KCAPCD and CARB to install a

FRM/FED in the newly created East

Kern serious PM-la nonattainment area

and to address section 189(d) CAA

requirements for it in the event the

FRM/FED records a violation of the PM10 standard'

VII. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a "significant regulatory

action" and-therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. For this reason, this action is

also not subject to Executive Order

13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This action merely proposes

to approve a revised boundary

designation, a redesignation to

attainment for the SJVAB, a

maintenance plan for the SJVAB, motor

vehicle emissions budgets and

conformity trading mechanism for the

area and commitments for East Kern, all

of which are either requested or

submitted by the State, and does not

impose any additional requirements.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

proposed rule does not impose any

additional enforceable duty, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

22317

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22317 2008
Federal 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 input by

tribal officials in the'development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." Seven Indian tribes have

reservations located within the

boundaries of the proposed SJVAB. EPA

plans to consult with representatives of

the seven Tribes and will continue to

work with the Tribes, as provided for in

Executive Order 13175. Accordingly,

EPA has addressed Executive Order

13175 to the extent that it applies to this

action. This proposed action also does

not have Federalism implications

because it does not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This proposed action

merely proposes to approve requests or

submittals from the State and does not

alter the relationship or the distribution

of power and responsibilities

established in the CAA. Executive Order

12898 establishes a Federal policy for

incorporating environmental justice into

Federal agency actions by directing

agencies to identify and address, as

appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority and

low-income populations. Today's.action

involves proposed approvals of a

revised boundary designation, a

redesignation to attainment for the

SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the

SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets

and conformity trading mechanism for

the area and commitments for East Kern.

It will not have disproportionately high

and adverse effects on any communities

in the area, including minority and lowincome communities.'

This proposed rule also is not subject

to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. The

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This proposed

rule does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Parts 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: April 21, 2008.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 79

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0071; FRL-8557-7]

RIN 2060-AN94

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel

Additives: Revised Definition of

Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise an

interpretive rule defining the term

"substantially similar" for unleaded

gasoline as that phrase is used in section

21i(f) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). To

meet the current definition, fuel or fuel

additives must possess, at the time of

manufacture, all of the physical and

chemical characteristics of an unleaded

gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard

D 4814-88 for at least one of the

Seasonal and Geographical Volatility

Classes specified in the standard. EPA

proposes to amend the definition to

allow some additional flexibility for the

vapor/liquid ratio specification for fuel

introduced into commerce in the state of

Alaska. In the "Rules and Regulations"

section of this Federal Register, we are

amending the "substantially similar"

definition as a direct final rule without

a prior proposed rule. If we receive no

adverse comment, we will not take

further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,

identified by Docket 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

also be submitted electronically or

through hand delivery/courier by

following the detailed instructions in

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final

rule located in the rules section of this

Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jaimee Dong, Compliance and

Innovative Strategies Division, Office of

Transportation and Air Quality, Office

of Air and Radiation, Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Code 6406J,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (202) 343-9672; fax number:

(202) 343-2800; e-mail address:

Dong.Jaimee@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed

Rule?

This document proposes to revise the "substantially similar" interpretive rule.

EPA is not statutorily obligated to

conduct notice and comment

rulemaking when amending this

interpretive rule. See APA section

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

However, as it has done when

previously amending this rule, EPA

desires to provide an opportunity for the

public to comment on this amendment.

We have published a direct final rule

amending the "substantially similar"

interpretive rule in the "Rules and

Regulations" section of this Federal

Register because we view this as a

noncontroversial action and anticipate

no adverse comment. We have

explained our reasons for this action in

the preamble to the direct final rule.

If we receive no adverse comment, we"

will not take further action on this

proposed rule. If we receive adverse

comment, we will withdraw the direct

final rule and it will not take effect. We

would address all public comments in

any subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule.

We do not intend to institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting must

do so at this time. For further

information, please see the information

provided in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

U. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

Entities potentially affected by this

action include those involved with the

production or importation of unleaded

gasoline for use in Alaska. Categories

and entities affected by this action

include:

22318

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 22318 2008