[Federal Register: February 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 30)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6986-6998]
[DOCID:fr14fe07-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0101; FRL-8277-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received by March 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0101, by one of the following methods:
    1. Agency Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers

receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
    2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous access systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jesson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415-
972-3961<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions
.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action
II. CO SIPs for the South Coast
    A. Requirements for Serious CO Nonattainment Areas
    B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast
    C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South Coast
III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment
    A. Attainment of the NAAQS
    1. Basis for Determining Attainment
    2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast
    B. Fully Approved Applicable Implementation Plan Under CAA
Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes of
Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D
    1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
    2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part D Requirements
    a. Introduction
    b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
    c. Contingency Provisions
    (1) Introduction
    (2) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
    (3) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
    d. Conclusion
    3. TCMs to Offset Growth in Emissions From VMT Increases
    4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program
    5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Program
    6. Conclusion
    C. Improvement in Air Quality is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Measures
    D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
    1. Applicable Requirements
    2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
    a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment Year and Future Years
    b. Maintenance Demonstration
    c. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    d. Contingency Provisions
    e. Commitment to Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revision
    f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    g. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the 2005 Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin (Maintenance Plan) as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, which provide, in part, that plans must
demonstrate continued attainment for at least 10 years and must include
contingency measures. The submittal included evidence that the South
Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and continues to attain the NAAQS.
We are also proposing to approve and find adequate the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) submitted with the Maintenance Plan.
    We are proposing to approve the request by the State of California
to redesignate the area to attainment for CO under the provisions of
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E) authorizes the EPA
Administrator to redesignate areas to attainment if the area has
attained the NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and the approved SIP for the area meets all of the
applicable requirements of CAA section 110 (basic requirements
applicable to SIPs generally), Part D (special SIP requirements
applicable to nonattainment areas), and 175A (SIP requirements for
maintenance areas).
    As part of our proposed determination that California has met
applicable Part D provisions, we propose to adapt to CO nonattainment
areas the provisions of our Clean Data Policy, which was initially
established for ozone (see discussion below in section III.B.2.). Under
the Clean Data Policy, certain CAA Part D requirements--including the
requirements for developing attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP) plans, reasonably available control measures
(RACM) and contingency measures--no longer apply because the area has
already attained the NAAQS.
    Finally, because our interim approval of California's I/M program
for CO in the South Coast expired on August 7, 1998, California has now
submitted a demonstration that the I/M program meets the low-enhanced
requirements applicable to the South Coast CO nonattainment area (see
discussion in section III.B.4.) We are proposing to approve that
demonstration.

II. CO SIPs for the South Coast

A. Requirements for Serious CO Nonattainment Areas

    The CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish new planning
requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS, including CO.\1\
Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas designated nonattainment
prior to enactment of the 1990 amendments, including the South Coast,
were designated nonattainment by operation of law.\2\ Under section
186(a) of the Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section
107(d) was also classified by operation of law as either moderate or
serious, depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem.
CO areas with design values at and above 16.5 ppm, such as the South
Coast, were classified as serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA has established primary,
health-related NAAQS for CO: 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over
an 8-hour period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. Attainment of the
8-hour CO NAAQS is achieved if not more than one non-overlapping 8-
hour average in any consecutive 2-year period per monitoring site
exceeds 9 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and are not
considered exceedances). See 40 CFR 50.8; William G. Laxton,
Director Technical Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' dated June 18, 1990; and EPA's
General Preamble (see 57 FR 13535).
    \2\ For a description of the boundaries of the Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes
all of Orange County and the more populated portions of Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172 of the Act contains general requirements applicable to
SIPs for nonattainment areas. Sections 186 and 187 of the Act set out
additional air quality planning requirements for CO nonattainment
areas. The most fundamental of these provisions is the requirement that
CO nonattainment areas submit by November 15, 1992, a SIP demonstrating
attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the deadline applicable to the area's classification: December 31,
1995, for moderate areas, and December 31, 2000, for serious areas like
the South Coast. CAA sections 186(a)(1), 187(a)(7), and 187(b)(1). Such
a demonstration must include enforceable measures to achieve emission
reductions each year leading to emissions at or below the level
predicted to result in attainment of the NAAQS throughout the
nonattainment area.
    EPA has issued a General Preamble describing the Agency's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under
Title I of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57
FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The reader should refer to the General
Preamble for a more detailed discussion of EPA's preliminary
interpretations of the CAA's Title I requirements.

B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast

    On February 5, 1997, California submitted a CO plan for the South
Coast, which had been adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) on November 15, 1996. Because the South Coast had
continuously achieved the 1-hour CO NAAQS for more than 20 years, this
plan primarily addressed the 8-hour CO NAAQS. On April 21, 1998 (63 FR
19661), we fully approved the SIP as meeting the applicable CO
requirements for the South Coast, with the following exceptions: (1) We
took no action on the plan with respect to the CAA section 187(b)(2)
requirement for transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset any
growth in emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or numbers of
vehicles trips; (2) we took no action on the plan with respect to the
contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
187(a)(3); \3\ (3) we granted interim approval to the RFP provisions
under CAA sections 171(1), 172(c)(2), and 187(a)(7); (4) we granted
interim approval to the attainment demonstration under CAA section
187(a)(7); and (5) we granted interim approval to the enhanced I/M
program required by CAA 187(a)(6), as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA section 172(c)(9) requires contingency measures that
would be implemented if an area fails to make RFP or to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable deadline. For CO areas, CAA section
187(a)(3) requires contingency measures to be implemented if any
estimate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the area for any year
prior to the attainment year that is submitted in an annual report
under section 187(a)(2)(A) (``VMT tracking report'') exceeds the
number predicted in the most recent prior forecast or if the area
fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interim approval is authorized under section 348(c) of the National
Highway System Designation Act (``Highway Act,'' Public Law 104-59,
enacted on November 28, 1995) for certain types of I/M programs and, by
extension, to SIP provisions dependent upon reductions from these I/M
programs. We had previously granted interim approval to California's
enhanced I/M program (62 FR 1160, January 8, 1997). Our 1997 interim
approval established August 7, 1998, as the expiration of the approval
if by such date EPA had not approved a SIP submittal demonstrating that
the credits claimed for the I/M program are appropriate and the program
is otherwise in full compliance with the applicable enhanced I/M
requirements. Because the State did not submit the needed
demonstration, the approval of the I/M program and the South Coast CO
SIP with respect to RFP and attainment demonstration expired on August
7, 1998.

C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South Coast

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

III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment

    The criteria for approval of a redesignation request are set out in
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). We review the State's request against each of
these criteria in our discussion below.

A. Attainment of the NAAQS

1. Basis for Determining Attainment
    CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that we determine that the area
has attained the NAAQS. EPA makes the determination as to whether an
area's air quality is meeting the CO NAAQS based upon air quality data
gathered at CO monitoring sites in the nonattainment area which have
been entered into the Air Quality System (AQS) database, formerly known
as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). This data is
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with
40 CFR 50.8; EPA policy guidance as stated in a memorandum from William
G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' dated June 18, 1990; and
EPA's General Preamble at 57 FR 13535.
    The 8-hour and 1-hour CO design values are used to determine
attainment of CO areas, and the design values are determined by
reviewing 8 quarters of data, or a total of two complete calendar years
of data for an area. The 8-hour design value is computed by first
finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values
at each monitoring site for each year of the two calendar years prior
to and including the attainment date. Then the higher of the ``second
high'' values is used as the design value for the monitoring site, and
the highest design value among the various CO monitoring sites
represents the CO design value for the area.
    The CO NAAQS requires that not more than one 8-hour average per
year equals or exceeds 9.5 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9
and are not considered exceedances). If an area has a design value that
is equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm, this means that there was a
monitoring site where the second highest (non-overlapping) 8-hour
average was measured to be equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm in at least
one of the two years being reviewed to determine attainment for the
area. This indicates that there were at least two values above the
NAAQS during one year at that site and thus the NAAQS for CO was not
met. Conversely, an 8-hour design value of less than 9.5 ppm indicates
that the area has attained the CO NAAQS.
    The 1-hour CO design value is computed in the same manner. An area
attains the one-hour CO NAAQS if the 1-hour design value is less than
35.5 ppm.
2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast
    The Maintenance Plan presents the attainment air quality data for
the South Coast's 22 monitoring stations in Table 2-2 on p. 8. During
the period 2002-2003, there was only one maximum 8-hour average
concentration above the standard, a 10.1 ppm concentration recorded at
the Lynwood (South Central Los Angeles) site on January 8, 2002, under
very stagnant conditions and a strong inversion. The maximum 8-hour
concentration at Lynwood was 7.7 ppm in 2001 and 7.3 ppm in 2003. There
were no exceedances of the 8-hour NAAQS recorded in 2001 and 2003 at
any station, and the design value at all stations for the periods 2001-
2002 and 2002-2003 was well below the NAAQS.
    A review of data input to AQS indicates that the South Coast has
continued to attain the CO NAAQS since 2003. The highest second maximum
1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations measured at the various monitoring
stations during the 2004 through the first quarter of 2006 were 8.7 ppm
and 6.1 ppm, respectively, both recorded in 2004 at the Lynwood station
in south central Los Angeles County. These values are well below the
corresponding CO NAAQS of 35 and 9 ppm. A ``quick look'' report
generated using AQS for the South Coast CO monitoring stations for 2004
through the third quarter of 2006 is included in the docket for this
proposed rule. The Maintenance Plan indicates that the 1-hour CO NAAQS
has not been violated for 25 years in the South Coast.
    Based on the monitoring data presented in the Maintenance Plan and
AQS data for the past two years, we propose to determine that the South
Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and has continued to attain the
NAAQS.

B. Fully Approved Applicable Implementation Plan Under CAA Section
110(k) Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation
Under Section 110 and Part D

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require EPA to determine that the
area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that
meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D for
purposes of redesignation.
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
    The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: Kubmittal of
a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice
and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a
source permit program; provisions for the implementation of Part C
requirement for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD);
provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs; provisions for air pollution modeling;
and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
    On numerous occasions over the past 35 years, CARB and SCAQMD have
submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA
section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved
applicable SIP submittals with respect to the State and SCAQMD.\4\ We
propose to conclude

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

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

    We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state.
EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue
to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state.
    Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be
subject to these requirements after the South Coast area is
redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR
24816 (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking
61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue
in the Cincinnati redesignation 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). EPA
believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
    In some designated nonattainment areas, monitored data demonstrates
that the NAAQS have already been achieved. Based on its interpretation
of the Act, EPA has determined that certain SIP submission requirements
of part D, subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the Act do not apply and therefore
do not require certain submissions for an area that has attained the
NAAQS. These include RFP requirements, attainment demonstrations and
contingency measures, because these provisions have the purpose of
helping achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
    The Clean Data Policy is the subject of two EPA memoranda setting
forth our interpretation of the provisions of the Act as they apply to
areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the
statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in a final rule, 40
CFR 51.918, as part of its Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).
See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645-71646
(November 29, 2005). We have also applied the same approach to the
interpretations of the provisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM-
10. For detailed discussions of this interpretation with respect to the
CAA's PM-10 requirements for RFP, attainment demonstrations, and
contingency measures, see 71 FR 6352, 6354 (February 8, 2006); 71 FR
13021, 13024 (March 14, 2006); 71 FR 27440, 27443-27444 (May 11, 2006);
and 71 FR 40952, 40954 (July 19, 2006); and 71 FR 63642 (October 30,
2006).
    EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in detail in our Phase
2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (Seitz memo), and our December 14, 2004
memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled ``Clean Data Policy for the
Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (Page memo), are
equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions of subparts 1 and
3 applicable to CO. EPA's interpretation of how the provisions of the
Act apply to areas with ``clean data'' is not logically limited to
ozone, PM-2.5, and PM-10, because the rationale is not dependent upon
the type of pollutant. Our interpretation that an area that is
attaining the standard is relieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP
and to provide an attainment demonstration and contingency measures
pursuant to part D of the CAA, pertains whether the standard is CO, 1-
hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, PM-2.5, or PM-10.
b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
    The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant
standard of certain part D, subpart 1 and 2 (sections 171 and 172)
obligations, applies equally as well to part D, subpart 3, which
contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions for CO
nonattainment areas. As we have explained in the 8-hour ozone Phase 2
Final Rule, our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, and our approval
of PM-10 SIPs, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions
regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related
requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an area subject
to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment
of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years of complete,
quality-assured air quality monitoring data for ozone and PM, and two
consecutive years for CO). Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have
upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation of subparts 1 and 2
with respect to ozone. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir.
1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our
Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005) (memorandum opinion). It has been EPA's longstanding
interpretation that the general provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the
Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission of SIP
revisions concerning RFP for areas already attaining the ozone NAAQS.
In the General Preamble, we stated:

    [R]equirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment, since, at a minimum, the air
quality data for the area must show that the area has already
attained. A showing that the State will make RFP toward attainment
will, therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57 FR at 13564.

See also page 6 of the guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf
).

    EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the CO RFP provisions of
part D, subpart 3.
    With respect to RFP, CAA section 171(1) states that, for purposes
of part D of title I, RFP

means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the
relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.

The stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable
attainment date, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of
section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections
182(b) and (c), the PM-10 specific RFP requirements of section
189(c)(1), or the CO-specific RFP requirements of section 187(a)(7).
    Section 187(a)(7) states that the SIP for moderate CO areas with a
design value greater than 12.7 must:

provide a demonstration that the plan as revised will provide for
attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date and provisions for such specific annual emission reductions as
are necessary to attain the standard by that date.

This same requirement also applies to serious CO areas in accordance
with CAA section 187(b)(1).

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

    \5\ AA section 187(d), CO Milestone, applies to serious CO areas
and requires:
    (1) The state to submit a demonstration that the area has
achieved certain specific annual emission reductions (187(d)(1));
    (2) EPA to determine whether the demonstration is adequate
within 90 days (187(d)(2)); and
    (3) the state to submit a plan revision within 9 months of EPA's
notification that the state has not met the milestone, such plan to
implement CAA section 182(g)(4) economic incentive and
transportation control programs sufficient to achieve the specific
annual emission reductions by the attainment date (187(d)(3)).
    EPA interprets these provisions consistent with its
interpretation of Section 182(g) in Subpart 2. See May 10, 1995
Seitz Memorandum at p. 5. There, EPA included in its identification
of SIP submission requirements linked with attainment and RFP
requirements the ``Section 182(g) requirements concerning milestones
that are based on the section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C)
submissions.'' In Subpart 3, similarly, milestone requirements are
based on the section 187(a)(7) specific annual emission reduction
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of
the RFP and specific annual emissions reductions requirements will have
already been fulfilled.\6\ The specific annual emission reductions
required are only those necessary to attain the standard by the
attainment date. EPA took this position with respect to the general RFP
requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
and also in the May 10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the
requirements of sections 182(b) and (c). We are proposing to extend
that interpretation to the specific provisions of part D, subpart 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For PM-10 areas, we have concluded that it is a distinction
without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the PM-10
nonattainment area RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an
area is ``redesignated as attainment'', as opposed to section
172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the requirement
pertains, or the ozone and CO nonattainment area RFP requirements in
sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2) for ozone and 187(a)(7) for CO,
which refer to the RFP requirements as applying until the
``attainment date'', since, section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by
reference to section 171(l) of the Act. Reference to 171(l)
clarifies that, as with the general RFP requirements in section
172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1)
and 182(c)(2) and the CO-specific requirements of section 187(a)(7),
the PM-specific requirements may only be required for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As
discussed in the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP
requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in section 171(l),
to be a requirement that no longer applies once the standard has
been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

a revision to provide, and a demonstration that the plan as revised
will provide for attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date and provisions for such specific annual
emission reductions as are necessary to attain the standard by that
date.

As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring
attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area
to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble,
the Page memo and of the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth
in the Seitz memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other
measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking
redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been
reached.'' (57 FR at 13564).
c. Contingency Provisions
(1) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(9), and the special contingency provisions
applicable to ozone and CO plans. Section 172(c)(9) requires a State to
submit contingency measures that will be implemented if an area fails
to make ``reasonable further progress'' or fails to attain by the
applicable attainment date.\7\ Thus, the stated purpose of the
contingency measure requirement is to ensure RFP (the purpose of which
is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date) and
attainment by the applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact
attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, the stated
purpose of the contingency measure requirement will have already been
fulfilled. Consequently, we believe that the requirement for a State to
submit revisions providing for measures to meet the contingency
provisions of section 172(c)(9) no longer applies for an area that we
find as having attained the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ RFP means ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard by the applicable date.'' CAA Section 171(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that we took this view with respect to the general
contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) in our General
Preamble. In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a
discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation of requests
to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the ``section
172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures * * * no longer apply
when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation.'' See 57 FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also
Calcagni memo, p. 6.
    We propose to extend the same reasoning to CO plans with respect to
the section 172(c)(9) contingency provision requirements, since our
reasoning is equally applicable regardless of the pollutant. Moreover,
just as we concluded that the pollutant-specific contingency measure
requirements of section 182(c)(9) for ozone areas also no longer apply
to areas attaining the ozone NAAQS, we propose below that the CO-
specific contingency provisions of section 187(a)(3) no longer apply at
the time we find that an area has attained the CO NAAQS.
(2) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
    Section 187(a)(3) requires contingency measures to be implemented

if any estimate of vehicle miles traveled in the area which is
submitted in an annual report under paragraph (2) exceeds the number
predicted in the most recent prior forecast or if the area fails to
attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon
monoxide by the primary standard attainment date.

    Thus, the Act establishes two triggers for implementation of
contingency measures required under this provision. The first trigger
is associated with CAA section 187(a)(2), which requires plans for
areas with a design value above 12.7 ppm at the time of classification
to

include ``a forecast of vehicle miles traveled in the nonattainment
area concerned for each year before the year in which the plan projects
the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide to be
attained in the area,'' along with

annual updates of the forecasts to be submitted to the Administrator
together with annual reports regarding the extent to which such
forecasts proved to be accurate. Such annual reports shall contain
estimates of actual vehicle miles traveled in each year for which a
forecast was required.

The plan's contingency measures must be implemented ``if the prior
forecast has been exceeded by an updated forecast * * *.'' Both the
forecasts and reports are required only until the SIP's projected
attainment year. Following the plan's projected attainment year, which
is the last year of the VMT forecasts, this trigger disappears.
    The second trigger of the contingency provision is a failure of the
area to attain the primary CO standard by the applicable deadline, for
the evident purpose of ensuring that such an area further reduces
emissions as needed to attain the NAAQS. Once an area has actually
attained the CO NAAQS, this second trigger is clearly eliminated.
    Thus, the CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency provision has no
further practical effect when the two contingency triggers cease to
exist. Moreover, the implicit goal of the contingency provision, to
reduce motor vehicle-related CO emissions to the extent needed to
achieve annual progress and eventual attainment, would have been
accomplished when an area comes into attainment. Therefore, we propose
to conclude that an area that is attaining the CO standards is relieved
of an obligation to provide contingency measures pursuant to CAA
section 187(a)(3).
    CAA section 187(b)(2) requires that CO serious area plans include
TCMs as prescribed in CAA section 182(d)(1) for ozone areas, except
that the TCMs relate to CO emissions rather than volatile organic
compound emissions. Section 182(d)(1) requires that plans for severe
ozone areas must include TCMs to be implemented

to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area and to attain
reduction in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in combination
with other emission reduction requirements of this subpart, to
comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B)
(pertaining to periodic emissions reduction requirements).

    The section 187(b)(2) TCMs are required to be submitted if CO
emissions are expected to increase from growth in VMT or vehicle trips,
and to meet RFP or attainment. For the same reason that the requirement
for RFP no longer applies to an area that has attained the NAAQS, the
requirement for measures to contribute to RFP no longer applies
following a finding of attainment. Thus EPA interprets the provisions
of section 187(b)(2)(A) that cross-reference section 182(d)(1) so as to
suspend those provisions pertaining to periodic emissions reductions
requirements for so long as the area is attaining the standard. In a
May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, we identified as among those
requirements that could be suspended upon finding of attainment ``the
elements of the * * * requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) concerning
vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP requirements.'' (p. 2).
With respect to the requirement for TCMs to offset any growth in
emissions from VMT, see Section 3 below.
d. Conclusion
    As noted above, the South Coast area does not currently have an
approved SIP with respect to the requirements for RFP, attainment,
contingency provisions, and TCMs related to RFP requirements. However,
we believe that, for the reasons set forth here and established in our
prior ``clean data'' memoranda and rulemakings, a CO nonattainment area
that has ``clean data,'' should be relieved of the part D, subpart 3
obligations to provide an attainment demonstration with specific annual
emission reductions pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(7); the CAA section
187(d) milestone demonstration requirement; contingency provisions
pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(3)); and TCMs related to RFP
requirements pursuant to 187(b)(2); as well as the attainment
demonstration, RFP, and contingency measure provisions of part D,
subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.
    Here, as in both our 8-hour ozone Phase 2 final rule and 1-hour
ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension
of a requirement to submit these SIP revisions exists only for as long
as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the
standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the NAAQS, the
basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist.
Therefore, the area would again be subject to a requirement to submit
the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those
requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one of
the SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the
requirement for so long as the area continues to attain the standard.
However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to attainment, the
area will be entirely relieved of these requirements to the extent the
maintenance plan for the area does not rely on them.
    Should we at some future time determine that an area that had clean
data, but which has not yet been redesignated as attainment for a
NAAQS, has violated the relevant standard, the area would again be
required to submit the pertinent requirements under the SIP for the
area. Attainment determinations under the policy do not shield an area
from other required actions, such as provisions to address pollution
transport.
    As set forth, above, we propose to find that because the South
Coast area has continued to attain the NAAQS the requirement of an
attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, milestone
demonstration, TCMs related to RFP, and contingency measures no longer
apply.
3. TCMs To Offset Growth in Emissions From VMT Increases
    As noted above, the section 187(b)(2) TCMs are required to be
submitted if CO emissions are expected to increase from growth in VMT
or vehicle trips.
    EPA has concluded that states are not required to submit such
measures if the SIP includes a demonstration that, despite any growth
in projected VMT, CO emissions will decline each year through the
attainment year.\8\ In the General Preamble, we state that: ``If
projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one
year are not higher than during the ozone season the year before, given
the control measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is
satisfied.'' General Preamble at 57 FR 13522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, for example, EPA's final approval of Illinois' VMT SIP
at 60 FR 48896, 48897 (September 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

VMT and trip numbers.\9\ The Maintenance Plan includes revised and
updated VMT forecasts for each year from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4-1).
The Maintenance Plan also includes revised and updated projected CO
emissions from motor vehicles from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4-2),
showing a continuing sharp decline in CO emissions despite the growth
in VMT and trips. Consequently, we conclude that no TCMs are required
to satisfy the progress requirements of the Act or to offset growth in
CO emissions from growth in VMT or vehicle trips. We therefore propose
to approve the 1997 CO Plan, and the update through the year of
attainment (2002) in the Maintenance Plan, as meeting the provisions of
CAA section 187(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Motor vehicle VMT forecasts for each year are shown in Table
5-1. Despite this annual growth, emissions from motor vehicles are
shown in Table 5-2 to decline as follows: 1993-5909, 1994-5522,
1995-5135, 1996-4596, 1997-4057, 1998-3784, 1999-3511, 2000-3298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program
    The requirement for an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program under CAA
section 187(a)(6) applies to the South Coast by virtue of the area's
designation as a serious nonattainment area for CO, in accordance with
CAA section 187(b)(1). On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted a SIP
revision to satisfy the requirements for basic and enhanced I/M
programs in the various ozone and CO nonattainment areas in the State.
    On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), we approved the State's basic I/M
program as meeting the CAA section 182(b)(4) requirement for moderate
ozone areas within California, and the CAA section 187(a)(4)
requirement for I/M program corrections applicable to California's
moderate CO areas with a design value of less than 12.7 ppm at the time
of classification. In the same rule, we granted interim approval to the
State's enhanced I/M program under section 348(c) of the Highway Act,
as meeting the CAA section 182(c)(3) requirement for serious and above
ozone areas, and CAA 187(a)(6) for serious CO areas.
    In accordance with the State's request, we approved the I/M program
as meeting the high enhanced requirements (see discussion below). As
provided in the Highway Act, the interim approval was for a period of
18 months (i.e., until August 7, 1998), by which time the approval
would expire unless we had approved a SIP demonstrating that the
credits claimed for the program are appropriate and the I/M program is
otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act. See 40 CFR 52.241.
    When we subsequently ruled on the South Coast CO SIP, we also
granted interim approval to the progress and attainment provisions of
the plan, since fulfillment of those requirements depended upon
emission reductions from the enhanced I/M program. (63 FR 19661, April
21, 1998).
    California failed to make the SIP submittal required under the
Highway Act to substantiate the emission reductions claimed for the
enhanced I/M program and, as a result, the interim approval of the
enhanced I/M program and the progress and attainment demonstration
provisions of the South Coast CO SIP expired by operation of law on
August 7, 1998. In Section III.B.2.b, we discuss this lapsed approval
and our interpretation that the Clean Data Policy allows us to suspend
the requirements for progress and attainment demonstration as they
apply to the South Coast CO SIP.
    With the submittal of the South Coast CO Maintenance Plan and
redesignation request, the State included a SIP revision documenting
that: (1) The I/M program delivered CO emission reductions sufficient,
along with other control measures, to lead to attainment of the CO
NAAQS in the South Coast, and (2) the I/M program meets the low-
enhanced I/M performance requirements for CO in the South Coast.
    The State's transmittal letter included a table of the wintertime
CO emissions reduction benefits in the South Coast from the current I/M
program, along with a copy of the September 2005 Report to the
Legislature regarding ARB's &``April 2004 Evaluation of the California
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program.'' The
table shows the following reductions:

    Table 1.--Winter Season CO Emissions Reduction Benefits in the South Coast Air Basin Associated With the
                                              Enhanced I/M Program
                                                [In tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year......................................................     1990     1993     2000     2006     2010     2020
Reductions................................................      494      459      291      671      618      377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The State requests that we also now determine that the program
meets other low enhanced I/M program requirements. This would allow us
to conclude, for purposes of the redesignation provisions of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), that the area has met the applicable
requirement for an enhanced I/M program under CAA sections 187(a)(6)
and 187(b)(1).
    On September 18, 1995, we amended our regulatory requirements for
enhanced I/M programs (60 FR 48029). Among other changes, we
established a low enhanced performance standard as an option for areas
subject to the enhanced I/M requirement and meeting the following
requirements set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g) regarding RFP and attainment:
(1) The area is either not subject to or has an approved SIP for RFP in
1996, and (2) the area does not have a disapproved post-1996 RFP plan
or a disapproved attainment plan for ozone or CO. South Coast meets
these requirements because it has an approved plan for RFP in 1996 for
ozone, (62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997) and has no disapproved post-1996
RFP plan or a disapproved attainment plan for ozone or CO.
    The low enhanced I/M requirements set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g), and
further described in the preamble, establish specific program test
elements generally equivalent to those for a basic I/M program, as set
out in 40 CFR 51.352. The key difference in test requirements between
the basic and the low enhanced I/M program are two additional
requirements for low enhanced programs: visual inspection of emission
control device inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8), and
testing of light duty trucks rated up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) as prescribed in 40 CFR 51.351(g)(5).
Additionally, 40 CFR 51.351(b) requires on-road testing of 0.5% of the
subject fleet or 20,000

vehicles, whichever is less, and 40 CFR 51.351(c) requires inspection
of all 1996 and later vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD)
systems.
    As mentioned above, we fully approved California's I/M program as
meeting the basic I/M performance standard on January 8, 1997. 62 FR
1150 and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(234). California has now shown that its I/M
program also meets the low enhanced I/M performance standard and meets
the four requirements mentioned above.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See August 11, 2006, letter from Kurt Karperos, CARB, to
Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9, for technical information about this
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Since March 1984, the State has required visual inspection of
the positive crankcase ventilation valve and of the exhaust gas
recirculation valve on all vehicles subject to the I/M program, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8). See Health & Safety Code, Division
26, Part 5, Section 44012(f); Title 16, California Code of Regulations,
Division 33, Bureau of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle
Inspection Program, section 3340.42; and BAR 97 Specifications sections
3.3.9 and 3.6.18.
    (2) Since March 1984, the State I/M program has applied to light
duty trucks rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.351(g)(5). See Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section
44011, and Title 16, California Code of Regulations, Division 33,
Bureau of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection
Program, Section 3340.5.
    (3) Since 1998, California has conducted random roadside pullover
inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(b), under the authority of
Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44081.
    (4) Since 2002, California has inspected 1996 and later OBD-
equipped vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(c). See Health &
Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44036(b)(10); Title 16,
California Code of Regulations, Division 33, Bureau of Automotive
Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, Section 3340.42;
and BAR 97 Specifications, Sections 2 and 3.
    In summary, we conclude that: (1) The State was entitled to elect
to implement a low enhanced I/M program for CO in the South Coast; (2)
the program, as implemented by the State, delivered actual CO emission
reductions sufficient (along with reductions from other measures) to
attain the CO NAAQS in the South Coast; (3) the State's program has
been federally approved as meeting the basic I/M performance standard;
and (4) the State's program meets the low enhanced I/M performance
standard. Consequently, we find that the State met the CAA section
187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) enhanced I/M requirements that applied to the
South Coast CO nonattainment area prior to and at the time of the
submission of the redesignation request.
    Finally, we note that the State has indicated that it intends to
continue to implement the enhanced I/M program in the South Coast, and
continued CO emission reduction benefits from the program are
incorporated in the projected emissions inventory that is part of the
maintenance demonstration in the submitted maintenance plan.
5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Program
    Pursuant to CAA section 211(m), CO nonattainment areas with design
values of 9.5 ppm or higher must implement a wintertime oxygenated
gasoline program requiring that gasoline contain not less than 2.7
percent oxygen by weight. In addition, CAA section 187(b)(3) requires
that all serious CO areas implement such a program. California
submitted its motor vehicle fuels regulations, including requirements
for wintertime oxygen content, on November 15, 1994. We approved the
regulations on August 21, 1995, as meeting the applicable CAA
requirements. 60 FR 43379. The requirements remain in effect in the
South Coast area, although the State has amended the program in other
areas.
6. Conclusion
    For the reasons discussed above, we propose to determine that all
of the provisions of CAA section 110 and part D applicable to the South
Coast CO area for purposes of redesignation have been approved into the
California SIP.

C. Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Measures

    CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) establishes that, as a prerequisite
to redesignation to attainment,

the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions * * *.

    The Maintenance Plan provides evidence that the meteorological
conditions for the years when the South Coast attained the CO NAAQS
were more conducive to higher ambient CO concentrations than the long
term mean. During the same period, daily VMT increased at the normal
rate of growth, from 322.8 million miles in 2001 to 330.4 million miles
in 2003, so activity levels associated with motor vehicles, the primary
CO source in the South Coast, were not abnormal. Maintenance Plan, p.
6. Increasing CO emission reductions associated with State and Federal
motor vehicle standards, coupled with SCAQMD's CO emission limits on
stationary and area sources, provide additional evidence that
attainment results from the SIP's permanent and reliable controls on CO
emissions rather than favorable meteorology or depressed activity
levels. The largest source of emissions reductions during this period
came from progressively more stringent State emission standards for
cars, trucks, buses, and nonroad equipment, including forklifts, lawn
and garden equipment, and marine pleasurecraft.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Documentation on these and other California mobile souce
standards may be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/msprog.htm.

EPA has acted over the years to waive Federal preemption of State
standards for California's motor vehicle standards as authorized by
CAA section 209(b) and nonroad engine standards as authorized by CAA
section 209(e)(2). Under these CAA sections, EPA must grant the
waiver unless the Adminsitrator finds that: (1) Califronia's
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need
such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; or (3) California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) [or
209 for nonroad] of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

    CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that, before we redesignate
an area to attainment, we must have ``fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A * * *.''
1. Applicable Requirements
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the
subsequent ten-year period following the initial 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.
    We have issued guidance on maintenance plans, including most
notably: (1) The General Preamble (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and
(2) the Calcagni memo. In this action, we propose to approve the
Maintenance Plan because we believe that it meets the requirements of
CAA section 175A and is consistent with the documents referenced above
and other documents identified in the discussion below.
2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment Year and Future Years
    The Maintenance Plan includes emissions inventories for the
attainment year (2002) and for future years 2005, 2010, and 2015, along
with motor vehicle emissions for 2020. The methodologies for the
inventories are discussed on pages 14-16, including an extensive
discussion of adjustments to projected mobile source emissions to
reflect the impact of possible suspension of wintertime oxygenate
requirement for gasoline in the South Coast.\12\ Table 2 below
reproduces emissions data primarily from Table 3-2 of the Maintenance
Plan. For 2020, the onroad emissions data are presented in Attachment 3
to the plan. Attachment 3 provides winter emissions for motor vehicles
under two scenarios, SCAG 2001 RTP baseline case (1078 tpd) and SCAG
2001 RTP plan case (941 tpd). The Maintenance Plan does not include
inventories for stationary, areawide, and nonroad sources for 2020. In
Table 2, the 2020 projected emissions are derived from CARB's latest
annual updated emissions analysis for these inventory categories. The
data are taken from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air
Quality, 2006 Edition, Table 4-10, available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac06/chap406.htm
.

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

    \12\ Section 3.1.2 of the Maintenance Plan discusses the
possibility that the State might determine in future to rescind the
wintertime oxygenated fuel requirement as a primary measure. As
discussed below, data from the California Almanac of Emissions and
Air Quality, 2006 Edition, were used to complete the emissions
profile for 2020. The Almanac does not provide projected emissions
for a future scenario in which the wintertime oxygenated fuel
requirement is shifted from a primary measure to a contingency
measure. Therefore, the 2020 column in Table 2 does not show these
projections. If the State wishes in future to change the wintertime
oxygenated fuel program from an active measure to a contingency
measure, the State will need at that time to update the
quantification of the impact on CO emissions, and demonstrate that
the proposed revision will not interfere with continued maintenance
or any other applicable requirement.

                          Table 2.--South Coast Projected Winter CO Emissions Inventory
                                                [In tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                              2002     2005     2010     2015     2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary..................................................       53       55       59       64       69
Areawide....................................................      315      318      325      332       79
Onroad......................................................     3402     2668     2018     1428     1078
Onroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment......................     3402     2668     3041     1444
Nonroad.....................................................     1065      987      912      890      953
Nonroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment.....................     1065      987      921      899
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................     4835     4028     3346     2739     2179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table shows that maintenance of the NAAQS would be expected
primarily from large reductions in the onroad category, which result
from the turnover of cars and trucks, as older and more polluting
vehicles are retired and replaced with newer and much cleaner vehicles.
    The projected 2015 and 2020 onroad emissions were generated using
CARB's motor vehicle emissions factor model, EMFAC2002v2.2,
interpolating vehicle populations from calendar year 2010 and 2020
populations, as set out in Maintenance Plan, Attachment 2 (CO Modeling
Attainment Demonstration Extracted from the 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan, Appendix V, Section 4), Attachment 3 (CARB Assessment 549: South
Coast Air Basin CO Maintenance Plan Winter Emissions).
    EMFAC2002v2.2 was the most recent EPA-approved motor vehicle
emissions factor model at the time the Maintenance Plan was prepared,
but CARB expects to update the model in the near future as part of the
preparation of SIPs due to be submitted by the State in 2007.\13\ Other
aspects of the emissions inventory were current, accurate, and complete
at the time of plan preparation, and comply with applicable EPA
guidance on the preparation of emission inventories. We therefore
propose to approve the Maintenance Plan with respect to its emissions
inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We approved the use of EMFAC2002 to estimate motor vehicle
emissions on April 2, 2003 (68 FR 15720).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Maintenance Demonstration
    CAA section 175A(a) requires that the maintenance plan ``provide
for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality
standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at least 10
years after the redesignation.'' Generally, a state may demonstrate
maintenance of the CO NAAQS by either showing that future emissions
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory or by modeling to
show that the future mix of sources and emissions rates will not cause
a violation of the NAAQS. For areas that are required under the Act to
submit modeled attainment demonstrations, the maintenance demonstration
should use the same type of modeling. Calcagni memo, p. 9. Because the
design value for the South Coast exceeded 12.7 ppm and the area is
classified as serious, modeling would have been required as part of the
attainment demonstration under CAA section 187(b)(7)(i). The
Maintenance Plan includes a modeled maintenance demonstration.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ However, where there is a determination of attainment, the
requirement for an attainment demonstration is suspended and
demonstrations of maintenance can be either by emissions inventory
or modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 435-436 (6th Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

the CAL3QHC model was used to demonstrate attainment at high-volume
intersections. The modeling estimated the South Coast CO carrying
capacity to be 4,527 tpd. For the 2005 emissions inventory level of
4028, modeling predicted the 8-hour maximum concentration to be 7.8
ppm, and the 1-hour maximum to be 8.5 ppm. Concentrations still further
below the NAAQS are associated with the 2015 and 2020 inventory levels,
primarily due to significant reductions in the dominant motor vehicle
emissions category (2668 tpd in 2005, 1428 in 2015, and 1078 in 2020).
The demonstration covers a 13-year period (from 2007 through 2020),
although primarily referencing the 2015 year.
    The CAMx modeling approach used in the Maintenance Plan is an EPA-
approved model and the modeling performance is fully acceptable.
Moreover, the declining projected emissions inventories for the span of
the maintenance demonstration also support continued maintenance of the
NAAQS. We therefore propose to approve the demonstration of
maintenance.
c. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    The Calcagni Memo provides that areas must continue to operate an
air quality monitoring network to verify attainment. CO is currently
monitored in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix C and 40 CFR Part
58 at 22 stations. SCAQMD continues to assure the quality of the
measured data by conducting routine calibrations, pre-run and post-run
test procedures, and routine service checks. The District also
completes an annual review of the monitoring network to document
continued compliance with siting criteria. The SCAQMD commits in the
Maintenance Plan to verify continued maintenance by daily analysis of
air quality data collected (pp. 22-23). Furthermore, the District
commits to a formal review of the Maintenance Plan in 2007 and 2010 (p.
24). We propose to approve the Maintenance Plan with respect to the
obligation to continue to monitor and verify attainment.
d. Contingency Provision
    CAA section 175A(d) requires that maintenance plans include
provisions that EPA deems are necessary to assure that the State will
promptly correct any NAAQS violation, and further requires that such
provisions include a requirement that the State will implement all
measures contained in the SIP before redesignation. We have concluded
that contingency measures need not be new measures that would be
triggered by a violation, but may consist of early implementation of
measures that provide surplus reductions beyond those needed for
attainment or maintenance. See ``Early Implementation of Contingency
Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' memo
from G.T. Helms to EPA Air Branch Chiefs, August 13, 1993.
    The Maintenance Plan takes this approach, providing a large margin
of emissions from fully adopted State regulations, such as tighter
emission standards for all categories of motor vehicles and for nonroad
engines, such as forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, and marine
pleasure craft. See discussion above in Section III.C., providing a
more extensive list of measures, referencing the extensive CARB
documentation available for each measure, and discussing the EPA waiver
process applicable to these California mobile source standards. There
is no reason to expect that these standards, which are all currently in
effect, will be relaxed in the future. Nor is there reason to believe
that compliance will be inadequate, since CARB has for many decades
maintained a successful enforcement program. For details on CARB's
mobile source enforcement program for new and existing vehicles and
engines, see: http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/enf.htm.

    As a result, the predicted emissions for 2015 are approximately 43
percent below the 2002 attainment year emissions levels, and this
margin of excess reductions is projected to increase further in future
years due to the State's progressively tighter emissions standards for
new mobile source engines coupled with fleet turnover of the onroad and
nonroad fleet.
    The SCAQMD and CARB have committed to continue to implement all
existing measures to achieve permanent, enforceable CO emission
reductions that will further reduce CO levels (Maintenance Plan,
Chapters 2 and 3; CARB's letter to EPA dated February 24, 2006). The
Maintenance Plan does evaluate, however, the relatively small emissions
impact of a possible future decision to suspend implementation of the
wintertime oxygenate program in the South Coast (see Table 2 above).
The methodology and assumptions for calculating the impact are
discussed at length on pp. 15-16 and in Attachment A to the Maintenance
Plan. If the State decides in future to suspend the wintertime
oxygenated fuel requirement, the State would need to submit a SIP
revision complying with applicable CAA requirements.
    For the above reasons, we propose to approve the contingency
provisions in the Maintenance Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 175A(d).
e. Commitment To Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisons
    CAA section 179A(b) provides that States shall submit a commitment
to submit a SIP revision 8 years after redesignation providing for
maintaining the NAAQS for an additional 10 years. SCAQMD has made this
commitment as part of the Maintenance Plan (see p. 22), and we propose
to approve it.
f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they do so. Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards.
    Maintenance plan submittals must specify the maximum emissions of
transportation-related CO emissions allowed in the last year of the
maintenance period, i.e., the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB).
The submittal must also demonstrate that these emissions levels, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, are consistent with
maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for us to find these emissions
levels or ``budgets'' adequate and approvable, the submittal must meet
the conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), and
be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. For more
information on the transportation conformity requirement and applicable
policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation conformity Web site
at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.

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

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

    \15\ The MVEB for 2020 was clarified in letters from Sylia Oey,
CARB, to Dave Jesson, EPA Region 9, dated February 2, 2007, and from
Laki Tisopulos, SCAQMD, to Dave Jesson, dated February 2, 2007, and
an e-mail from Jonathan Nadler, SCAG, to Dave Jesson, dated February
2, 2007.

    Table 3.--South Coast CO Maintenance Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions
                                 Budgets
                [Winter season emissions in tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  2005     2010     2015     2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Air Basin Emissions...........     4028     3346     2739     2179
Motor Vehicle Emissions.............     2668     2041     1444     1078
Safety Margins......................      220       96      693     1059
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets.....     2888     2137     2137     2137
Total Air Basin Emissions with           4248     3442     3432     3196
 Safety Margin......................
Modeled Air Basin Emissions.........     4528     4528     4528     4528
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting MVEBs, States generally use motor vehicle emission
inventories. California took this approach, for example, in the 1997 CO
attainment plan. California need not, however, cap MVEBs at projected
motor vehicle emissions levels. Because overall projected levels of
emissions from all sources are expected to be less than the levels
necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS, California has a ``safety margin''
that the State may use to set MVEBs at a higher level. As long as
emissions from all sources are lower than needed to provide for
continued maintenance, the State may allocate additional emissions to
future mobile source growth by assigning a portion of the safety margin
to the MVEBs (see 40 CFR 93.124). California stated in the Maintenance
Plan that the safety margins described in Table 3 above are allocated
to the MVEBs.
    Attainment was achieved in 2002 when the CO emissions level in the
basin was 4835 tpd. The modeled attainment level is 4527 tpd. As can be
seen from Table 3, total basin emissions, with the safety margin, are
substantially below actual and modeled attainment levels. Thus, the
safety margins comply with the requirement that the budgets with safety
margins are lower than the maintenance level.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate and approvable for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following paragraphs provide our review of
the budgets in the Maintenance Plan against our adequacy criteria and
provide the basis for our proposed approval of the MVEBs.
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee)
and was subject to a public hearing. The February 24, 2006 transmittal
letter for the Maintenance Plan was signed by the CARB Executive
Officer, the Governor's designee for SIP purposes. CARB Executive Order
G-125-332 provides evidence of State adoption and legal authority.
SCAQMD's April 19, 2005 transmittal letter documents that the District
held a public hearing on the Maintenance Plan on March 4, 2005, after
proper public notice. Therefore, we propose to conclude that the
submitted plan meets the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with
Federal, State and local agencies and whether full implementation plan
documentation was provided to EPA and EPA's stated concerns, if any,
were addressed. Consultation for development of this plan largely
consisted of public meetings (page 75 of the plan); discussions with
Federal, State, and local transportation planning agencies; and a
public hearing, preceded by notices that were published in newspapers
of general circulation. Documentation was provided to EPA and EPA's
stated concerns were addressed. We propose to conclude that this
consultation is sufficient for the purposes of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the MVEBs are clearly identified and precisely
quantified. The Maintenance Plan clearly identifies and precisely
quantifies the CO MVEBs as shown in Table 3 above. The budgets are
derived from EMFAC2002 with travel activity data provided by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The methodology
and rationale for determining the MVEBs is discussed on pages 17
through 22 of the plan. This portion of the plan also indicates that
modeling sensitivity analyses confirm that the budgets would provide
for maintenance even assuming possible changes in future to the
estimation of motor vehicle emissions. We propose that the plan thereby
meets the adequacy criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii).
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the MVEBs, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is
relevant to a given SIP submission). The Maintenance Plan shows how the
MVEBs and related safety margins are consistent with maintenance of the
CO NAAQS through 2015 (see pages 12 through 16 of the Maintenance Plan)
and 2020 (see Attachment 3). In particular, Table 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, and 3-
6 of the Maintenance Plan show the extent to which maximum future year
emissions (including the budget safety margins) fall below emissions
for the 2002 attainment year and below the modeled 2003 emissions,
which are associated with ambient concentration levels that are below
both the 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS. ``Assessment 549'' on page 74 of the
plan shows that this trend of lower CO emissions continues through
2020, despite projected VMT increases. Consequently, we propose to find
that the plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we review a plan to determine whether
the MVEBs are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions
inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy
plan or maintenance plan. The Maintenance Plan contains no new measures
but the budgets appropriately reflect the State's adopted emissions
standards, fuel regulations, and the vehicle inspection and maintenance
program, as applicable to the area. Thus, we propose to conclude that
the submitted plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether revisions to previously submitted plans explain and
document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control
measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any

changes to established safety margins; and reasons for the changes
(including the basis for any changes related to emissions factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled). The Maintenance Plan explains and
documents the various changes that have been made to the CO emissions
inventories, etc.\16\ Thus, we propose to find that the submitted plan
meets this criterion for adequacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The most significant technical difference between the
attainment SIP and the maintenance plan is the change from EMFAC7G
to EMFAC2002v2.2, which results in a significant improvement in the
quantification of motor vehicle emissions, and updates to SCAG's
growth projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review the State's compilation of
public comments and response to comments that are required to be
submitted with any SIP revision. Attachments 6 and 7 of the Maintenance
Plan submittal provide transcripts and minutes of the public hearing,
during which there was a single comment, supporting adoption of the
plan. We reviewed this compilation and concluded that the comment does
not affect our proposed approval of the MVEBs. Thus, we propose that
the Maintenance Plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
    Therefore, we propose to approve the CO MVEBs contained in the
submitted Maintenance Plan because the plan and budgets meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and because we find that
ARB has met all statutory requirements for submittals of maintenance
plans under sections 110 and part D of the Act. Should we finalize our
approval, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and
the U.S. Department of Transportation must use these new CO MVEBs from
the Maintenance Plan for future transportation conformity
determinations. We are also announcing our proposed approval on our
conformity adequacy Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm
.

    In the submittal letter dated February 24, 2006, CARB requested
that we limit the duration of any final approval of the MVEBs in the
Maintenance Plan to last only until the effective date of future EPA
adequacy findings for replacement budgets. This would mean that if CARB
decides to amend the CO MVEBs sometime in the future, then the new
MVEBs would become effective as soon as EPA determined adequacy, rather
than after comprehensive rulemaking (which is a longer process).
    CARB had made a similar request, and EPA granted it, in connection
with the MVEBs in other plans submitted by the State (see 67 FR 69139,
November 15, 2002). That prior CARB request was accompanied by
significant documentation that demonstrated why limiting the duration
of our MVEB approval provided an advantage to air quality and public
health protection.
    With the current request, however, CARB has not provided supporting
documentation to address our criteria for granting limited approval.
The criteria are set out on page 69141 of the rulemaking, and include:
(1) State acknowledgment that its current budgets are outdated or
deficient; (2) State commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive update of its SIP; and (3) State request that we limit
the duration of the approval of the State's current approved SIP. We
note that CARB's request to limit the duration of the approvals of the
MVEBs was contained only in the submittal letter and the request is
not, therefore, considered a part of the maintenance plan itself.
Therefore, our denial of ARB's request does not affect our approval of
the plan or the budgets contained therein.
g. Conclusion
    Because the Maintenance Plan satisfies applicable CAA requirements,
we propose to approve it under section 175A.

IV. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the 2005 Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A. We are proposing
to find adequate the MVEBs and to approve the budgets under CAA section
176(c).
    We are also proposing to approve the State's request to redesignate
the area to attainment for CO under the provisions of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). As prerequisite to this action, we are proposing to find
that the area has attained the NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions under the SIP, and that the SIP for the area meets
all of the requirements of CAA section 110, Part D, and section 175A
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
    As part of our proposed determination that the South Coast area has
met applicable Part D provisions, we are proposing to adapt to CO areas
the provisions of our Clean Data Policy, which we have established for
1-hour ozone, PM-10, 8-hour ozone, and PM-2.5 areas. Under our proposed
extension of the Clean Data Policy to CO, we are proposing to interpret
certain CAA Part D provisions as suspending the requirements for
submission of RFP, attainment demonstrations, contingency measures, and
TCMs related to RFP due to the fact that the South Coast has already
attained the CO NAAQS. We are proposing to approve the 1997 CO plan and
the Maintenance Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section
187(b)(2) relating to TCMs to offset emissions associated with growth
in VMT and vehicle trips.
    Finally, because our interim approval of California's I/M program
for CO in the South Coast expired on August 7, 1998, California has now
submitted a demonstration that the I/M program meets the low-enhanced
requirements applicable to the South Coast CO nonattainment area. We
are proposing to approve that demonstration and to conclude that the
State has satisfied the CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) enhanced I/
M requirements that applied to the South Coast CO nonattainment area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and to redesignate the area to attainment for air quality
planning purposes, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175

(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard
and to redesignate the area to attainment for air quality planning
purposes, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it proposes to approve a state plan implementing a
Federal Standard and to redesignate the area to attainment for air
quality planning purposes. EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to
those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential
to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to EO
13045 because it proposes to approve a State plan and to redesignate
the area to attainment for air quality planning purposes.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission or redesignation request, to use VCS in place of a SIP
submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Carbon monoxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: February 6, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
 [FR Doc. E7-2538 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P