### Federal Register

### /Vol. 72, No. 30/Wednesday, February 14, 2007/Proposed Rilles

PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES

1.The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend §2.64 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§2.64 Final action.

(b)(1) During the three-month period after issuance ofa final action, the applicant may request that the examining attorney reconsider the final action. The request mustbe filed through TEAS. The filing of arequest for reconsideration will notextend the time for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director.

(2) During the six-month period after issuance ofa final action, the applicant
may submit amendments. Any such amendments willbe examined, and will be entered ifthey comply with the rules ofpractice in trademark cases and the Act of 1946. The filing of such an amendment will not extend the time for filing an appeal orpetitioning the Director.

(c)(1) Ifan applicant in an application under section 1(b) ofthe Actfiles an amendment to allege use under §2.76 during the six-month period aftdr issuance ofa final action, the examiner shall examine the amendment. The filing ofsuch an amendment will not extend the time forfiling an appeal or petitioning the Director.

Dated: February 8, 2007. JonW. Dudas, UnderSecretaryofCommerce forIntellectual Property andDirector ofthe UnitedStates Patent andTrademarkOffice. [FRDoc.E7-2519 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-16-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0101; FRL-8277-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation ofAreas forAir Quality Planning Purposes: California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a request submitted by the State to redesignate the South Coast from nonattainment to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP)revision forthe South Coast nonattainment area in California as meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for maintenance plans for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA is proposing to find adequate and approve motor vehicle emission budgets, which

are included inthe maintenance plan. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program as meeting the low enhanced I/M requirements for CO in the South Coast. DATES: Comments mustbe received by March 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2007-0101, by one ofthe following methods:

1.Agency Web site: http:// www.regulations.gov.EPA prefers receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment system. Follow the on-line instructions
to submit comments.

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov.Follow the on-line instructions.

3. E-mail:jesson.david@epa.gov 4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office ofAir Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions: All comments will be included inthe public docket without change andmay 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 orotherwise protected should be clearly ideritified7 as such and should notbe submitted through the agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and eRulemaking portal are anonymous

access systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it inthe body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address willbe automatically captured and" included aspart ofthe public comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPAmay notbe able to consideryour comment.

Docket:The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and

some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jesson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415- 972-3961, david.jesson@epa.gov or http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/ actions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms "we," "us," and "our" mean U.S. EPA.

Table ofContents
I. Summary ofToday's Proposed Action II.CO SIPsfor the South Coast

A. Requirements for Serious CO

Nonattainment Areas B.Serious CO SIP forthe South Coast C.COMaintenance Plan for the South

Coast III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment A. Attainment oftheNAAQS 1.Basis forDetermining Attainment 2.Record ofAttainment inthe South Coast B.Fully Approved Applicable

Implementation Plan Under CAA Section 110(k)Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes ofRedesignation Under Section 110and Part D 1.Basic SIP Requirements UnderCAA

Section 110 2.Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part

D Requirements

a. Introduction b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration

c. Contingency Provisions (1)Introduction (2)CAA Section 172(c)(9) (3)CAA Section 187(g)(3) d.Conclusion 3.TCMs to OffsetGrowth inEmissions

FromVMTIncreases 4.Requirement forEnhanced I/M Program 5.Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline

Program 6. Conclusion C. Improvement inAir Quality is Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Measures D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 1.Applicable Requirements 2.Maintenance Plan Provisions

a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment

Year and Future Years b. Maintenance Demonstration

c. MonitoringNetwork andVerification of

ContinuedAttainment d. Contingency Provisions

e. Commitment to Submit Subsequent

Maintenance PlanRevision f.Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets g. Conclusion IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

### 6986

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6986 2007

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

I. Summary ofToday's Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve the 2005 Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (Maintenance Plan) as meeting the requirements ofCAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, which provide, in part, that plans must demonstrate continued attainment for at least 10years and must include contingency measures. The submittal included evidence that the South Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and continues to attain the NAAQS. We are also proposing to approve and find adequate the motorvehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) submitted with the Maintenance Plan.

We are proposing to approve the request bythe State ofCalifornia to redesignate the area to attainment for CO under the provisions ofCAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E) authorizes the EPA Administrator to redesignate areas to attainment ifthe

area has attained the NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and the approved SIPfor the

area meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofCAA section 110 (basic requirements applicable to SIPs generally), Part D (special SIP requirements applicable to nonattainment areas), and 175A (SIP requirements for maintenance areas).

As part of ourproposed determination that California has met applicable Part D provisions, we propose to adapt to CO nonattainment areas the provisions of

our Clean Data Policy, which was initially established for ozone (see discussion below in section III.B.2.). Under the Clean DataPolicy, certain CAA Part D requirements-including the requirements for developing attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP)plans, reasonably available control measures (RACM) and contingency measures-no longer apply because the area has already attained the NAAQS.

Finally,because our interim approval ofCalifornia's I/Mprogram for CO in the South Coast expired on August 7, 1998, California has now submitted a demonstration that the I/M program meets the low-enhanced requirements applicable to the South Coast CO nonattainment area (see discussion in section III.B.4.) We are proposing to approve that demonstration.

H.CO SiPsfor the South Coast

A. Requirements forSeriousCO Nonattainmen tAreas
The CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish newplanning 

### requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS, including CO.' Under section 107(d)(1)(C) ofthe Act, areas 

### designated nonattainment priorto enactment ofthe 1990 amendments, 

### including the South Coast, were designated nofiattainment by operation oflaw.2 Under section 186(a) ofthe Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation oflaw as eithermoderate

or serious, depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas with design values at and above 16.5 

### ppm, such as the South Coast, were classified as serious. Section 172 ofthe Act contains 

### general requirements applicable to SIPs for nonattainment areas. Sections 186 and 187 ofthe Act set out additional air qualityplanning requirements forCO nonattainment areas. The most fundamental ofthese provisions is the 

### requirementthat CO nonattainment

areas submit byNovember 15, 1992, a SIP demonstrating attainment ofthe 

### NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no laterthan the deadline applicable to the area's classification: December 31, 1995, for moderate areas, and December 31, 2000, for serious areas like the South Coast. CAA sections 186(a)(1), 187(a)(7), 

### and 187(b)(1). Sucha demonstration
must include enforceable measures to achieve emission reductions each year leading to'emissions at orbelow the 

### level predicted toresultin attainment of the NAAQS throughout the nonattainment area.

EPA has issued a General Preamble describing the Agency's preliminary views onhowv EPA intends to act on 

### SIPs submitted underTitle Iofthe Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The reader should refer to the General Preamble for amore detailed discussion ofEPA's preliminary interpretations of the CAA's Title Irequirements.

B. SeriousCO SIP forthe South Coast
OnFebruary 5, 1997, California 

### submitted a CO plan for the South

'Under section 109 ofthe CAA, EPAhas established primary, health-related NAAQS for

### CO: 9 parts per million (ppm)averaged over an 8-hour period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. Attainment ofthe 8-hourCO NAAQS is achieved ifnot more than one non-overlapping 8-hour
average in any consecutive 2-year period per monitoring site exceeds 9ppm (values below 9.5

are rounded down to 9.0 and are not considered exceedances). See 40 CFR 50.8; William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Di'ision, entitled "Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations," dated June 18, 1990; and EPA's General Preamble (see 57 FR 13535).

2For a description oftheboundaries ofthe Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes allofOrange County andthe more populated portions ofLos Angeles, San Bernardino, andRiverside Counties. Coast, Which had been adopted by the 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on November 15, 

### 1996. Becausethe South Coast had continuously achieved the 1-hour CO NAAQS for morethan 20 years, this planprimarily addressed the 8-hour CO NAAQS. On April 21, 1998 (63 FR 19661), we fully approved the SIPas 

### meetingthe applicable CO requirements for the South Coast, with the following exceptions: (1)We took no action on the 

### plan withrespect tothe CAA section 187(b)(2) requirement fortransportation control neasures (TCMs)to offset any growth in emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT)or numbers ofvehicles trips; (2)we tookno action onthe plan with respect to the contingency measure requirements ofCAA sections 172(c)(9) and 187(a)(3); 3(3) we granted interim approval to the RFP provisions under CAA sections 171(1), 172(c)(2), and 187(a)(7); (4) we granted interim approval to the attainment 

### demonstration under CAA section 187(a)(7); and (5) we granted interim 

### approval to-the enhanced I/M program required byCAA 187(a)(6), asdiscussed below.

Interim approval is authorized under 

### section 348(c) ofthe National Highway System Designation Act ("Highway Act," Public Law 104-59, enacted on November 28, 1995) forcertain types of 

### I/M programs and, by extension,to SIP provisions dependent upon reductions 

### from these I/M programs: Wehad previously granted interim approvalto California's enhanced I/Mprogram (62 FR 1160,January 8, 1997). Our 1997 

### interim approval established August 7, 1998, as the expiration ofthe approval ifby such date EPA hadnot approved

a SIP submittal demonstrating thatthe credits claimed for the I/Mprogram are appropriate andtheprogram is otherwise infull compliance with the applicable enhanced I/M requirements. Because the State did not submit the needed demonstration, the approval of the I/M program andthe South Coast CO SIP with respect to RFP and attainment demonstration expired on 

### August 7,1998.

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

measures that would be implemented ifan areafails
to make RFP orto attain the NAAQS by the applicable deadline. For CO areas, CAA section 187[a)(3) requires contingency measures to be implemented if any estimate ofvehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the area for any year prior to the attainment year that is submitted in an annual report under section 187(a)(2)(A) ("VMT tracking report") exceeds the number predicted in the most
recent priorforecast or ifthe area fails to attain the NAAQS by theattainment year. 

### 6987

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6987 2007

### Federal?Register/Vol. 72, No. .30/Wednesdhy: February 14, 2007

### /Proposed Rules

C. CO MaintenancePlan fortheSouth Coast

In 2002, the South Coast attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS,.and onMarch 4, 2005, the SCAQMD adopted the Maintenance Plan, following 30-day public notice (SCAQMD Board Resolution No. 05-8). On February 24, 2006, the California AirResources Board (CARB) adopted the Maintenance Plan (CARB Executive Order G-125- 332) and submitted it to EPA as a SIP revision, along with arequest that we approve aredesignation request to attainment (Letterfrom Lynn Terry, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9). On August 11, 2006, CARB submitted additional technical information relating to the I/M program in the South Coast (Letter from Kurt Karperos, CARB, to Lisa Hanf,EPA Region 9). The attachment to the letter addressed the requirement associated with EPA's 1997 interim approval ofthe enhanced I/M program under the Highway Act, by demonstrating that the California smog check program meets minimum requirements applicable to an enhanced I/M program for CO. In accordance with CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the submittal became complete by operation oflaw on August 25, 2006.

III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment

The criteria for approval ofa redesignation request are set out in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). We review the State's request against each ofthese criteria in our discussionbelow.

A. AttainmentoftheNAAQS

1.Basis for Determining Attainment

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

we determine that the area has attained the NAAQS. EPA makes the determination as to whether an area's air quality is meeting the CO NAAQS based upon air quality data gathered at CO monitoring sites in the nonattainment area which have been entered into the Air Quality System (AQS) database, formerly known as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). This data is reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR 50.8; EPA policy guidance as stated in a memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, entitled "Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations," dated June 18, 1990; and EPA's General Preamble at 57 FR 13535.

The 8-hour and 1-hour CO design values are used to determine attainment ofCO areas, and the design values are determined by reviewing 8 quarters of data, ora total oftwo complete calendar
years ofdata for an area. The 8-hour design value is computed by first finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values at each-monitoringsite for each
year ofthe two calendar years prior to andincluding the attainment date. Then the higher ofthe "second high" values is used as the design value for the monitoring site, andthe highest design value among the various CO.monitoring sites represents the CO design value for -the area. The CO NAAQS requires that not

more than one 8-hour average peryear equals orexceeds 9.5 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9 and

are not considered exceedances). If an

area has a design value that is equal to

orgreater than 9.5 ppm, this means that there was a monitoring site where the second highest (non-overlapping) 8- hour average was measured to be equal

- to orgreater than 9.5 ppm in atleast one

ofthe two years being reviewed to 

### determine attainment for the area. This indicates that there were at leasttwo values above the NAAQS during one year atthat site and thus the NAAQS for CO was not met. Conversely, an 8-hour design value ofless than 9.5 ppm indicates that the area has attained the CO NAAQS.

The 1-hour CO design value is computed in the same manner. An area attains the one-hour CO NAAQS ifthe 1-hour design value is less than 35.5 ppm.
2.Record ofAttainment in the South Coast

The Maintenance Plan presents the attainment air quality data for the South Coast's 22 monitoring stations in Table 2-2 on p. 8. During the period 2002- 2003, there was only one maximum 8- hour average concentration above the standard, a 10.1 ppm concentration recorded at the Lynwood (South Central Los Angeles) site on January 8, 2002, under very stagnant conditions and a strong inversion. The maximum 8-hour concentration atLynwood was 7.7 ppm in 2001 and 7.3 ppmin 2003. There

were no exceedances ofthe 8-hour NAAQS recorded in 2001 and 2003 at any station, and the design value at all stations for the periods 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 was well below the NAAQS.

'A review ofdata input to AQS indicates that the South Coast has continued to attain the CO NAAQS -since2003. The highest second maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations measured at the various monitoring stations during the 2004 through the first quarter of2006 were 8.7 ppm and 6.1 ppm, respectively, both recorded in 2004 at the Lynwofd2 station' in south central Los Angeles County. These values are wellbelow the corresponding CO NAAQS of 35 and 9 ppm. A "quick look" report generated using AQS for the South Coast CO monitoring stations for 2004 through the third quarter of2006 is included in the docket for this proposed rule. The Maintenance Plan indicates that the 1- hour CO NAAQS has not been violated for 25 years inthe South Coast.

Based on the monitoring data presented in the Maintenance Plan and AQS data for the past two years, we propose to determine that the South Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and has continued to attain the NAAQS.

B.FullyApprovedApplicable ImplementationPlan UnderCAA Section 110(k)MeetingRequirements Applicable forPurposesof Redesignation UnderSection 110and Part D
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (V)require EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved applicable SIPunder section 110(k) that meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D forpurposes ofredesignation.

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110

The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are notlimited to, the following: Kubmittal ofa SIPthat has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation ofappropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation ofa source permit
program; provisions for the implementation ofPartC requirement for Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD);provisions forthe implementation ofPart 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 thepast 35 years, CARB and SCAQMD have submitted and we* have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved applicable SIP submittals with respect to the State and SCAQMD. 4 We propose to conclude

4The applicable SIP for CARB and South Coast may be found at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/ r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&state=California.

We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respet to applicable requirements for
purposes ofrgdesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)[E)(ii}. Thus, for example, CAA 

### 6980.

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6988 2007

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

that CARB and SCAQMD have metall
SIP requirements forthe South Coast

area applicable for purposes of redesignation under section 110 ofthe
CAA (General SIP Requirements). With the exceptions discussed below in Sections IuI.B.2-4, the SIP forthe South Coast also has been approved as meeting applicable requirements under Part D of Title I ofthe CAA. See our approval of the South Coast CO attainment SIP at 63, FR 19661-2.

2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding PartD Requirements

a. Introduction

In some designated nonattainment
areas, monitored data demonstrates that the NAAQS have already been achieved. Based onits interpretation ofthe Act, EPA has determined that certain SIP submission requirements ofpartD, subparts 1, 2, and 4 ofthe Act do not apply and therefore do not require certain submissions foran areathat has attained the NAAQS. These include RFP requirements, attainment demonstrations and contingency
measures, because these provisions have the purpose ofhelping achieve attainment of theNAAQS.

The Clean Data Policy is the subject oftwo EPA memoranda setting forth our interpretation of the provisions ofthe

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 fora state are not linkedwith a particular nonattainment area's designationand classification in that state. EPA believesthat the requirements linkedwith aparticular
, . 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 ofthe designation ofanyone particular area in the state.

Thus, we do not believethat these requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes ofredesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Statewill still be subject to these requirements after the South Coast area is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linkedwith a particular area's designation andclassification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewinga redesignation request. This policyis consistent with EPA's existing policyon applicabilityof conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings 61 FR53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7,1997); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio,final rulemaking61 FR 20458 (May 7,1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60 FR62748 (December 7,1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation 65 FR37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). EPA believesthat section 110 elements not linked to thearea's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Act as they apply to areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in afinal rule, 40 CFR 51.918, aspart ofits Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient AirQuality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase2 Final Rule). See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645- 71646 (November 29, 2005). Wehave also applied the same approach to the interpretations ofthe provisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM-10. For detailed discussions ofthis interpretation with respect to the CAA's PM-10 requirements forRFP, attainment demonstrations, and contingency measures, see 71 FR 6352, 6354 (February 8, 2006]; 71 FR 13021, 13024 (March 14, 2006); 71 FR 27440, 27443-27444 (May 11, 2006); and 71 FR 40952, 40954 (July 19, 2006); and 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006).

EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in detail inour Phase 2 Final rule,

our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, andRelated Requirements forOzone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard" (Seitz memo), and our December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled "Clean Data Policy forthe Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (Pagememo), are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions ofsubparts 1 and 3 applicable to CO. EPA's interpretation ofhow the provisions ofthe Act apply
to areas with "clean data" is not logically limited to ozone, PM-2.5, and PM-10, because the rationale is not dependent upon the type ofpollutant. Our interpretation that an area that is attaining the standard is relieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP and to provide an attainment demonstration and contingency measures pursuant to part D ofthe CAA, pertains whether the standard is CO, 1-hour ozone, 8-hour
ozone, PM-2.5, or PM-IO.

b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant standard of certain partD, subpart 1 and 2 (sections 171 and 172) obligations, applies equally as well to part D, subpart 3, which contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions for CO nonattainment areas. As we have explained in the 8-hour ozone Phase 2 Final Rule, our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, and our approval of PM-10 SIPs, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as notto require SIP submissions ifan area subject to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment ofthe NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive
years ofcomplete, quality-assured air quality monitoring data for ozone and PM, and two consecutive years for CO). Three U.S. Circuit Courts ofAppeals have upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation ofsubparts 1 and 2 with respect to ozone. SierraClubv. EPA, 99F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); SierraClubv.EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); OurChildren's Earth Foundation v. EPA,N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion). It has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general provisions ofpartD, subpart 1 ofthe Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission ofSIP revisions concerning RFP for areas already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the General Preamble, we stated:

[Riequirements for RFP willnot apply in evaluating arequest forredesignation to attainment, since, at aminimum, theair quality data forthe areamust show thatthe
area has alreadyattainedrA showingthat the State will make RFP toward attainment will, therefore, have no meaning atthat point.57 FR at 13564.
See also page 6 ofthe guidance memorandum entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" from John Calcagni, Director.,Air Quality Management Division, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional AirDivision Directors, dated September 4, 1992 (CalcagniMemo, available athttp://www.epa.gov/ttnl naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf).

EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the CO RFP provisions ofpart D, subpart 3.

With respect to RFP, CAA section 171(1) states that,for purposes ofpart D of titleI, RFP

-
means such annual incremental reductions in emissionsofthe relevant air pollutant as are required bythis partor may reasonablybe required bytheAdministrator for the purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicableNAAQS bythe applicabledate.
The stated purpose ofRFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement ofsection 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), the PM-10 specific RFP requirements ofsection 189(c)(1), orthe CO-specific RFP requirements ofsection 187(a)(7).

Section 187(a)(7) states that the SIP for moderate CO areas with a design value greater than 12.7 must: 

### 6989

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6989 2007

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

provide a demonstration that theplan as revised willprovide for attainment ofthe carbon monoxide NAAQS by the applicable attainment date andprovisions for such specific annual emission reductions as are necessaryto attain the standard by that date.
This same requirement also applies to serious CO areas in accordance with CAA section 187(b)(1).

Itis clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further specific annual emission reductions are necessary or meaningful. With respect to CO areas, this interpretation is supported by language in section 187(d)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve the milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state achieves the "pecific annual reductions in carbon monoxide emissions set forth in the plan by the attainment date." 5 Section 187(d)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve the milestone does not continue after attainment ofthe NAAQS.

Ifan area has infact attained the standard, the stated purpose ofthe RFP and specific annual emissions reductions requirements will have already been fulfilled.6 The specific

5AA section 187(d), CO Milestone, applies to
serious CO areas and requires:

(1)

The state to submit a demonstration that the

areahas achieved certain specificannual emission reductions (187(d)(1));

(2) EPA to determine whether the demonstration is adequate within 90 days (187(d)(2)); and

(3) the state to submit a planrevision within 9 months ofEPA's notification that the state hasnot
met themilestone, suchplan to implement CAA section 182(g)(4) economic incentive and transportation control programs sufficient to achieve the specific annual emission reductions by theattainment date (187(d)(3)).

EPA interprets these provisions consistent with its interpretation ofSection 182(g) in Subpart 2. See May 10, 1995 Seitz Memorandum at p. 5. There, EPA included in its identification of SIP submission requirements linked with attainment and RFP requirements the "Section 182(g) requirements concerning milestones that are based on the section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C) submissions." In Subpar! 3, similarly, milestone requirements are based on the section 187(a)(7) specific annual emission reduction requirements.

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

a distinction without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks ofthe PM-10 nonattainment area RFP requirement as one tobe achieved until anarea is "redesignated as attainment", as opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the requirement pertains, or the ozone and CO nonattainment area RFPrequirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2) for ozone and 187(a)(7) for CO, which refer to the RFP requirements as applying until the "attainment date", since, section 189(c)(1) defines RFPby reference to section 171(1) ofthe Act. Reference to 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozonespecific requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) and the CO-specific requirements of section 187(a)(7), the PM-specific requirements may only be required forthe purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date." 42 U.S.C. annual emission reductions required are only those necessary to attainthe standard by the attainment date. EPA took this position with respect to the general RFP requirement ofsection 172(c)(2) inthe April-16, 1992 General Preamble and also inthe May 10, 1995 memorandum withrespect to the requirements of sections 182(b) and (c). We are proposing to extend that interpretation to the specific provisions ofpart D, subpart 3.

With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 187(a)(7), an analogous rationale leads
to the same result. Section 187(a)(7) requires that the State submit

arevision to provide, and a demonstration that theplan asrevised will provide for
attainment ofthe carbon monoxide NAAQS bythe applicable attainment date and provisions for such specific annual emission reductions as are necessary to attainthe standard by that date.
As with the RFP requirements, ifan area is already monitoring attainmeit ofthe standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation ofthe section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, the Page

memo and ofthe section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forthin the Seitz

memo. As EPA stated inthe General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since "attainment will have been reached." (57 FR at 13564).

c. Contingency Provisions (1) CAA Section 172(c)(9)

Other SIP submission requirements

are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9), and the special contingency provisions applicable to

ozone and CO plans. Section 172(c)(9) requires a State to submit contingency

measures that will be implemented ifan

area fails to make "reasonable further progress" or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date. 7 Thus, the

section 7501(1). As discussed in the text ofthis rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFPrequirements, in light ofthe definition ofRFP in section 171(1),
to be a requirement that nolonger applies once the standard has been attained.

IRFP means "such annual incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutant

as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for thepurpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable national ambient air quality standardby the applicable date." CAA Section 171(1).. stated purpose ofthe contingency

measure requirement is to* ensure RFP (thepurpose ofwhich is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date) and attainment by the applicable attainment date. Ifan area has infact attained the standard bythe applicable attainment date, the stated purpose of the contingency measure requirement will have already been fulfilled. Consequently, we believe that the requirement for a State to submit revisions providing formeasures to meetthe contingency provisions of section 172(c)(9) no longerapplies for

an area that we find as having attained the relevant NAAQS bythe applicable attainment date.

We note that we took this view with respect to the general contingency

measure requirement ofsection 172(c)(9) in our General Preamble. In the General Preamble, we stated, in the
context ofa discussion ofthe requirements applicable to the evaluation ofrequests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the "section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures * * * nolonger apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation." See 57 FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also Calcagni memo, p. 6.

We propose to extend the same reasoning to CO plans with respect to the section 172(c)(9) contingency provision requirements, since our reasoning is equally applicable regardless ofthe pollutant. Moreover, just as we concluded that the pollutantspecific contingency measure requirements ofsection 182(c)(9) for

ozone areas also no longer apply to

areas attaining the ozone NAAQS, we propose below that the CO-specific contingency provisions of section 187(a)(3) no longer apply atthe time we findthat an area has attained the CO NAAQS.
(2) CAA Section 187(a)(3)

Section 187(a)(3) requires contingency

measures to be implemented
ifany estimate ofvehicle milestraveled in the area which is submitted in an annual report underparagraph (2)exceeds the number predicted in the mostrecent prior forecast orifthe area fails to attain the. national primary ambient airquality standard for carbon monoxide by the primary standard attainment date.

Thus, the Act establishes two triggers for implementation ofcontingency

measures required under this provision. The firsttrigger is associated with CAA section 187(a)(2), which requires plans for areas with a design value above 12.7 ppm at the time of classification to 

### 6990

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6990 2007

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 72, No. 30

### /Wednesday, February 14, 2007 /Proposed Rules

include "a forecast ofvehicle'miles traveled in the nonattainment area concerned foreach yearbefore the year in whichtheplan projects the national ambient air quality standard forcarbon monoxide tobe attained in the area," along with annual updates ofthe forecasts to be submitted to theAdministrator together with 

### annual reportsregarding the extenttowhich such forecasts proved to beaccurate. Such annual reports shall contain estimates of actual vehicle miles traveled ineach yearfor which a forecast was required. 

### The plan's contingency measures must be implemented "ifthe prior forecast has beenexceeded by an updated forecast * * *." Both the forecasts and 

### reports arerequired onlyuntil the SIP's projected attainment year. Followingthe plan's projected attainment year, which is the last yearofthe VMT forecasts, this trigger disappears.

The secondtrigger ofthe contingency provision is a failure ofthe area to attain the primary CO standard bythe applicable deadline, for the evident purpose ofensuring that such an area furtherreduces emissions as needed to attain the NAAQS. Once an area has actually attained the CO NAAQS, this second trigger is clearly eliminated.

Thus, the CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency provisionhas no further practical effect whenthe two contingency triggers ceaseto exist. Moreover, the implicit goal ofthe contingency provision, toreduce motor vehicle-related CO emissions tothe extent needed toachieve annual progress and eventual attainment, would havebeen accomplished when

an area comes into attainment. Therefore, we propose to conclude that

an area thatis attaining the CO standards is relieved ofan obligation to provide contingency measures pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(3).

CAA section 187(b)(2) requires that CO serious area plans include TCMs as prescribed inCAA section.182(d)(1) for

ozone areas, except that the TCMs relate to CO emissions rather thanvolatile organic compound emissions. Section 182(d)(1) requires that plans for severe
ozone areas mustinclude TCMs tobe implemented

to offsetanygrowth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled ornumbers ofvehicle trips in such area and to attain reduction in motorvehicle emissions as necessary, in combination with other emission reduction requirements ofthis subpart, to comply with therequirements of. subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) (pertaining
to periodic emissions reduction requirements).

The section 187(b)(2) TCMs are 

### required to be submitted ifCO emissions are expected to increase from growthin VMT or vehicle trips, and to meet RFP or attainment. For the same
reasonthat therequirement forRFP no longer appliesto an area that has attained the NAAQS, therequirement formeasures to contribute toRFP no longer applies following a finding of attainment. Thus EPA interprets the provisions ofsection 187(b)(2)(A) that cross-reference section 182(d)(1) so as to suspend those provisions pertaining to periodic emissions reductions. requirements for so long as the area is attaining the standard. In aMay 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, we identified

as among those requirements that could be.suspended upon finding of attainment "the elements ofthe * * * 

### requirements ofsection 182(d)(1)(A) concerning vehicle miles traveled that

arerelated toRFP requirements." (p. 2). Withrespect to therequirement for TCMs to offset any growth inemissions from VMT, see Section 3below.
d. Conclusion

As noted above, the South Coast area does.not currently have an approved SIP with respect tothe requirements for RFP, attainment, contingency provisions, and TCMs related toRFP requirements. However, we believe that, forthereasons set forth here.and established inourprior "clean data" memoranda andrulemakings, a CO nonattainment area thathas "clean data,' should berelieved ofthe partD, subpart 3obligations to provide an attainment demonstration with specific annual emissionreductions pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(7); the CAA section 187(d) milestone demonstration requirement; contingency provisions pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(3)); and TCMs related toRFP requirements pursuant to 187(b)(2); aswell as the attainment demonstration, RFP, and contingency measure provisions ofpart D, subpart 1contained in section 172 of theAct.

Here, as in bothour 8-hour ozone Phase 2final rule and 1-hour ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension of-a requirement to submit these SIP revisions exists only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment ofthe standard.If such an area experiences a violation of the NAAQS, the basis forthe requirements being suspended would

nolonger exist. Therefore, the area would againbe subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIPrevision or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one ofthe SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension ofthe requirement for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard. However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to attainment, the

area willbe entirely relieved ofthese requirements to the extent the maintenance plan for the area does not rely onthem.

Should we at some future time' determine that an area that had clean data,but which has not yetbeen redesignated as attainment fora NAAQS, has violated the relevant standard, the areawould again be required to submitthe pertinent requirements under the SIP for the area. Attainment determinations under the policy do not shield an area from other required actions, such as provisions to address pollution transport.

As setforth, above, we propose to find thatbecause the South Coast areahas continued to attain the NAAQS the requirement of an attainment demonstration, reasonable further
progress, milestone demonstration, TCMs related to RFP, and contingency

measures no longer apply.

3. TCMs To Offset Growth inEmissions FromVMT Increases

As noted above, the section 187(b)(2) TCMs are required to be submitted if CO emissions are expected to increase from growth in VMT orvehicle trips.

EPA has concluded that states are not required to submit such measures ifthe SIP includes a demonstration that, despite any growth in projected VMT, CO emissions will decline eachyear throughthe attainment year. 8 In the General Preamble, we statethat: "If projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are nothigher than during the ozone season the year before, given the control

measures inthe SIP, the VMT offset requirement is satisfied." General

- Preamble at 57 FR 13522.

The 1997 CO Plan contains a demonstration that CO emissions from
motor vehicles decline each year through .the attainment year (Appendix V, page V-5-4, Table 5-2 "Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/day) Projected from 1993 through 2000 for the South Coast Air Basin"). This table shows that no additional TCMs are required to prevent an increase in emissions associated with a growth in VMT or trips, since emissions are shown to decline each year through the attainment year despite increases in

8See, for example, EPA'sfinal approval of Illinois' VMT SIP at 60 FR48896, 48897 (September 21, 1995). 

### 6991

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6991 2007Federal Register

### /Vol. 72, No. 30/Wednesday, February 14, 2007/ Proposed Rules

VMT andtrip numbers.9 The Maintenance Plan includes revised and updated VMT forecasts for each year from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4-1). The Maintenance Plan also includes revised and updated projected CO emissions from motor vehicles from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4-2),-showing

a continuing sharp decline in CO emissions despite the growth inVMT and trips. Consequently, We conclude that no TCMs are required to satisfy the
progress requirements ofthe Actor to offset growth in CO emissions from growth in VMT or xehicle trips. We therefore propose to approve the 1997 CO Plan, and the update through the year ofattainment (2002) inthe Maintenance Plan, as meeting the provisions ofCAA section 187(b)(2).

4. Requirement forEnhanced I/M Program

Therequirement for an enhanced
motor vehicle I/Mprogram under CAA section 187(a)(6) applies to the South Coast by virtue ofthe area's designation

as a serious nonatfainment area forCO, inaccordance with CAA section 187(b)(1). On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the -requirementsfor basic and enhanced I/ M programs in the various ozone and CO nonattainment areas in the State.

. On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), we approved the State's basic I/Mprogram

as meeting the CAA section 182(b)(4) requirement for moderate ozone areas, within California, andthe CAA section 187(a)(4) requirement for I/M program corrections applicable to California's moderate CO areas with a design value ofless than 12.7 ppm at the time of classification. Inthe same rule, we granted interim approval to the State's enhanced I/M program under section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act, as meeting the CAA section 182(c)(3) requirement for serious and above ozone areas, and CAA 187(a)(6) for serious CO areas.

In accordance with the State's request,

we approved the I/M program as meeting the high enhanced requirements (see discussion below). As provided in the Highway Act, the interim approval was fora period of18 months (i.e., until August 7, 1998), by which time the approval would expire unless we had approved a SIP demonstrating that the credits claimed for the program are appropriate and the I/M program is otherwise incompliance with the Clean Air Act. See 40 CFR 52.241.

When we subsequently ruled onthe South Coast CO SIP, we also granted interim approval to the progress and attainment provisions ofthe plan, since fulfillment ofthose requirements depended upon emission reductions from the enhanced I/M program. (63 FR. 19661, April 21, 1998).

California failed to make the SIP submittal required under the Highway Act to substantiate the emission reductions claimed for the enhanced I/ M program and, as.aresult, the interim approval ofthe enhanced I/M program and the progress and attainment demonstration provisions ofthe South Coast CO SIP expired by operation of law on August 7, 1998. In Section III.B.2.b, we discuss this lapsed approval and our interpretation that the Clean Data Policy allows us to suspend the requirements forprogress and attainment demonstration as they apply
to the South Coast CO SIP.

With the submittal ofthe South Coast CO Maintenance Plan and redesignation request, the State included a SIP revision documenting that: (1)The I/M program delivered CO emission reductions sufficient, along with other control measures, to lead to attainment ofthe CO NAAQS inthe South Coast, and (2) the I/M program meets the-lowenhanced I/M performance requirements.for CO in the South Coast.

The State's transmittal letter included

a table ofthe wintertime CO emissions reduction benefits inthe South Coast from the currentI/M program, along with a copy ofthe September 2005 Report to the Legislature regarding ARB's &"April 2004 Evaluation ofthe California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program." The table shows the following reductions:

TABLE 1.-WINTER SEASON CO EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS INTHE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM [In tons per day]

Year

....................................................... Reductions

....................................................................................................................... 1990 19931 2000 1 2006 2010 494 459 291 671 618

Because these substantial emission reductions did, in fact, result in attainment ofthe CO NAAQS inthe South Coast, we agree with the State that the enhanced I/M program proved adequate to meet attainment needs for the area.

The State requests that we also now determine that the program meets other low enhanced I/M program requirements. This would allow usto conclude, for purposes ofthe redesignation provisions ofCAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), that the area has metthe applicable requirement for an enhanced I/M program under CAA sections 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1).

On September 18, 1995, we amended

our regulatory requirements for

5Motor vehicle VMT forecasts foreach year are shown inTable 5-1. Despitethis annual growth, enhanced I/M programs (60 FR48029). Among other changes, we established a low enhanced performance standard as

an option forareas subject to the enhanced I/M requirement and meeting the following requirements set out in40 CFR 51.351(g) regarding RFP and attainment: (1) The area is either not subject to orhas an approved SIP for RFP in 1996, and (2) the area does not have a disapproved post-1996 RFP plan

or a disapproved attainment plan for

ozone or CO. South Coast meets these requirements because ithas an approved plan forRFP in 1996 for

ozone, (62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997) and has no disapproved post-1996 RFP plan or a disapproved attainment plan for ozone orCO.

emissions frommotor vehicles are shown inTable 5-2 to decline asfollows: 1993-5909, 1994-5522, The low enhanced I/M requirements
set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g), and further described in the preamble, establish specific program test elements generally equivalent to those fora basic I/M program, as set out in 40 CFR 51.352. The key difference in testrequirements between thebasic andthe low enhanced I/M program are two additional requirements for low enhanced
programs: visual inspection ofemission control device inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8), and testing oflight dutytrucks rated up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) as prescribed in40 CFR 51.351(g)(5). Additionally, 40 CFR 51.351(b) requires on-road testing of 0.5% ofthe subject fleet or 20,000

1995-5135, 1996-4596,1997-4057,1998-3784, 1999-3511, 2000-3298. 

### 6992

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6992 2007

### Federal Register/Vol. 72, No.-30 /Wednesday, February 1-4; 2007 /Propgod-Ru]iea

vehicles, whichever is less, and40 CFR 51.351(c) requires inspectiori ofall 1996 and later vehicles equipped with onboard diagnostics (OBD) systems.

As mentioned above, we fully approved California's I/Mprogram as meeting the basic I/M performance standard on January 8, 1997. 62 FR 1150 and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(234). California has now shown that its I/M program also meets the low enhanced I/M performance standard andmeets the four requirements mentioned above. 10

(1) Since March 1984, the State has required visual inspection ofthe positive crankcase ventilation valve and ofthe exhaust gas recirculation valve on all vehicles subject to the I/M program, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8). See Health &Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44012(f); Title 16, California Code ofRegulations, Division 33, Bureau ofAutomotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, section 3340.42; and BAR 97 Specifications sections 3.3.9 and 3.6.18.

- (2) Since March 1984, the State I/M
program has applied to light duty trucks rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(5). See Health &Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44011, and Title 16, California Code ofRegulations, Division 33, Bureau ofAutomotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, Section 3340.5.

(3) Since 1998, California has conducted random roadside pullover inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(b), under the authority ofHealth &Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44081.

(4) Since 2002, California has inspected 1996 and later OBD-equipped vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(c). See Health &Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44036(b)(10); Title 16, California Code ofRegulations, Division 33, Bureau of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, Section 3340.42; andBAR 97 Specifications, Sections 2 and 3.

In summary, we conclude that: (1) The State was entitled to elect to implement a low enhanced I/M program for CO in the South Coast; (2) the program, as implemented by the State, delivered actual CO emission reductions sufficient (along with reductions from other measures) to attain the CO NAAQS in the South Coast; (3)the State's program has been federally approved as meeting the basic I/M performance standard; and (4) the

1See August 11, 2006, letter from KurtKarperos, CARB, to Lisa Hanf,EPA Region 9, fortechnical information about this demonstration. State's program meets the low enhanced: I/M performance standard. Consequently, we find that the State met the CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) enhanced I/M requirements that applied
to the South Coast CO nonattainment

area prior to and at the time ofthe submission ofthe redesignation request.

Finally, we note that the State has indicated that it intends to continue to implement the enhanced I/M program in the South Coast, and continued CO emission reduction benefits from the program are incorporated in the projected emissions inventory that is part ofthe maintenance demonstration in the submitted maintenance plan.

5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Program

Pursuant to CAA section 211(m), CO nonattainment areas with design values of 9.5 ppm or higher mustimplement a wintertime oxygenated gasoline program requiring that gasoline contain
not less than 2.7 percent oxygen by weight. In addition, CAA section 187(b)(3) requires that all serious CO

areas implement such a program. California submitted its motor vehicle fuels regulations, including requirements forwintertime oxygen content, on November 15, 1994. We approved the regulations on August 21, 1995, as meeting the applicable CAA requirements. 60 FR 43379. The requirements remain in effect in the South Coast area, although the State has amended the program in other areas.
6. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, we propose to determine that all ofthe provisions ofCAA section 110 and part D applicable to the South Coast CO area for purposes ofredesignatio'n have been approved into the California SIP.

C. ImprovementinAir QualityIsDueto PermanentandEnforceableMeasures

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) establishes that, as a prerequisite to redesignation to attainment,
the Administrator determines that the improvement in airquality is due to permanent andenforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal airpollutant control regulations and otherpermanent and enforceable reductions * *

The Maintenance Plan provides evidence that the meteorological conditions for the years when the South Coast attained the CO NAAQS were
more conducive to higher ambient CO concentrations than the long term mean. During the same period, dailyVMT increased at thenormal rate of growth, from 322.8 milli6n miles in 2001 to ! * 330.4 million miles in 2003, so activity levels associated withmotor vehicles, the primary CO source in the South Coast, were not abnormal. Maintenance Plan, p. 6. Increasing CO emission reductions associated with State and Federal motor vehicle standards, coupled with SCAQMD's CO emission limits on stationary and area sources, provide additional evidence that attainment results from the SIP's permanent and reliable controls on CO emissions rather than favorable meteorology or depressed activity levels. The largest source ofemissions reductions during this period came from progressively more stringent State emission standards for cars, trucks, buses, and nonroad equipment, including forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, and marine pleasurecraft. 1 1

We propose to find that this prerequisite to redesignation has been
met.

D.FullyApprovedMaintenancePlan

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that,before we redesignate an area to attainment, we must have "fully approved a maintenance plan for the

area as meeting the requirements of section 175A * * *."
1.Applicable Requirements

Section 175A ofthe CAA sets forth the elements ofa maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS forat least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment. Eight years after the promulgation ofthe redesignation, the State must submit arevised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the subsequent ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the possibility offuture NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule

"Documentation onthese and other California mobile souce standards may be found at: http:// www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/msprog.htm. EPAhas acted over theyears to waive Federal preemption ofState standards for California's motor vehicle standards as authorized by CAA section 209(b) and nonroad engine standards as authorized by CAA section 209(e)(2). Under these CAA sections, EPA
must grant the waiver unlessthe Adminsitrator finds that: (1) Califronia's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective ofpublichealth and welfare as applicable Federal standards is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) [or 209 fornonroad] ofthe CAA. 

### 6993

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6993 2007

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

for adoption andimplementation, that

are adequate to assure prompt correction ofa violation.

We haveissued guidance on maintenance plans, including most notably: (1)The General Preamble (57 FR 13498,April 16, 1992), and (2)the Calcagni memo. In this action, we propose to approve the Maintenance Planbecause we believe that itmeets therequirements ofCAA section 175A and is consistent with the documents referenced above and other documents identified in the discussion below. 2. Maintenance Plan Provisions

a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment Year and Future Years

The Maintenance Plan includes emissions inventories for the attainment
year (2002) and forfuture years 2005, 2010, and 2015, along with motor vehicle emissions for 2020. The methodologies for the inventories are discussed onpages 14-16, including an extensive discussion ofadjustments to projected mobile source emissions to reflect the impact ofpossible suspension ofwintertime oxygenate " requirement forgasoline inthe South Coast.' 2 Table 2 below reproduces emissions data primarily from Table 3- 2 ofthe Maintenance Plan. For 2020, the onroad emissions data are presented in Attachment 3 to the plan. Attachment 3 provides winter emissions for motor vehicles under two scenarios, SCAG 2001 RTP baseline case (1078 tpd) and SCAG 2001 RTP plan case (941 tpd). The Maintenance Plan does notinclude inventories for stationary, areawide, and nonroad sources for 2020. InTable 2, the 2020 projected emissions are derived from CARB's latest annual updated emissions analysis for these inventory categories. The data are taken from The California Almanacof Emissionsand Air Quality,2006 Edition,Table 4-10, available at: http://www.arb.ca.govl aqd/almanac/almanaco6/chap406.htm.

TABLE 2.-SOUTH COAST PROJECTED WINTER 

### CO EMISSIONS INVENTORY [In tons per day]

Category '2002 2005 2010 2015 2020

Stationary

................................................................ 53 55 59 64 69
Areawide

.......................................................................................................................................... 315 318 325 332 7,9
Onroad

............................................................................................................................................. 3402 2668 2018 1428 1078 Onroad with oxygenatedfuel adjustment

........................................................................................ 3402 2668 3041 1444
Nonroad

........................................................................................................................................... 1065 987 912 890 953 Nonroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment

...................................................................... t

............... 1065 987 921 899

Total

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

The table shows that maintenance of the NAAQS would be expected primarily from large reductions in the onroad category, which result from the
turnover ofcars and trucks, as older and

more polluting vehicles are retired and replaced with newer and much cleaner vehicles.

The projected 2015 and 2020 onroad emissions were generated using CARB's
motor vehicle emissions factor model, EMFAC2002v2.2, interpolating vehicle populations from calendar year 2010 and 2020 populations, as set oiit in Maintenance Plan, Attachment 2 (CO Modeling Attainment Demonstration Extracted from the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix V, Section 4), Attachment 3 (CARB Assessment 549: South Coast Air Basin CO Maintenance Plan Winter Emissions).

EMFAC2002v2.2 was the most recent EPA-approved.motor vehicle emissions factor model at the time the Maintenance Plan was prepared, but

12 Section 3.1.2 ofthe Maintenance Plan discusses the possibility that the State might determine in future to rescind the wintertime oxygenated fuel requirement as a primary measure. As discussed below, data from the California Almanacof
Emissionsand Air Quality,2006 Edition, were used to complete the emissions profile for 2020. The Almanac does not provide projected emissions for

a future scenario in which the wintertime oxygenated fuel requirement is shifted from a CARB expects to update the model in the near future as part ofthe preparation ofSIPs due to be submittedby the State in 2007.13 Other aspects ofthe emissions inventory were current, accurate, and complete at the time of plan preparation, and comply with applicable EPA guidance on the preparation ofemission inventories. We therefore propose to approve the MaintenancePlan with respect to its emissions inventories.

b. Maintenance Demonstration

CAA section 175A(a) requires that the maintenance plan "provide forthe maintenance ofthe national primary ambient air quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at least 10 years after the redesignation." Generally, a statemay demonstrate maintenance ofthe CO NAAQS by either showing that future emissions will not exceed the level ofthe attainment inventory orby modeling to

primary measure to a contingency measure. Therefore, the 2020 column in Table 2 does not show these projections. Ifthe State wishes in future
to change the wintertime oxygenated fuel program from an active measure to a contingency measure, the State will need at that time to update the quantification ofthe impact on COemissions, and demonstrate that the proposed revision will not interfere with continued maintenance or any other applicable requirement. show that the future mix ofsources and emissions rates will not cause a violation ofthe NAAQS. For areas that

are required under the Act to submit modeled attainment demonstrations, the maintenance demonstration should use the same type ofmodeling. Calcagni
memo, p. 9. Because the design value forthe SouthCoast exceeded 12.7 ppm and the area is classified as serious, modeling would have beenrequired as part ofthe attainment demonstration under CAA section 187(b)(7)(i). The Maintenance Plan includes a modeled maintenance demonstration.14

The modeling demonstration is discussed onpages 12-13 ofthe Maintenance Plan, and atmore length in Attachment 2.Regional modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model (CAMx) and an October 31-November 1, 1997 meteorological episode, which ranked in the 98th percentile in stagnation severity. Additional hot-spot roadway intersection modeling using

13

We approved the use ofEMFAC2002 to estimate motor vehicle emissions on April 2, 2003 (68 FR 15720).

14However, where there is a determination of attainment, the requirement for an attainment demonstration is suspended and demonstrations of maintenance canbe either byemissions inventory

or modeling. See Wall v.EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 435- 436 (6thCir.2001). 

### 6'994

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6994 2007

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

the CAL3QHC model was used to demonstrate attainment at high-volume intersections. The modeling estimated the South Coast CO carrying capacity to be 4,527 tpd. For the 2005 emissions inventory level of4028, modeling predicted the 8-hour maximum concentration tobe 7.8 ppm, and the 1- hour maximum to be 8.5 ppm. Concentrations still further below the NAAQS are associated with the 2015 and 2020 inventory levels, primarily due to significant reductions inthe dominant motor vehicle emissions category (2668 tpd in 2005, 1428 in 2015, and 1078 in 2020)..The demonstration covers a 13-year period (from 2007 through 2020), although primarily referencing the 2015 year.

The CAMx modeling approach used in the Maintenance Plan is an EPAapproved model and the modeling performance is fully acceptable. Moreover, the declining projected emissions inventories for the span ofthe maintenance demonstration also support continued maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Wetherefore propose to approve the demonstration of maintenance.

c. Monitoring Network and Verification ofContinued Attainment

The Calcagni Memo provides that

areas must continue to operate an air quality monitoring network to verify attainment. CO is currently monitored in accordance with40 CFRPart 50, Appendix C and 40 CFRPart 58 at 22 stations. SCAQMD continues to assure the quality ofthe measured data by conducting routine calibrations, pre-run and post-run test procedures, and routine service checks. The District also completes an annual review ofthe monitoring network'to document continued compliance with siting criteria. The SCAQMD commits inthe Maintenance Plan to verify continued maintenance by daily analysis of air quality data collected (pp. 22-23). Furthermore, the District commits to a formal review ofthe Maintenance Plan in 2007 and 2010 (p. 24). We propose to approve the Maintenance Plan with respect to the obligation to continue to monitor and verify attainment.

d. Contingency Provision

CAA section 175A(d) requires that maintenance plans include provisions that EPA deems are necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any NAAQS violation, and further requires that such provisions include a requirement that the State will implement all measures contained in the SIPbefore redesignation. Wehave concluded that contingency measures 

### neednot be newmeasures that would be triggered by aviolation, but may 

### consistofearly implementation of

measures that provide surplus reductions beyond those needed for 

### attainment ormaintenance. See "Early Implementation ofContingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,"

memo from G.T. Helms toEPA Air Branch Chiefs, August 13, 1993.

The Maintenance Plantakes this approach, providing a large marginof emissions from fully adopted State regulations, such as tighter emission standards forall categories ofmotor vehicles and fornonroad engines, such

as forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, and marine pleasure craft. See discussion above inSection III.C., providing a more extensive list of measures, referencing the extensive CARB documentation available for each measure, and discussing the EPA waiver process applicable tothese California mobile source standards. There is no reason to expect thatthese standards, which are allcurrently in effect, will be relaxed in the future. Nor is there reason tobelieve that compliance willbe inadequate, since CARB has formany decades maintained a successful enforcement program.For details on CARB's mobile source enforcement program fornew and existing vehicles and engines, see: http://www.arb.ca.govenf/enf.htm.

As aresult, the predicted emissions for 2015 are approximately 43 percent below the 2002 attainment year emissions levels, andthis margin of

excess reductions is projected to increase further infuture years dueto the State's progressively tighter emissions standards fornew mobile

source engines coupled with fleet turnover ofthe onroad andnonroad fleet.

The SCAQMD and CARB have committed to continue toimplement all existing measures to achieve permanent, enforceable CO emissionreductions that willfurther reduce CO levels (Maintenance Plan, Chapters 2and 3; CARB's letter toEPA dated February 24, 2006). The Maintenance Plan does evaluate, however, therelatively small emissions impact ofapossible future decision to suspend implementation of the wintertime oxygenate program in the South Coast (seeTable 2above). The methodology and assumptions for calculating the impact are discussed at

15

The MVEB for 2020 was clarified in letters from dated February 2, 2007, and from Laid Tisopulos, SyliaOey, CARB, to Dave Jeasson,EPA Region 9, SCAQMD, to Dave Jesson, dated February 2, 2007, length on pp. 15-16 and inAttachment A to the Maintenance Plan. Ifthe State decides infuture to suspend the wintertime oxygenated fuel requirement, the State would need to submit a SIP revision complying with applicable CAA requirements.

For the above reasons, we propose to approve the contingency provisions in the Maintenance Plan as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 175A(d).

e. Commitment To Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisons

CAA section 179A(b) provides that States shall submit acommitment to submit a SIP revision 8 years after redesignation providing for maintaining the NAAQS for an additional 10 years. SCAQMD has made this commitment as part ofthe Maintenance Plan (see p. 22), and we propose to approve it.

f.MotorVehicle Emissions Budgets

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) ofthe CAA. Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity tothe SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards.

Maintenance plan submittals must specify the maximum emissions of transportation-related CO emissions allowed in the lastyear ofthe maintenance period, i.e., the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB). The submittal must also demonstrate that these emissions levels, when considered withemissions from all other sources,

are consistent with maintenance ofthe NAAQS. In order forus to find these emissions levels or "budgets" adequate and approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions of40 CFR93.118(e)(4) and (5), and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. For more information onthe transportation conformity requirement and applicable policies onMVEBs, please visit our transportation conformity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaql stateresources/transconf/index.htm.

The Maintenance Plan includes the CO MVEBs shown inTable 3below. The budgets are based onTable 3-5 of the plan and other documentation in Section 3.1.3 ofthe plan.15 See also the

and ane-mail fromJonathan Nadler, SCAG, to Dave Jesson, dated February 2,2007. 

### 6995

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6995 2007Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 30

### /Wednesday, February 14, 2007

### /Proposed Rules

discussion ofprojected emissions in-, Section III.D.2.a., above.

TABLE 3.-SOUTH COAST CO MAINTENANCE PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS [Winter season emissions intons per day]
Category 2005 2010 2015 2020

Total Air Basin Emissions

.................................................................. 4028 3346 2739 2179 MotorVehicle Emissions

............................................................................................................................. 2668 2041 1444 1078 S

afety Margins

.................................................................................................................................................. 220 96 693 1059 MotorVehicle Emissions Budgets

.................................................................................................................. 2888 2137 2137 2137 Total Air Basin Emissions with Safety Margin

............................................. 4248 3442 3432 3196 ModeledAir Basin Emissions

.......................................................................................................................... 4528 4528 4528 4528

In setting MVEBs, States generally use motor vehicle emission inventories. California took this approach, for example, inthe 1997 CO attainment plan. California need not, however, cap MVEBs atprojected motor vehicle emissions levels. Because overall projected levels of emissions from all

sources are expected to be less than the -levels necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS, California has a "safety margin" that the State may use to set MVEBs ata higher level. As long as emissions from all sources are lower than needed to provide for continued " maintenance, the State may allocate additional emissions to future mobile

source growth by assigning a portion of the safety margin to the MVEBs (see40 CFR 93.124). California stated inthe Maintenance Planthat the safety. margins described inTable 3above are allocated to the MVEBs.

Attainment was achieved in 2002 when the CO emissions level in the basin was 4835 tpd. The modeled attainment level is 4527 tpd. As can be

seen from Table 3, total basin emissions, with the safety margin, are substantially below actual and modeled attainment levels. Thus, the safety margins comply with the requirement that thebudgets with safety margins are lower than the maintenance level.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate and approvable for conformity purposes

are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following paragraphs provide

ourreview ofthe budgets inthe Maintenance Plan against our adequacy criteria and provide the basis for our proposed appioval ofthe MVEBs.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we. review a submitted plan to determine whether the plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee) and was subject
to apublic hearing. TheFebruary 24, 2006 transmittal letter for the Maintenance Plan was signed by the CARB Executive Officer, the Governor's -designee for SIPpurposes. CARE Executive Order G-125-332 provides evidence ofState adoption and legal authority. SCAQMD's April 19, 2005 transmittal letter documents that the District held apublic hearing on the Maintenance Plan on March 4, 2005, after proper public notice. Therefore, we propose to conclude that the submitted plan meets the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).

Under 40 CFR,93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with Federal, State and local agencies and whether full implementation plan documentation

was provided to EPA and EPA's stated
concerns, ifany, were addressed. Consultation for development ofthis plan largely consisted ofpublic meetings (page 75 ofthe plan); discussions with Federal, State, and local transportation planning agencies; and apublic hearing, preceded by notices that were published in
newspapers ofgeneral circulation. Documentation was provided to EPA and EPA's stated concerns were addressed. We propose to conclude that this consultation is sufficient for the purposes of40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review asubmitted plan to determine whether the MVEBs are clearly identified and precisely quantified. The Maintenance Plan clearly identifies and precisely quantifies the CO MVEBs as shown in Table 3above. The budgets

are derived from EMFAC2002 with travel activity data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The methodology and rationale for determining the MVEBsis discussed on pages 17. through 22 ofthe plan. This portion of the plan also indicates that modeling

- sensitivity analyses confirm that the

budgets would provide for maintenance

even assuming possible changes in future to the estimation ofmotor vehicle emissions. We propose that the plan thereby meets the adequacy criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii). Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the MVEBs, when considered togetherwith all other emissions
sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, ormaintenance -(whichever isrelevant to a given SIP submission). The Maintenance Plan shows how the MVEBs and related safety margins are consistent with maintenance ofthe CO NAAQS through 2015 (see pages 12 through 16 ofthe Maintenance Plan) and 2020 (see " Attachment 3). In particular, Table 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, and 3-6 ofthe Maintenance Plan show the extent-to which maximum future year emissions (including the budget safety margins) fall below emissions for the 2002 attainment year andbelow the modeled 2003 emissions, which are associated with ambient concentration levels that

are below boththe 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS. "Assessment 549" on page 74 ofthe plan shows that this trend of lower CO emissions continues through 2020, despite projected VMT increases. Consequently, we propose to findthat the plan meets this criterion for adequacy.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we review a plan to determine whether the M'VBs are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy plan or maintenance plan.The Maintenance Plan contains no
new measures butthe budgets appropriately reflect the State's adopted emissions standards, fuel regulations, and the vehicle inspection and maintenance program, as applicable to the area. Thus, we propose to conclude that the submitted plan meets this criterion for adequacy.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we review a submitted plan to determine whether revisions to previously submitted plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts

on point and area source emissions; any 

### 6996

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6996 2007

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

changes to established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including the basis forany changes related to emissions factors or estimates ofvehicle miles traveled). The Maintenance Plan explains and documents the various changes that have been made to the CO emissions inventories, etc. 16 Thus, we propose to find that the submitted plan
meets thiscriterion foradequacy.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review the State's compilation ofpublic
comments andresponse to comments that are required to be submitted with any SIP revision. Attachments 6 and 7 ofthe Maintenance Plan submittal provide transcripts and minutes ofthe public hearing, during which there was
a single comment, supporting adoption ofthe plan. We reviewed this compilation and concluded that the
comment does not affect our proposed approval ofthe MVEBs. Thus, we propose that the Maintenance Plan
meets this criterion for adequacy.

Therefore, we propose to approve the CO MVEBs contained inthe submitted Maintenance Planbecause the plan and budgets meet the requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and because we find that ARB has met all statutory requirements for submittals of maintenance plans under sections 110 andpart D ofthe Act. Should we finalize our approval, the Southern California Association ofGovernments (SCAG) and the U.S. Department of Transportation must use these new CO MVEBs from the Maintenance Plan for futuretransportation conformity determinations. We are also announcing

our proposed approval on our conformity adequacy Web site: http:!! www.epa.govlotaq/stateresources/ transconflcurrsips.htm.

In the submittal letter dated February 24, 2006, CARB requested that we limit the duration ofany final approval ofthe MVEBs in the Maintenance Plan to last only until the effective date offuture EPA adequacy findings forreplacement budgets. This would mean that ifCARB decides to amend the CO MVEBs sometime in the future, then the new MVEBs would become effective as soon

as EPA determined adequacy, rather than after comprehensive rulemaking (whichis alonger process).

CARB had made a similar request, and EPA granted it,in connection with the MVEBs in other plans submitted by the State (see 67 FR 69139, November

16The most significanttechnical difference between theattainment SIP and the maintenance plan is the change fromEMFAC7Gto EMFAC2002v2.2, whichresults in a significant improvement in the quantification ofmotorvehicle emissions, and updates to SCAG'sgrowth projections. 15, 2002). That prior CARB request was accompanied by significant documentation that demonstrated why limiting the duration ofour MVEB approval provided an advantage to air quality andpublic health protection.

With the current request, however, CARB has not provided supporting documentation to address our criteria for granting limited approval. The criteria are set out on page 69141 ofthe rulefiaking, andinclude: (1) State acknowledgment that its current budgets are outdated or deficient; (2) State commitment to update the budgets

as part ofa comprehensive update of its SIP; and (3) State request that we limit the duration ofthe approval ofthe State's current approved SIP. We note that CARB's request to limit the duration ofthe approvals ofthe MVEBs

was contained only in the submittal letter and the request is not, therefore, considered apart ofthe maintenance plan itself. Therefore, our denial of ARB's request does notaffect our approval ofthe plan orthe budgets contained therein.

g. Conclusion

Because the Maintenance Plan satisfies applicable CAA requirements,

we propose to approve it under section 175A.

IV. Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve the 2005 Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan forthe South Coast Air Basin as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 175A. We are proposing to find adequate the MVEBs and to approve the budgets under CAA section 176(c).

We are also proposing to approve the State's request to redesignate the areato attainment for CO under the provisions ofCAA section 107(d)(3)(E). As prerequisite.to this action, we are proposing to find that the area has attained the NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions under the'SIP, and thatthe SIP for the

areameets all ofthe requirements of CAA section 110, Part D, and section 175A applicable forpurposes of redesignation.

As part ofour proposed determination that the South Coast area has met applicable Part D provisions, we are proposing to adaptto CO areas the provisions of our Clean DataPolicy, which we have established for 1-hour
ozone, PM-IO, 8-hour ozone, and PM2.5 areas. Under our proposed extension ofthe Clean DataPolicy to CO, we are proposing to interpret certain CAAPart D provisions as suspending the requirements for submission ofRFP, attainment demonstrations, contingency
measures, and TCMs related to RFP due
to the fact that the South Coast has already attained the CO NAAQS. We are proposing to approve the 1997 CO plan andthe Maintenance Plan as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 187(b)(2) relating to TCMs to offset emissions associated with growth in VMT and vehicle trips.

Finally, because our interim approval ofCalifornia's I/M program for CO in the South Coast expired on August 7, 1998, California has now submitted a demonstration that the I/M program meets the low-enhanced requirements applicable to the South Coast CO nonattainment area. We are proposing to approve that demonstration and to conclude that the State has satisfied the CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) enhanced I/Mrequirements that applied to the South Coast CO nonattainment

area.
V. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews I

Under Executive Order 12866 (58FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is nota "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget. For'this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting'Federal requirements and to redesignate the areato attainment for air quality planning purposes, and imposes

no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4).

This proposed rule also does nothave tribal implications because it will not have asubstantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,'or onthe distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

### 6997

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6997 2007

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

(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does nothave Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects onthe 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 FR43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard and to redbsignate the area to attainment for air quality planning purposes, and does not alter the relationship orthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive '-Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren

from Environmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to approve a stateplan implementing aFederal Standard and to redesignate the area to attainment for air quality planning.
purposes. EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such thatthe analysis required under section 5-501 ofthe EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to.EO 13045 because it proposes to approve a State plan and to redesignate the area to attainment for air quality planning
purposes.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean AirAct. In this context, in the absence ofaprior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission

orredesignation request, to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions ofthe Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule doesnot impose an information collection burden under.the provisions ofthe.Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List ofSubjects

40CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Carbon monoxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: February 6, 2007. LauraYoshii, ActingRegional Administrator, Region9. [FRDoc. E7-2538 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on A Petitionto ListAstragalus debequaeus (DeBeque milkvetch) as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of90-day petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on apetition to list Astragalusdebequaeus(DeBeque milkvetch) as threatened orendangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing A. debequaeus
may be warranted. Therefore, we will
notbe initiating afurther status review inresponse to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available Concerning the status ofA. debequaeus

orthreats to its habitat at anytime. This information willhelp us monitor and
encourage the conservation ofthe species.
DATES: The finding announcea inthis document was made on February 14, 2007. You may submit new information concerning this species for our consideration at any time. ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Western Colorado Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, GrandJunction, CO 81506. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species to us at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan R. Pfister, Field Supervisor, Western Colorado Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 970- 243-2778, extension 29; facsimile 970- 245-6933). Persons whouse a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) ofthe Actrequires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list,delist, orreclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided inthe petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the. maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days ofour receipt ofthe petition and publish our notice ofthis finding promptly in the Federal Register.

Our standard for substantial information within the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)with regard to a90- daypetition findingis "that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the

measure proposed in the petition may be warranted" (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly

commence a review ofthe status ofthe species.

In making this finding, we rely on information providedby the petitioner and evaluate that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 90-day finding process under section 4(b)(3)(A) ofthe Act and section 424.14(b) ofour regulations is limited to

adetermination ofwhether the information inthe petition meets the "substantial information" threshold. A substantial finding should bemade when the Service deems that adequate and reliable information has been presented that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action may be warranted.

On October 26, 2004, we received a formal petition, dated October 25, 2004, submitted by the Center forNative Ecosystems and the Colorado Native Plant Society (2004), requesting that we listAstragalusdebequaeusas threatened or endangered, and designate critical habitat concurrently. The petition identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt ofthe petition in

a January 20, 2005, letter to Mr. Joshua Pollock. In that letter, we advised the 

### 6998

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 6998 2007