[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57701-57704]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24873]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314; FRL-9985-97-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule, withdrawal of proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion
of an Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that pertains
to the good neighbor provision requirements of the CAA with respect to
interstate transport of air pollution which will interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires, in part, that each
state, in its SIP, prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of a new or revised NAAQS in another state. In this action,
EPA is proposing to approve the Oklahoma SIP submittal as having met
the interfere with maintenance requirement of the good neighbor
provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of
the CAA. EPA is also withdrawing its October 17, 2011 proposed rule to
disapprove this portion of Oklahoma SIP submittal.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 17,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-0314, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not

submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 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 at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution

    Under section 109 of the CAA, we are required to establish NAAQS
that are protective of human health (primary NAAQS) and public welfare
(secondary NAAQS). In 1997, we established new primary and secondary 8-
hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (July 18, 1997, 62 FR
38856).\1\ Ground level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the
presence of sunlight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2008, we revised the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008) and in 2015 we
revised the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm
(80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). This proposal pertains to the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections
110(a)(2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The first two sub-elements are to
prohibit emissions to any other state which would (1) significantly
contribute to nonattainment or (2) interfere with maintenance of the
new or revised NAAQS. The State of Oklahoma provided a May 1, 2007 SIP
submittal to address these two sub-elements. The portion of the
submittal addressing sub-element 1 (prohibit significant contribution
to nonattainment in other states) was approved on December 29, 2011 (76
FR 81838). This action addresses the second sub-element of that
submittal (prohibit interference with maintenance in other states).
    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in several past regulatory actions. Most relevant to this action, EPA
promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 to address the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 1997 (fine
particulate) (PM2.5) and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 25162, May
12, 2005). In the CAIR rulemaking, we did not analyze the contributions
to downwind ozone nonattainment for Oklahoma and 5 other states along
the western border of the CAIR modeling domain (70 FR 25162, 25246).
CAIR was remanded to the EPA by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176.
The court determined that CAIR was ``fundamentally flawed'' and ordered
EPA to ``redo its analysis from the ground up.'' 531 F.3d at 929.
    In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
to address the remand of CAIR.\2\ CSAPR addressed the state and federal
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air
pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as
well as the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. To address the
transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard
to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, CSAPR established Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements for affected electric generating
units (EGUs) in 20 states.\3\ The air quality modeling conducted for
CSAPR projected that emissions from Oklahoma would impact a receptor
(or monitor) located in Allegan County, Michigan (monitor ID
260050003), which would have difficulty maintaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48213, August 8, 2011). Thus, we issued a
CSAPR supplemental rule that promulgated similar FIP requirements for
Oklahoma and four other states (76 FR 80760, December 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011); and Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin and Determination for
Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport of Ozone, 76 FR 80760
(December 27, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39
and 40 CFR part 97).
    \3\ Including an emissions budget that applied to the EGUs'
collective ozone-season emissions of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR set emissions budgets which were to be implemented in two
phases, with phase 1 to be implemented beginning with the 2012 ozone
season and phase 2 to be implemented beginning with the 2014 ozone
season. However, the CSAPR budgets were stayed by the D.C. Circuit in
December 2011 pending further litigation. The D.C. Circuit issued a
decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012) (EME Homer City I), vacating CSAPR, but in April 2014, the
Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the D.C. Circuit and
remanding the case for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1600-01 (2014). After the Supreme
Court issued its decision, the D.C. Circuit granted our motion to lift
the stay and toll the compliance timeframes by three years.\4\ Thus,
phase 1 of CSAPR was implemented beginning in 2015 and phase 2 was set
to be implemented beginning in 2017(81 FR 13275).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Respondents' Motion to Lift the Stay Entered on December
30, 2011, Document #1499505, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014); Order, Document
#1518738, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C.
Cir. issued Oct. 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on CSAPR
regarding the remaining legal issues raised by the petitioners on
remand from the Supreme Court, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
795 F.3d 118 (EME Homer City II). This decision largely upheld our
approach to

addressing interstate transport in CSAPR, leaving the rule in place and
affirming the EPA's interpretation of various statutory provisions and
the EPA's technical decisions. The decision also remanded CSAPR without
vacatur for reconsideration of the EPA's emission budgets for certain
states.\5\ The court declared the CSAPR phase 2 ozone season emission
budgets of 11 states invalid, holding that those budgets over-control
with respect to the downwind air quality problems to which those states
were ``linked'' for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, id. at 129-30, 138.\6\ For 10
of these states, the court found the budgets were invalid because
modeling conducted as part of the CSAPR rulemaking showed that downwind
air quality problems to which the states were linked in 2012 would be
resolved in 2014, id. We addressed the remand of the ozone-season
emissions budgets in the CSAPR Update.\7\ In doing so, EPA relieved all
11 states of the obligation to comply with the remanded phase 2 ozone
season emission budgets, which would have gone into effect in 2017, 40
CFR 52.38(b)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Oklahoma emission budgets were not part of this court
case and were not addressed in the ruling.
    \6\ States are considered ``linked'' to a downwind air quality
problem when their emissions contribute more than a threshold amount
of ozone pollution to a receptor (monitor) projected to have
problems attaining or maintaining the ozone NAAQS in a future year.
    \7\ Promulgated in 2016 to address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CSAPR Update Rule for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Various petitioners also filed legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit
to the 2011 supplemental rule that promulgated a FIP for four states
including Oklahoma.\8\ Considering the court's decision in EME Homer
City II, we examined the record supporting this supplemental rule and
determined that, like the 10 states with remanded budgets, our modeling
demonstrated that air quality problems at the downwind air quality
problems to which four of the states added to CSAPR in the supplemental
rule, including Oklahoma, were linked in 2012 would resolve by 2014
without further transport regulation (81 FR 74525). Accordingly, we
removed the FIP requirements associated with the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
sources in each of the four states are no longer subject to the phase 2
ozone season budget calculated to address that standard. 40 CFR
52.38(b)(2)(ii) (relieving sources in these four states, including
Oklahoma, of the obligation to comply with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone
season emission budgets after 2016).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12-1023
(D.C. Cir., filed Jan. 13, 2012), the case was held in abeyance
during the pendency of the litigation in EME Homer City and as of
the time of this rule making is still held in abeyance.
    \9\ We note that, because Oklahoma was linked to downwind air
quality problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in its
analysis, we promulgated a new ozone season NOX emission
budget to address that standard at 40 CFR 97.810(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Oklahoma SIP Submittal Pertaining to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution

    As noted above, relevant to this proposed action, Oklahoma made a
May 1, 2007 SIP submittal to address CAA requirements to prohibit
emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Oklahoma provided additional information pertaining to the requirements
in a supplemental December 5, 2007 letter. The submittals document the
State's assessments that Oklahoma emissions will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
1997 ozone NAAQS in other states.
    Consistent with EPA guidance at the time and EPA's approach in the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the State's May 1, 2007 submittal
focused primarily on whether emissions from Oklahoma sources
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
other states.\10\ The State did not evaluate whether Oklahoma emissions
interfere with maintenance of these NAAQS in other states separately
from significant contribution to nonattainment in other states. Like
our CAIR approach, the SIP submittal presumed that if Oklahoma sources
were not significantly contributing to violations of the NAAQS in other
states, then no further specific evaluation was necessary for purposes
of the interfere with maintenance sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(D).
However, CAIR was remanded to EPA, in part because the court found that
EPA had not correctly addressed whether emissions from sources in a
state interfere with maintenance of the standards in other states. See
North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 910-11. Therefore, we evaluated the May 1,
2007, Oklahoma submittal in light of the decision of the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On August 15, 2006, we issued our ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards''. The
document is available in the regulations.gov docket at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA's 2011 CSAPR modeling projected that Oklahoma would be
linked to a downwind maintenance receptor with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS, but not to a nonattainment receptor, EPA proposed to
approve the portion of the SIP submittal asserting that Oklahoma
emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states (76 FR 64065, October 17, 2011).\11\
EPA finalized approval of this portion of the SIP submittal on December
29, 2011 (76 FR 81838).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A maintenance receptor is a monitor projected to have
difficulty maintaining the ozone NAAQS while a nonattainment is a
monitor projected to have trouble attaining and maintaining the
ozone NAAQS. Oklahoma was linked to an Allegan, Michigan maintenance
receptor as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA's CSAPR modeling projected that Oklahoma would be
linked to a downwind maintenance receptor with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS, we proposed to disapprove, or in the alternative, approve,
the portion of the May 7, 2007 SIP submittal asserting that Oklahoma
does not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
other states (76 FR 64065, October 17, 2011). We proposed to finalize
our approval or disapproval action based on the final action for
Oklahoma in the then-proposed supplemental CSAPR rule.\12\ We are now
withdrawing the October 17, 2011 proposal with respect to the
``interfere with maintenance'' clause of the good neighbor provision
and instead proposing to approve this portion of the SIP submittal
based on the rationale described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The supplemental CSAPR rule was proposed on July 11, 2011
(76 FR 40662) and finalized on December 27, 2011 76 FR 80760). It
added EGUs in Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, and
Wisconsin to CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    More recent information provides support for our proposed approval
of the conclusion in the SIP submittals that the State will not
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
As discussed above, air quality modeling conducted for the 2011 CSAPR
rulemaking projected that emissions from Oklahoma would be linked to a
maintenance receptor in Allegan County, Michigan, in 2012. In CSAPR, we
used air quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the
intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 1 EGU
emission budgets, to identify receptors projected to have air quality
problems. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air quality
projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for

implementation of the CSAPR Phase 2 EGU emission budgets. The 2014
modeling results projected that the Allegan County receptor would have
a maximum 8-hour ozone ``design value'' of 83.6 part per billion (ppb)
before considering the emissions reductions anticipated from
implementation of CSAPR.\13\ This value is below the value of 85 ppb
that we used to determine whether a particular ozone receptor should be
identified as having air quality problems that may trigger transport
obligations in upwind states with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (76 FR
48208, 48236). The 2014 modeling results show that the Allegan County,
Michigan monitor to which Oklahoma was linked in the 2012 modeling was
projected to no longer have air quality problems sufficient to trigger
transport obligations with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus,
Oklahoma would no longer interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS at the Allegan County receptor in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Design values are used to determine whether a NAAQS is
being met. See projected 2014 base case maximum design value for
Allegan County, Michigan receptor 26005003 at page B-16 of the June
2011 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for
CSAPR, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140, available in
regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, in light of the remand of 10 other states'
CSAPR phase 2 ozone season budgets by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer
City II, we also evaluated the validity of the emissions budget
promulgated for Oklahoma in the supplemental CSAPR rule, and determined
that Oklahoma's emissions would no longer contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS at either receptor or in any other
state. (81 FR 74524-25). This conclusion is based on EPA's most recent
modeling analysis.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the portion of a May 1, 2007 Oklahoma
SIP submittal pertaining to the interfere with maintenance requirement
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
We propose to find that the state's conclusion that Oklahoma emissions
do not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another
state is consistent with our conclusion regarding this good neighbor
obligation.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.

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

    Dated: November 7, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-24873 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 14)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2776-2783]
[DOCID:fr23ja07-5]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0386; FRL-8272-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso
County Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment, and Approval of
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 20, 2006, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to
request redesignation of the El Paso carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment
area to attainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This submittal also included a CO maintenance plan for the El
Paso area and associated Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs). The
maintenance plan was developed to ensure continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS for a period of 10 years from the effective date of EPA approval
of redesignation to attainment. In this action, EPA is approving the El
Paso CO redesignation request and the maintenance plan with its
associated MVEBs as satisfying the requirements of the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 26, 2007 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by February 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0386, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0386. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning

Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30am
and 4:30pm weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr.
Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an appointment. If possible, please
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your
visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of
documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6
reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section,
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the El Paso Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, El Paso was
designated and classified as a moderate nonattainment area for CO
because it did not meet the 8-hour CO NAAQS for this criteria pollutant
(56 FR 56694). El Paso's classification as a moderate nonattainment
area under sections 107(d)(4)(A) and 186(a) of the CAA imposed a
schedule for attainment of the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.
    The El Paso nonattainment area has unique considerations for CO
attainment planning due to airshed contributions from Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico. Section 179B of the 1990 CAA Amendments contains provisions for
CO nonattainment areas affected by emissions emanating from outside the
United States. Under CAA Section 179B, the EPA shall approve a SIP for
the El Paso nonattainment area if the TCEQ establishes to the EPA's
satisfaction that implementation of the plan would achieve timely
attainment of the NAAQS but for emissions emanating from Ciudad Juarez.
This provision prevents El Paso County from being reclassified to a
higher level of nonattainment should monitors continue to record CO
concentrations in excess of the NAAQS.
    To meet the CAA attainment schedule of December 31, 1995, Texas
submitted an initial revision to the SIP for the El Paso CO moderate
nonattainment area in a letter dated September 27, 1995. This
submittal, as well as a February 1998 supplemental submittal, included
air quality modeling demonstrating that El Paso would attain the CO
NAAQS by December 31, 1995, but for emissions emanating outside of the
United States from Mexico. The EPA approved a revision to the Texas SIP
submitted to show attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS in the El Paso CO
nonattainment area under Section 179B provisions, as well as approving
the El Paso area's CO emissions budget and a CO contingency measure
requirement. The State submitted the revisions to satisfy Section 179B
and Part D requirements of the CAA. This approval was published July 2,
2003 (68 FR 39457) and became effective September 2, 2003. TCEQ also
submitted all the requirements for the moderate area classification and
EPA approved them. See further discussion in Section II.B.2.
    On January 20, 2006, the State of Texas submitted a revision to the
SIP which consists of a request for redesignation of the El Paso carbon
monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS, as
well as an 8-hour CO maintenance plan to ensure that El Paso County
remains in attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.
    In this action, we are approving a change in the legal designation
of the El Paso area from nonattainment for CO to attainment, in
addition to approving the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the
area in attainment for CO until 2015. Under the CAA, we can change
designations if acceptable data are available and if certain other
requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the
Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment unless:
    (i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
national ambient air quality standard;
    (ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);
    (iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
    (iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
    (v) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    Before we can approve the redesignation request, we must decide
that all applicable SIP elements have been fully approved. Approval of
the applicable SIP elements may occur simultaneously with final
approval of the redesignation request. The State of Texas has
incorporated a CO maintenance plan into this submittal to satisfy the
requirement of a fully approved maintenance plan for the area.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the El Paso Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan

    We have reviewed the El Paso CO redesignation request and
maintenance plan and believe that approval of the request is warranted,
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The
following are descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements
are being addressed.

(a) Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Attained the Carbon
Monoxide (CO) NAAQS

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS. The area is designated
attainment for the 1-hour CO NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the
8-hour CO NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the 8-hour CO NAAQS for
carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (ppm), (10 milligrams per cubic
meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than
once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO
in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference method based on 40
CFR part 50, Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part
53 or an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part
53. Attainment of the 8-hour CO standard is not a momentary phenomenon
based on short-term data. Instead, we consider an

area to be in attainment if each of the 8-hour CO ambient air quality
monitors in the area doesn't have more than one exceedance of the 8-
hour CO standard over a one-year period. If any monitor in the area's
CO monitoring network records more than one exceedance of the 8-hour CO
standard during a one-year calendar period, then the area is in
violation of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. In addition, our interpretation of
the CAA and EPA national policy \1\ has been that an area seeking
redesignation to attainment must show attainment of the CO NAAQS for at
least a continuous two-year calendar period. In addition, the area must
also continue to show attainment through the date that we promulgate
the redesignation in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Refer to EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy
memorandum entitled ``Procedures for Processing requests to
Redesignate areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Texas' CO redesignation request for the El Paso area
is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient air quality
monitoring data that are relevant to the redesignation request. As
presented in Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the State's maintenance plan,
ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1999
through 2005 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or
less per year, per monitor, in the El Paso nonattainment area. We have
evaluated the ambient air quality data and have determined that the El
Paso area has not violated the 8-hour CO standard and continues to
demonstrate attainment. The El Paso nonattainment area has quality-
assured data showing no violations of the 8-hour CO NAAQS for the most
recent consecutive two-calendar-year period (2004 and 2005). Therefore,
we believe the El Paso area has met the first component for
redesignation: Demonstration of attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note too
that the State of Texas has also committed, in the maintenance plan, to
continue the necessary operation of the CO monitoring network in
compliance with 40 CFR Part 58.

(b) Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    To be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires
that an area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D of the CAA. We interpret section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean
that for a redesignation to be approved by us, the State must meet all
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time
of the submission of a complete redesignation request. In our
evaluation of a redesignation request, we don't need to consider other
requirements of the CAA that became due after the date of the
submission of a complete redesignation request.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
On July 2, 2003, we approved the El Paso CO element revisions to
Texas's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
(see 68 FR 39457).
2. Part D Requirements
    Before the El Paso ``moderate'' CO nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's
classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 3 of Part D contains
specific provisions for ``moderate'' CO nonattainment areas. The
relevant subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 172(c) and
176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR 13529 to 13532, April 16, 1992)
provides EPA's interpretations of the CAA requirements for ``moderate''
CO areas such as El Paso with CO design values that are less than or
equal to 12.7 ppm. The General Preamble (see 57 FR 13530, et seq.)
provides that the applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are:
172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), 172(c)(5) (new source review
permitting program), 172(c)(7) (the section 110(a)(2) air quality
monitoring requirements), and 172(c)(9) (contingency measures).
Regarding the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) (inventory) and
172(c)(9) (contingency measures), please refer to our discussion below
of sections 187(a)(1) and 187(a)(3), which are the more specific
provisions of subpart 3 of Part D of the CAA.
    It is also worth noting that we interpreted the requirements of
sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further progress--RFP) and 172(c)(6)
(other measures) as being irrelevant to a redesignation request because
they only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the standard.
See EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'', and the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April 16,
1992. Finally, the State has not sought to exercise the options that
would trigger sections 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions
increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques). Thus, these
provisions are also not relevant to this redesignation request.
    For the section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirements, the
CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several requirements
regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that increased emissions
will not result from any new or modified stationary major sources and a
general offset rule. The State of Texas has an approved NSR program
(see 60 FR 49781, September 27, 1995) that meets the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(5). For the CAA section 172(c)(7) provisions
(compliance with the CAA section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Monitoring
Requirements), our interpretations are presented in the General
Preamble (57 FR 13535). CO nonattainment areas are to meet the
``applicable'' air quality monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA. Information concerning CO monitoring in Texas is included
in the Annual Monitoring Network Review (MNR) prepared by the State and
submitted to EPA. Our personnel have concurred with Texas' annual
network reviews and have agreed that the El Paso network remains
adequate.
    In Chapter 5, Section 5.4 of the maintenance plan, the State
commits to the continued operation of the existing CO monitoring
network according to applicable Federal regulations and guidelines (40
CFR part 58).
    The relevant subpart 3 provisions were created when the CAA was
amended on November 15, 1990. The new CAA requirements for ``moderate''
CO areas, such as El Paso, required that the SIP be revised to include
a 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)),
contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)), corrections to existing
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs (CAA section
187(a)(4)), periodic emission inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)), and
the implementation of an oxygenated fuels program (CAA section
211(m)(1)). Sections 187(a)(2), (6), and (7) do not apply to the El
Paso area because its design value was below 12.7 ppm at the time of
classification. How the State met these requirements and our approvals,
are described below:

    A. 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)): EPA
approved an emissions inventory on September 12, 1994 (see 59 FR
46766).
    B. Contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)): EPA approved the
use of 46 tons per day in incremental CO reduction credits from the
Texas low-enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, as
fulfillment of the State's CO attainment contingency measure
requirement for the El Paso nonattainment area under section 172(c)(9)
on July 2, 2003 (see 68 FR 39457).
    C. Corrections to the El Paso basic I/M program (CAA section
187(a)(4)): EPA approved the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC) I/M Program
(which includes El Paso) on November 14, 2001 (see 66 FR 57261).
    D. Periodic emissions inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)): The
State submitted an initial revision to the SIP for the El Paso CO
moderate nonattainment area in a letter dated September 27, 1995. This
submittal, as well as a February 1998 supplemental submittal contained
a commitment to submit emission inventory updates. TCEQ continues to
submit the Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) every three years.
    E. Oxygenated fuels program implementation (CAA section 211(m)):
EPA approved the El Paso oxygenated fuels program on September 12, 1994
(see 59 FR 46766).

(c) Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k). As noted above, EPA previously approved
SIP revisions for the El Paso CO nonattainment area that were required
by the 1990 amendments to the CAA. In this action, we are also
approving the maintenance plan proposed by the State, and the State's
commitment to maintain an adequate monitoring network (contained in the
maintenance plan). Thus, with this final rule to approve the El Paso
redesignation request and maintenance plan, we will have fully approved
the El Paso CO element of the SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.

(d) Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Show That the Improvement in
Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to
be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
The CO emissions reductions for El Paso, that are further described in
Sections 3.5 and 5.3.3 of the El Paso maintenance plan, were achieved
primarily through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), an
oxygenated fuels program, and a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program.
    In general, the FMVCP provisions require vehicle manufacturers to
meet more stringent vehicle emission limitations for new vehicles in
future years. These emission limitations are phased in (as a percentage
of new vehicles manufactured) over a period of years. As new, lower
emitting vehicles replace older, higher emitting vehicles (``fleet
turnover''), emission reductions are realized for a particular area
such as El Paso. For example, EPA promulgated lower hydrocarbon (HC)
and CO exhaust emission standards in 1991, known as Tier I standards
for new motor vehicles (light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks) in
response to the 1990 CAA amendments. These Tier I emissions standards
were phased in with 40% of the 1994 model year fleet, 80% of the 1995
model year fleet, and 100% of the 1996 model year fleet.
    As stated in Section 5.3.3 of the maintenance plan, significant
additional emission reductions were realized from El Paso's basic I/M
program. The program requires annual inspections of vehicles at
independent inspection stations. We note that further improvements to
the El Paso area's basic I/M program, to meet the requirements of EPA's
November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950) I/M rule, and upgrading the I/M program
to meet the requirements for a low-enhanced program, were approved by
us into the SIP on November 14, 2001 (68 FR 39457).
    Oxygenated fuels are gasolines that are blended with additives that
increase the level of oxygen in the fuel and, consequently, reduce CO
tailpipe emissions. TAC Title 30, Chapter 114, Section 114.100,
``Oxygenated Fuels Program'', contains the oxygenated fuels provisions
for the El Paso nonattainment area. This rule requires all El Paso area
gas stations to sell fuels containing a 2.7% minimum oxygen content (by
weight) during the wintertime CO high pollution season. The use of
oxygenated fuels has significantly reduced CO emissions and contributed
to the area's attainment of the CO NAAQS.
    We have evaluated the various State and Federal control measures,
and believe that the improvement in air quality in the El Paso
nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are
permanent and enforceable.

(e) Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 175A

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment
of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the
subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for
adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation. In addition, we issued further maintenance
plan interpretations in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992), ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (57 FR 18070,
April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
dated September 4, 1992 (hereafter the September 4, 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum).

    In this Federal Register action, EPA is approving the maintenance
plan for the El Paso CO nonattainment area because we believe, as
detailed below, that the State's maintenance plan submittal meets the
requirements of section 175A and is consistent with our interpretations
of the CAA, as reflected in the documents referenced above. Our
analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan requirements, with reference
to the State's January 20, 2006, submittal, is provided as follows:
1. Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections
    EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan
requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble (see 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992) and the September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum
referenced above. Under our interpretations, areas seeking to
redesignate to attainment for CO may demonstrate future maintenance of
the CO NAAQS either by showing that future CO emissions will be equal
to or less than the attainment year emissions or by providing a
modeling demonstration.
    For the El Paso area, the State selected the emissions inventory
approach for demonstrating maintenance of the CO NAAQS; however, the
State also conducted ``hot spot'' CO modeling to demonstrate that CO
exceedances are not currently occurring at a potential hot spot and
will not occur at such locations in the future. The maintenance plan
submitted by the TCEQ on January 20, 2006, includes comprehensive
inventories of CO emissions for the El Paso area. These inventories
include emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road
mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. The State selected 2002 as
the year from which to develop the attainment year inventory and
included interim-year projections out to 2015. More detailed
descriptions of the 2002 attainment year inventory and the projected
inventories are documented in the maintenance plan in Chapter 2.
Summary emission figures from the 2002 attainment year, the interim
projected years, and the final maintenance year of 2015 are provided in
Table 1 below.

                            Table 1.--El Paso County CO Emissions for 2002-2015 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2002            2005            2011            2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source....................................            4.67            4.42            4.78            5.03
Area Source.....................................           16.42           16.80           17.61           18.17
Nonroad Mobile..................................           45.90           48.71           55.23           59.18
Onroad Mobile...................................          360.34          325.50          245.16          232.02
                                                 =================
    Total.......................................          427.33          385.43          322.78          314.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As presented in Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the State's maintenance
plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar
years 1999 through 2004 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS
of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the El Paso nonattainment
area. To further demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS, the TCEQ
agreed to additional ``hot spot'' modeling as requested by EPA on the
basis of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS)
September 30, 1994 Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Redesignations Reference
Document. The modeling was done specifically to address two concerns--
the El Paso CO monitoring network has a limited number of sites, and
therefore may not have identified all the hot spots in the El Paso
area; and in the future, urban growth may increase mobile emissions
enough to cause exceedances of the NAAQS.
    The TCEQ performed CO modeling at a heavily utilized intersection
to demonstrate that CO exceedances are not currently occurring at a
potential hot spot and will not occur at that location in the future. A
modeling protocol detailing hotspot selection, proposed model usage,
and data analysis was submitted by the State on February 17, 2005, and
was approved by EPA via a letter dated March 30, 2005. The modeling
protocol and approach taken are detailed in Chapter 4 of the
maintenance plan. As shown in Table 4-2 of the maintenance plan, the
current (base) case hot spot analysis predicted a maximum 8-hour CO
concentration of 7.8 ppm, and the 2015 future case analysis predicted a
maximum 8-hour CO concentration of 2.2 ppm. Both of these values are
below the 9 ppm NAAQS, and demonstrate current and projected compliance
with the CO standard. A more detailed evaluation by EPA of this hot
spot analysis is provided in the TSD.
2. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories
    As we noted above, total CO emissions were projected forward by the
State for the years 2005, 2011, and 2015. We note the State's approach
for developing the projected inventories follows EPA guidance on
projected emissions and we believe they are acceptable.\2\ The
projected inventories show that CO emissions are not estimated to
exceed the 2002 attainment level during the time period 2002 through
2015 and, therefore, the El Paso area has satisfactorily demonstrated
maintenance. The year 2005 was selected as the year of designation of
attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS, so the final projection year, 2015,
was intended to represent the last year of the 10-year maintenance
plan. The year 2011 was selected as an interim year for conformity
determination. These projected inventories were developed using EPA-
approved technologies and methodologies. No new control strategies for
point and area sources were relied upon in the projected inventories.
CO emission reductions anticipated from EPA's national rule for the
Spark Ignition Small Engine Rule, Phase 1, were relied upon as a new
control strategy for Nonroad sources. TCEQ relied upon emissions
reductions anticipated from existing control strategies: FMVCP, Texas
Oxygenated Fuel SIP, and the Texas I/M Program. Please see the TSD for
more information on EPA's review and evaluation of the State's
methodologies, modeling, inputs, etc., for developing the projected
emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas'', signed by D.
Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division,
November 30, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    The TCEQ commits to maintain an appropriate air monitoring network
for the El Paso area throughout the 10-year maintenance period. As
required by 40 CFR Part 58.20(d), TCEQ will consult with EPA in annual
review of the air monitoring network to determine the

adequacy of the CO monitoring network, whether or not additional
monitoring is needed, and if/when monitor sites can be discontinued.
The TCEQ also commits to adhere to data quality requirements as
specified in 40 CFR Part 58 Quality Assurance Requirements.
    Texas commits to track the progress of the maintenance plan by
continuing to periodically update the emissions inventory (EI). It will
compare the updated EIs against the projected 2005, 2011 and 2015 EIs.
    TCEQ also commits to continuing all the applicable control
strategies, i.e., the measures approved into the El Paso SIP. For
example, these measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP), an oxygenated fuels program, and a motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.
    Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements and we note that his final
rulemaking approval will render the State's commitments federally
enforceable.
4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures. In the January 20,
2006 submittal, Texas specifies the contingency trigger as a violation
of the 8-hour CO standard base upon air quality monitoring data from
the El Paso monitoring network. In the event that a monitored violation
of the 8-hour CO standard occurs in any portion of the maintenance
area, the State will first analyze the data to determine if the
violation was caused by actions outside TCEQ's jurisdiction (e.g.,
emissions from Mexico or another state) or within its jurisdiction. If
the violation was caused by actions outside TCEQ's jurisdiction, TCEQ
will notify the EPA. If TCEQ determines the violation was caused by
actions within TCEQ's jurisdiction, TCEQ commits to adopt and implement
the identified contingency measures as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than 18 months.
    The State will analyze one or more of the following contingency
measures to reattain the standard:
     Vehicle idling restrictions.
     Improved vehicle I/M.
     Improved traffic control measures.
    The maintenance plan indicates that the State may evaluate other
potential strategies to address any future violations in the most
appropriate and effective manner possible. Based on the above, we find
that the contingency measures provided in the State's El Paso CO
maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA.
5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Texas has committed
to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years after our approval of
the redesignation. This provision for revising the maintenance plan is
contained in Chapter 5, Section 5.1 of the El Paso CO maintenance plan.
    The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components
of a maintenance plan. EPA believes that the 8-hour CO maintenance plan
SIP revision submitted by the State of Texas for the El Paso area meets
the requirements of Section 175A of the CAA. For more information,
please refer to our Technical Support Document.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements

    Table 2 documents the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
the El Paso CO nonattainment area that have been established by this CO
redesignation request. The MVEB is that portion of the total allowable
emissions defined in the SIP revision allocated to on-road mobile
sources for a certain date for meeting the purpose of the SIP, in this
case maintaining compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or
maintenance area. EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart T and
part 93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas conform to the SIP. The
motor vehicle emissions budget is one mechanism EPA has identified for
demonstrating conformity. Upon the effective date of this SIP approval,
all future transportation improvement programs and long range
transportation plans for the El Paso area will have to show conformity
to the budgets in this plan; previous budgets approved or found
adequate will no longer be applicable.

              Table 2.--El Paso CO MVEB for 2002-2015 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...........................................................    29.66
2011...........................................................    18.56
2015...........................................................    16.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with
maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. In
accordance with EPA's adequacy process, these MVEBs were posted on
EPA's adequacy Web site for public notice on May 4, 2006 and were open
for comment until June 5, 2006. No comments were received during this
period. Therefore, we are finding as adequate and approving the 29.66
tpd for 2002 through 2010, 18.56 tpd for 2011 through 2014, and 16.63
tpd for 2015 and beyond, CO emissions budgets for the El Paso area.
Budget modeling was developed for TCEQ under contract by the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI), utilizing El Paso travel model datasets
developed by the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization. The
modeling incorporated two onroad source control strategies that apply
in the El Paso area: The El Paso Oxygenated Fuel Program, and the I/M
program (both detailed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3 of the maintenance
plan).

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. As stated above, the El Paso area has shown continuous
attainment of the CO NAAQS since 1999 and has met the applicable
Federal requirements for redesignation to attainment. The maintenance
plan will not interfere with attainment or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. No control measures in the El Paso SIP are
being removed.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the redesignation of the El Paso area to
attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS, as well as approving the El Paso
area CO maintenance plan. We also are approving the associated MVEBs.
    We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it
meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA
regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposed rule to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments
are received on this

direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. We would address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves 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 rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 26, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: January 11, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or     State submittal/   EPA approval date        Comments
                                   nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
El Paso County Carbon Monoxide    El Paso, TX........           1/11/06  1/23/07 [Insert FR
 Maintenance Plan.                                                        page number where
                                                                          document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.344 is amended by revising the Carbon Monoxide table
entry for El Paso County to read as follows:

Sec.  81.344  Texas.

* * * * *

                                             Texas--Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Designation                     Category/classification
           Designated area            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Date \1\                Type               Date \1\          Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso, El Paso County..............         1/23/07  Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-926 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P