You are on page 1of 14

71776 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 purposes of judicial review nor does it § 52.1570 Identification of plan.
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This extend the time within which a petition * * * * *
rule does not impose an information for judicial review may be filed, and (c) * * *
collection burden under the provisions shall not postpone the effectiveness of * * * * *
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 such rule or action. This action may not (78) Revisions to the State
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) The be challenged later in proceedings to Implementation Plan submitted on July
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 enforce its requirements. (See section 28, 2004 by the State of New Jersey
et seq., as added by the Small Business 307(b)(2).) Department of Environmental Protection
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 that establishes an expanded control
1996, generally provides that before a program for architectural coatings.
rule may take effect, the agency Environmental protection, Air (i) Incorporation by reference:
promulgating the rule must submit a pollution control, Incorporation by (A) Regulation Subchapter 23 of Title
rule report, which includes a copy of reference, Intergovernmental relations, 7, Chapter 27 of the New Jersey
the rule, to each House of the Congress Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping Administrative Code, entitled
and to the Comptroller General of the requirements, Volatile organic ‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution From
United States. EPA will submit a report compounds. Architectural Coatings,’’ adopted on
containing this rule and other required Dated: November 8, 2005. May 21, 2004 and effective on July 20,
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Alan J. Steinberg, 2004.
House of Representatives, and the Regional Administrator, Region 2. (ii) Additional material:
Comptroller General of the United (A) Letter from State of New Jersey
States prior to publication of the rule in ■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
Department of Environmental Protection
the Federal Register. A major rule of Federal Regulations is amended as
dated July 28, 2004, requesting EPA
cannot take effect until 60 days after it follows:
approval of a revision to the Ozone SIP
is published in the Federal Register. PART 52—[AMENDED] which contains amendments to the
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Subchapter 23 ‘‘Prevention of Air
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Pollution From Architectural Coatings.’’
section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, continues to read as follows: * * * * *
petitions for judicial review of this Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ■ 3. Section 52.1605 is amended by
action must be filed in the United States
revising the entry under Title 7, Chapter
Court of Appeals for the appropriate Subpart FF—New Jersey 27 for Subchapter 23 in the table to read
circuit by January 30, 2006. Filing a
as follows:
petition for reconsideration by the ■ 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by
Administrator of this final rule does not adding new paragraph (c)(78) to read as § 52.1605 EPA—approved New Jersey
affect the finality of this rule for the follows: regulations.

State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments

* * * * * * *
Title 7, Chapter 27.

* * * * * * *
Subchapter 23, Prevention of Air Pollution July 20, 2004 ............. November 30, 2005 ... Variances or exemptions approved by the
From Architectural Coatings. State pursuant to Subchapter 23.3(j) be-
come applicable only if approved by EPA
as a SIP revision.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–23418 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P AGENCY action to approve a State
Implementation Plan revision,
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 submitted by the California Air
Resources Board on November 8, 2004,
[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0010; FRL–8002–4] that includes the 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan
Approval and Promulgation of for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Implementation Plans and Designation Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Planning Areas. This revision will
Purposes; California; Carbon provide a ten-year update to the carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan Update for monoxide maintenance plan, as well as
Ten Planning Areas; Motor Vehicle replace existing and establish new
Emissions Budgets; Technical carbon monoxide motor vehicle
Correction emissions budgets for the purposes of
AGENCY: Environmental Protection determining transportation conformity,
Agency (EPA). for the following ten areas: Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized
ACTION: Direct final rule.
Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71777

Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe change and may be made available VI. EPA’s Final Action
South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San , including any personal information I. Background
Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San provided, unless the comment includes
Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area. Confidential Business Information (CBI) A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is taking this action pursuant to or other information whose disclosure is Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean
those provisions of the Clean Air Act restricted by statute. Information that Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), we are
that obligate the agency to take action you consider CBI or otherwise protected approving a State Implementation Plan
on submittals of revisions to State should be clearly identified as such and (SIP) revision submitted by the
implementation plans. The intended should not be submitted through the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
effect of this action is to fulfill the agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or on November 8, 2004. This SIP revision
requirement under the Clean Air Act for e-mail. The agency Web site and consists of the 2004 Revision to the
a State to submit a subsequent eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous California State Implementation Plan
maintenance plan that provides for access’’ systems, and EPA will not know for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
continued maintenance of a National your identity or contact information Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal
Ambient Air Quality Standard within unless you provide it in the body of Planning Areas (‘‘2004 CO Maintenance
former nonattainment areas within eight your comment. If you send e-mail Plan’’), ARB Board Resolution 04–20
years of redesignation of those areas to directly to EPA, your e-mail address adopting the 2004 CO Maintenance
attainment. In connection with the will be automatically captured and Plan, and related public process
motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are included as part of the public comment. documentation. The 2004 CO
denying a request by the California Air If EPA cannot read your comment due Maintenance Plan will provide a ten-
Resources Board for EPA to limit the to technical difficulties and cannot year update to the carbon monoxide
duration of our approval of the budgets. contact you for clarification, EPA may (CO) maintenance plan, as well as
Also, in this action, EPA is notifying not be able to consider your comment. replace existing and establish new
the public that we have found that the Docket: The index to the docket for motor vehicle emissions budgets
carbon monoxide motor vehicle this action is available electronically at (MVEBs), for the following ten areas,
emissions budgets contained in the http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in referred to herein collectively as the
submitted maintenance plan are hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 ‘‘ten planning areas’’: Bakersfield
adequate for conformity purposes. As a Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized
result of this finding, the various California. While all documents in the Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake
metropolitan planning organizations in docket are listed in the index, some Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe
the ten planning areas and the U.S. information may be publicly available South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized
Department of Transportation must use only at the hard copy location (e.g., Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San
the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets copyrighted material), and some may Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San
from the submitted maintenance plan not be publicly available in either Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area.
for future conformity determinations. location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard ARB’s November 8, 2004 SIP submittal
Lastly, EPA is correcting certain errors copy materials, please schedule an was deemed complete by operation of
made in our 1998 final rule approving appointment during normal business law six months after receipt under
California’s redesignation request for hours with the contact listed in the FOR section 110(k)(1)(B).
these ten planning areas. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. In connection with the MVEBs, we are
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
denying a request by the California Air
DATES: This rule is effective on January
Toby Tiktinsky, EPA Region IX, (415) Resources Board for EPA to limit the
30, 2006 without further notice, unless
947–4223, tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov. duration of our approval of the budgets.
EPA receives adverse comments by
Also, in this notice, EPA is notifying the
December 30, 2005. If we receive such SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
public that we have found that the
comments, we will publish a timely Throughout this document, the terms MVEBs contained in the submitted
withdrawal in the Federal Register to ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to U.S. maintenance plan are adequate for
notify the public that this direct final EPA. transportation conformity purposes.
rule will not take effect. Table of Contents Lastly, we are also correcting,
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act,
I. Background
identified by docket number R09-OAR– A. What Action Is EPA Taking? certain errors that we made in our 1998
2005-CA–0010, by one of the following B. Why Is California Submitting This SIP final rule approving California’s
methods: Revision? redesignation request for these ten
1. Agency Web site: http:// C. What Process Did California Use To planning areas.
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers Develop This Plan?
receiving comments through this D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide B. Why Is California Submitting This
electronic public docket and comment Concentrations SIP Revision?
E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions
system. Follow the on-line instructions Budgets (MVEBs)?
All ten planning areas that are the
to submit comments. II. How Are We Evaluating This Submittal? subject of this rulemaking were
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: III. EPA’s Evaluation of 2004 CO originally designated as nonattainment
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Maintenance Plan areas for the CO National Ambient Air
on-line instructions. A. Attainment Inventory Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 1978.
3. E-mail: tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov. B. Maintenance Demonstration See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978).
4. Mail or deliver: Toby Tiktinsky C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Because all of the ten planning areas
Continued Attainment remained ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the CO
(Air–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
D. Contingency Provisions
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets NAAQS at the time of enactment of the
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor Vehicle Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
Instructions: All comments will be Emissions Budgets their nonattainment designations were
included in the public docket without V. Technical Correction carried forward by operation of law

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
71778 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, as over the effects of the predominant satisfy the section 175A(b) requirement
amended in 1990. Based on their design oxygenate used to comply with the for a subsequent maintenance plan.
values in 1990, eight of the ten areas wintertime gasoline requirements,
C. What Process Did California Use To
were further classified as ‘‘moderate’’ methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), on
Develop This Plan?
nonattainment. The air quality in two of water quality, the ARB rescinded the
the areas (Lake Tahoe North Shore Area wintertime oxygenated gasoline ARB held a public hearing on the
and Bakersfield Metropolitan Area), requirement as it relates to the ten 2004 CO Maintenance Plan on July 22,
however, was near the standard, but not planning areas covered by the 1996 CO 2004 and adopted the plan on the same
below it. Thus, these two areas were not Maintenance Plan. In November 1998, day. Thirty days prior to that date, ARB
further classified, but retained their ARB amended the 1996 CO arranged for publication of notices of
‘‘nonattainment’’ designations. [See 56 Maintenance Plan to remove the CO the July 22, 2004 public hearing in
FR 56694, at 56723–56726 (November 6, emissions reductions benefits associated major newspapers that circulate in each
1991).] with the wintertime oxygenated of the ten planning areas. By letter dated
Once an area achieves the NAAQS, gasoline requirement, and submitted the November 8, 2004, ARB submitted the
and the area demonstrates in a revised maintenance plan, Revision to 2004 CO Maintenance Plan for approval
maintenance plan that it can continue to 1996 Carbon Monoxide Maintenance by EPA as a revision to the California
meet the air quality standards, the State Plan for 10 Federal Planning Areas SIP. As enclosures to the November 8,
can request that EPA redesignate the (‘‘1998 CO Maintenance Plan’’), as a SIP 2004 letter, ARB provided evidence of
area to attainment. Before an area can be revision to EPA in December 1998. In adoption (ARB resolution 04–20), the
redesignated to attainment, EPA must the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB necessary legal authority under State
ensure the maintenance plan meets the estimates that repeal of the wintertime law to adopt and implement the plan,
criteria established in section 175A of oxygenated gasoline requirement results copies of public hearing notices in
the CAA. The plan must demonstrate in an increase in CO emissions in the which ARB was to address the contents
continued attainment of the applicable ten planning areas of approximately 9% of the plan revision, and minutes from
NAAQS for at least ten years after the but concludes that the CO NAAQS the July 22, 2004 public hearing
Administrator approves a redesignation would still be maintained through 2010. produced by a certified court reporting
to attainment. We have taken no action on the 1998 CO
In 1996, California submitted the service. ARB is the Governor’s designee
Maintenance Plan SIP revision and for submitting SIP revisions.
Final Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
consider the more recent submittal, i.e.,
Request and Maintenance Plan for Ten D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP
Federal Planning Areas (‘‘1996 CO Concentrations
submittal, to supersede this earlier
Maintenance Plan’’). The 1996 CO
submittal. The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
Maintenance Plan demonstrated
continued maintenance of the CO Section 175A(b) of the Act requires provides a summary of ambient CO
NAAQS in the ten planning areas the State to submit, eight years after concentration data collected within the
through 2010. On March 31, 1998, EPA redesignation of any area to attainment, ten planning areas since the areas
approved the 1996 CO Maintenance an additional revision of the SIP that attained the CO NAAQS. The data,
Plan as a revision to the California SIP provides for maintenance of the which is summarized in Table 1 below,
and redesignated the ten areas to applicable NAAQS for the 10-year indicate that the CO NAAQS has been
attainment effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR period following the initial maintenance maintained in the ten planning areas
15305). period. ARB’s current submission since the mid-1990s, that design values
One of the control measures that the updates the maintenance plan to cover are currently well below the CO
1996 CO Maintenance Plan relies upon the remainder of the twenty year NAAQS, and that, with one exception,
is the State’s wintertime oxygenated maintenance period (1998 to 2018) there is a continuing downward trend in
gasoline requirement. Due to concerns required by the CAA and is intended to the CO design values in these areas.

TABLE 1.—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE 8-HOUR CO NAAQS IN CALIFORNIA


[Parts per million or ppm]

CO maintenance area Attainment period 1995 2000 2003

Bakersfield ............................................................................................................................... 1992–1994—6.1 6.1 5.2 2.5


Chico ........................................................................................................................................ 1993–1995—5.4 5.0 4.0 3.4
Fresno ...................................................................................................................................... 1993–1995—9.1 8.5 7.6 4.3
Lake Tahoe North Shore ......................................................................................................... 1993–1994—3.8 3.2 0.9 N/A
Lake Tahoe South Shore ........................................................................................................ 1993–1994—7.4 6.8 4.3 6.5
Modesto ................................................................................................................................... 1993–1994—6.6 6.3 6.3 3.7
Sacramento .............................................................................................................................. 1993–1995—9.1 8.0 6.2 4.2
San Diego ................................................................................................................................ 1993–1994—7.0 7.4 4.9 4.1
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ........................................................................................... 1993–1994—7.2 7.5 6.9 4.9
Stockton ................................................................................................................................... 1993–1994—7.5 7.5 6.3 3.2
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 5.
NOTE: The 8-hour CO 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 a given two-year period. Then the higher of the two ‘‘second high’’ values is used as the design value for a given
monitoring site, and the highest design value among the various CO monitoring sites represents the CO design value for the given area.
N/A = Not Available.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71779

E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions attainment and reasonable further memo’’). Our evaluation of the 2004 CO
Budgets (MVEBs)? progress, or any other applicable Maintenance Plan is provided in the
In developing plans for improving or requirement of the Act. We evaluate the following section of this notice.
maintaining air quality under the CAA, potential for this SIP revision to
III. EPA’s Evaluation of 2004 CO
regions must estimate the total interfere with continued maintenance in
Maintenance Plan
emissions from motor vehicles. These Section III.B (‘‘Maintenance
estimates act as a budget or ceiling for Demonstration’’) of this notice in the A. Attainment Inventory
emissions from motor vehicles. EPA context of approving the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement as a For maintenance plans, a State should
evaluates these budgets to ensure that develop a comprehensive, accurate
current and future motor vehicle contingency measure.
Section 175A(b) of the Act requires inventory of actual emissions for an
emissions will not prevent a region from attainment year to identify the level of
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. the State to submit, eight years after
redesignation of any area to attainment, emissions which is sufficient to
Metropolitan Planning Organizations maintain the NAAQS. A State should
(MPOs) must ensure that transportation an additional revision of the SIP that
provides for maintenance of the develop these inventories consistent
plans and programs do not lead to with EPA’s most recent guidance on
increases in motor vehicle emissions applicable NAAQS for the 10-year
period following the initial maintenance emissions inventory development.
that would exceed the established
budgets and, consequently, hinder a period. Section 175A(d) requires that The 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
region from attaining or maintaining the plan revisions submitted under section included attainment inventories for
NAAQS. 175A contain such contingency each of the ten planning areas. As part
provisions as EPA deems necessary to of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB
II. How Are We Evaluating This assure that the State will promptly updated the emissions inventories for
Submittal? correct any violation of the standard year 1993, which was the common
We are evaluating this SIP revision which occurs after the redesignation of attainment year for all ten planning
submittal under sections 110 and 175A the area as an attainment area. Such areas in the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan,
of the Act. contingency provisions must include a to reflect better calculation methods and
Section 110(k) of the Act requires EPA requirement that the State will emissions factors. ARB also developed a
to approve, disapprove, or conditionally implement all measures with respect to CO emissions inventory for a more
approve all SIP submittals found or the control of the air pollutant recent attainment year, 2003. Table 2
deemed to be complete. As noted above, concerned which were contained in the presents a summary of the 2004 CO
ARB’s SIP submittal containing the 2004 SIP for the area before redesignation of Maintenance Plan’s emissions estimates
CO Maintenance Plan was deemed the area as an attainment area. for these two attainment years (1993 and
complete by operation of law. Maintenance plans submitted under 2003) as well as the plan’s updated
Section 110(l) of the Act requires that section 175A of the Act should include projections of emissions for 2010 (the
each SIP revision submitted by a State the following core provisions: An horizon or out-year of the 1996 CO
be adopted by such State after attainment inventory, a maintenance Maintenance Plan) and a projection of
reasonable notice and public hearing. demonstration, commitment to continue emissions for 2018 (the out-year of the
As noted above, ARB adopted the 2004 operating an appropriate monitoring 2004 CO Maintenance Plan). Table 2
CO Maintenance Plan on July 22, 2004 network, commitment to verify shows wintertime seasonal CO
after having provided for reasonable continued attainment, and a emissions decreasing steadily over the
notice and a public hearing. We find the contingency plan. See EPA Policy next thirteen years. ARB attributes the
public process ARB used to develop and Memorandum, ‘‘Procedures for continuing decline in emissions, despite
adopt this SIP revision to be acceptable Processing Requests to Redesignate Ares growth in population and vehicle miles
under section 110(l) of the Act. to Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director, traveled (VMT), to the benefits of
Section 110(l) also states that EPA Air Quality Management Division, increasingly tighter emissions standards
shall not approve a SIP revision if the Office of Air Quality Planning and for new engines, fuel requirements, and
revision would interfere with any Standards, to Regional Air Division turnover of the vehicle fleet to lower-
applicable requirement concerning Directors, September 4, 1992 (‘‘Calcagni emitting models.

TABLE 2.—TOTAL CO EMISSIONS IN EACH MAINTENANCE AREA


[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]

CO maintenance area 1993 2003 2010 2018

Bakersfield ....................................................................................................................................................... 478 298 234 191


Chico ................................................................................................................................................................ 232 164 134 113
Fresno .............................................................................................................................................................. 627 400 302 244
Lake Tahoe North Shore Area ........................................................................................................................ 25 19 16 14
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area ........................................................................................................................ 61 49 45 43
Modesto ........................................................................................................................................................... 331 206 151 120
Sacramento ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,125 658 487 388
San Diego ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,889 1,101 829 643
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ................................................................................................................... 4,254 2,645 1,716 1,322
Stockton ........................................................................................................................................................... 433 258 188 153
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 8.

Appendix B of the 2004 CO inventories by major source category. of the emissions inventories by using
Maintenance Plan shows emission ARB prepared the motor-vehicle portion the current version of California’s motor

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
71780 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

vehicle emission factor model B. Maintenance Demonstration the nine areas for which maintenance
EMFAC2002, version 2.2. EPA approved Generally, a State may demonstrate demonstrations are based on the
the use of EMFAC2002 to estimate maintenance of the NAAQS by either inventory approach, the updated
motor vehicle emissions on April 1, showing that future emissions of a estimates of total CO emissions in each
2003 (see 68 FR 15720). The emissions pollutant or its precursors will not area show a continuing downward trend
estimates in table 2 above for inventory exceed the level of the attainment through 2018 (i.e., 20 years after
years 2003, 2010, and 2018 do not inventory, or by modeling to show that redesignation) and thus demonstrate
include the emissions benefit from the the future mix of sources and emissions maintenance of the CO NAAQS through
(now rescinded) wintertime oxygenated rates will not cause a violation of the the required period. ARB also updated
gasoline requirement but do include the NAAQS. For areas that are required the maintenance demonstration for the
emissions benefit from the measures under the Act to submit modeled Fresno area, once again relying on the
that ARB adopted as contingency attainment demonstrations, the rollback method to show that the CO
measures in the 1996 CO Maintenance maintenance demonstration should use NAAQS would be maintained in that
Plan. These measures, which are listed the same type of modeling. In areas area through 2018. Table 3 summarizes
on page 12 of the 2004 CO Maintenance where modeling is not required, the the updated rollback analysis for Fresno
Plan, include improvements to the State may rely on the attainment and shows that the design values for
inventory approach. For subsequent Fresno are anticipated to continue to fall
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
maintenance plans, to comply with well below those achieved in the 1993–
M) program, on-board diagnostics
section 175A(b) of the Act, the State’s 1995 attainment period.
systems testing for newer vehicles, maintenance demonstration must
California cleaner burning gasoline, off- We find the maintenance
extend 10 years after the expiration of
highway recreational vehicle standards, the 10-year maintenance period covered demonstrations for the ten planning
tighter lawn and garden equipment by the initial maintenance plan. areas in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
standards, and tighter low-emission In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, to be acceptable for the purposes of
vehicle and clean fuel regulations. ARB provided maintenance CAA section 175A(b). Further, we find
demonstrations (through 2010) for nine that, based on the maintenance
EPA has reviewed the emissions
of the 10 areas based on the attainment demonstrations contained in the 2004
inventories included in the 2004 CO
inventory approach and provided a CO Maintenance Plan, the revision in
Maintenance Plan and the related the status of one of the principal control
emissions inventory preparation maintenance demonstration (through
2010) based on modeling (rollback measures relied upon in the 1996 CO
documentation and concludes that the Maintenance Plan, the wintertime
method) for the one area (Fresno) for
inventories are comprehensive and oxygenated gasoline requirement, from
which modeling had been required for
reflect acceptable methods and ‘‘active’’ status to ‘‘contingent’’ status is
attainment demonstration purposes
emissions factors and that the under the Act. approvable under section 110(l) because
inventories present reasonably accurate In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, it will not interfere with continued
estimates of actual and projected CO ARB updated the emissions inventories maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the
emissions in the ten planning areas. for all ten areas (see Table 2, above). For ten planning areas.
TABLE 3.—CO ROLLBACK ANALYSIS FOR FRESNO AREA
[Winter seasonal emissions]

Fresno urbanized area 1993 2003 2010 2018

All Sources of CO in the Emission Inventory (tons per day) .................................................................. 627 400 302 244
Projected Design Value for All Sources in the Inventory (in ppm) ......................................................... 9.1 5.8 4.4 3.5
On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the CO Emission Inventory (tons per day) ...................................... 450 236 141 77
Projected Design Value for On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the Inventory (in ppm) ......................... 9.1 4.8 2.9 1.6
Vehicle Miles Traveled (in thousands) .................................................................................................... 15,987 20,624 24,895 29,487
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 11.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, the ten planning areas have closed since
of Continued Attainment ARB indicates that it intends to redesignation of these areas to
continue to comply with the monitoring attainment for the CO NAAQS, but 33
Once an area has been redesignated, criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 58, and sites remain open with at least one CO
the State should continue to operate an that it will annually review data from monitoring site continuing to operate in
appropriate air quality monitoring the two most recent, consecutive years each planning area, except for the Lake
network, in accordance with 40 CFR in order to verify continued attainment Tahoe North Shore Area. The reduction
part 58, to verify the attainment status of the CO NAAQS. In the 2004 CO in the number of CO monitoring sites is
of the area. The maintenance plan Maintenance Plan, ARB reiterates its acceptable in light of the sharp decline
should contain provisions for continued intent to continue to collect air quality in maximum CO concentrations in each
operation of air quality monitors that data and to review data on an annual of the ten planning areas and the need
will provide such verification. The basis from the two most recent to shift resources to address other air
maintenance plan should also indicate consecutive years to verify continued quality priorities. We also believe that
how the State will track the progress of attainment of the CO NAAQS. the lack of a CO monitoring site in the
the maintenance plan, such as by Based on the compilation of Lake Tahoe North Shore Area is
periodically updating the emissions information in appendix A of the 2004 acceptable given the very low CO
inventory. CO Maintenance Plan, we note that, in concentrations measured there. In
the aggregate, ten CO monitoring sites in addition, audits of a number of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71781

ambient monitoring networks in the ten equipment—tier II requirements had achieved significant reductions in
planning areas since redesignation have (Statewide); and low-emission vehicles CO emissions from other control
found no significant problems with any and clean fuels (post-1995) standards measures, the wintertime oxygenated
of the networks. (Statewide). At the time of ARB’s gasoline requirement was no longer
Under EPA’s Consolidated Emissions adoption of the 1996 CO Maintenance necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS in
Reporting Rule, published in the Plan, these measures had already been the ten planning areas. The growing
Federal Register on June 10, 2002 (see adopted and were anticipated to be concern about the risks of the widely
67 FR 39602), states are required to implemented during the 1996 through used oxygenate MTBE (methyl tertiary
prepare comprehensive statewide 2001 period regardless of any triggering butyl ether) also influenced ARB’s
inventories every three years. In event associated with high CO decision to rescind the wintertime
addition, under State law (California concentrations. The CO emissions oxygenated gasoline requirement.
Health and Safety Code Section reductions associated with these seven Because it is highly soluble in water and
39607.3), ARB is required to update contingency measures were not transfers to groundwater faster, farther
emissions inventories for all areas of included in the maintenance and more easily than other gasoline
California for CO as well as the other demonstrations for the ten planning constituents, ARB concluded that MTBE
criteria pollutants on an on-going basis. areas and thus were surplus to the CO poses a significant threat to
Although not cited in the 2004 emissions reductions assumed in the groundwater, surface water, and
Maintenance Plan, the Federal and State 1996 CO Maintenance Plan. drinking water systems. The following
inventory update requirements suffice CAA section 211(m) establishes year (March 26, 1999), Governor Gray
to track progress of the 2004 CO particular requirements for adopting Davis signed Executive Order D–5–99
Maintenance Plan. provisions requiring the use of ordering the phase-out of MTBE. The
We find ARB’s stated intention to oxygenated fuels in areas designated Executive Order also directed ARB to
continue to collect air quality data and nonattainment for the CO NAAQS and develop new gasoline requirements that
to verify continued attainment of the CO registering design values above 9.5 ppm. eliminated the use of MTBE, which ARB
NAAQS to be acceptable for the Pursuant to this section of the CAA, adopted in December 1999 (known as
purposes of CAA section 175A(b) based ARB submitted its motor vehicle fuels Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline
on our conclusion that ARB has regulations, including its requirements Regulations). In July 2002, ARB
consistently operated its monitoring for wintertime oxygen content, to EPA amended the Phase 3 gasoline
networks in compliance with 40 CFR for approval on November 15, 1994. regulations to postpone the prohibition
part 58 and continues to operate an Eight areas in California were required of the use of MTBE for one year, as
appropriate number of CO monitoring to provide for the sale of oxygenated directed by a second Executive Order
sites in the planning areas covered by gasoline during winter months under issued by the Governor in March 2002.
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan. section 211(m): Chico, Fresno, Modesto, The final deadline for eliminating
Sacramento, San Diego and Sacramento MTBE from gasoline in California was
D. Contingency Provisions
MSAs, and the Los Angeles-Anaheim- December 31, 2003.
CAA section 175A(d) requires that Riverside and San Francisco-Oakland- Because certain areas of the State
‘‘Each plan revision submitted under San Jose CSMAs. Because of the number needed to rely on the benefits of
this section shall contain such of carbon monoxide nonattainment oxygenated fuels to ensure attainment
contingency provisions as the areas, however, ARB required the use of and maintenance of the CO NAAQS,
Administrator deems necessary to wintertime oxygenates for the entire ARB retained the wintertime
assure that the State will promptly State. EPA approved the State’s oxygenated gasoline requirement in the
correct any violation of the standard wintertime oxygenated gasoline counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
which occurs after the redesignation of regulations on August 21, 1995 (60 FR Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and
the area as an attainment area. Such 43379). Imperial, but not in the ten planning
provisions shall include a requirement California succeeded in reducing areas.
that the State will implement all significantly CO emissions, prompting Additionally, in adopting the 1998 CO
measures with respect to the control of ARB to request that EPA redesignate the Maintenance Plan, which revised the
the air pollutant concerned which were ten planning areas to attainment and to 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB
contained in the State implementation submit a maintenance plan (adopted by committed to the following: ‘‘* * * the
plan for the area before redesignation of ARB April 25, 1996) and referred to Board directs ARB staff to review carbon
the area as an attainment area.’’ The herein as the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan monoxide air quality data in the areas
following sections discuss the that demonstrates how the State will no longer subject to the wintertime
contingency provisions included in the continue to meet NAAQS for CO. The oxygen requirement; if violations are
2004 CO Maintenance Plan. 1996 CO Maintenance Plan (which EPA monitored in any of the areas, staff will
The EPA-approved 1996 CO approved March 31, 1998 [63 FR propose that appropriate action be taken
Maintenance Plan included seven 15305]) identified the wintertime regarding reinstatement of the minimum
contingency measures: improved basic oxygenated gasoline requirement as one wintertime oxygen content in gasoline
I/M program requirements (Chico, Lake of the principal control measures and previously contained in section 2262.5,
Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South relied on the associated emissions title 13, CCR, in the area at the
Shore, and San Francisco-Oakland-San reductions to demonstrate continued beginning of the following winter
Jose Areas); enhanced I/M program attainment. season * * *’’ (ARB Resolution 98–52,
requirements (Bakersfield, Fresno, On November 19, 1998, ARB November 19, 1998; see page C–4 of the
Modesto, and Sacramento Areas); on- approved an amendment to California’s 2004 CO Maintenance Plan). ARB
board diagnostics systems testing CO maintenance plan rescinding in revised the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
requirements in I/M programs most areas the wintertime oxygenated to demonstrate California’s ability to
(Statewide); California Cleaner-Burning gasoline requirement (see ARB continue meeting the CO NAAQS
Gasoline regulations (Statewide); Off- Resolution 98–52, November 19, 1998 without the wintertime oxygenated
Highway Recreational Vehicles included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO gasoline program and submitted the
standards (Statewide); lawn and garden Maintenance Plan). Because the State amended plan (the ‘‘1998 CO

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
71782 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Maintenance Plan’’) to EPA for approval Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 1998 to 2010. The 1996 CO Maintenance
on December 10, 1998. EPA has not from G.T. Helms to Air Branch Chiefs, Plan did not specifically identify a
taken action on this submittal. The August 13, 1993), we find that the particular year in which the MVEBs
current SIP revision submittal to EPA inclusion of the CO emissions apply for transportation conformity
supersedes the 1998 CO Maintenance reductions benefits from the various purposes. Applicable transportation
Plan SIP revision submittal, but contingency measures in the conformity regulations (40 CFR
includes a resubmission of ARB maintenance demonstrations for the ten 93.118(b)(2)(i)), however, require that
Resolution 98–52 and thereby continues planning areas disqualifies them from ‘‘Emissions must be less than or equal
the State’s commitment in the 1998 serving as contingency measures for the to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
submittal to reintroduce the wintertime purposes of CAA section 175A(d). established for the last year of the
oxygenated gasoline requirement if However, we find that the maintenance plan * * *.’’ This compels
violations are monitored. This prior commitment to reinstate the wintertime EPA to interpret California’s first CO
commitment is referenced and reiterated oxygenated gasoline requirement, maintenance plan as establishing
in the ARB resolution adopting the 2004 originally made in Resolution 98–52 MVEBs for the final year of the first
revisions to the CO maintenance plans: and reaffirmed in Resolution 04–20, in maintenance period, which is 2010.
‘‘* * * in Resolution 98–52, the Board the event that CO violations are This interpretation, however, does not
directed that ‘* * * if violations are monitored provides a sufficient basis for preclude the State from revising the
monitored in any of the areas, staff will us to determine that the 2004 CO 2010 budgets.
propose that appropriate action be taken Maintenance Plan meets the minimum In addition to establishing new
regarding reinstatement of the minimum contingency requirements under section MVEBs for the final year of the second
wintertime oxygen content in gasoline 175A(d) given the extent to which maintenance period (2018), the 2004 CO
previously contained in section 2262.5, California’s motor vehicle control Maintenance Plan also revises the
title 13, CCR, in the area at the program will continue to provide CO current CO MVEBs. Page 14 of the 2004
beginning of the following winter emissions reductions in the ten CO Maintenance Plan identifies 2003
season. * * *’ ’’ (ARB Resolution 04–20, planning areas over and above those and 2018 as budget years and states that
July 22, 2004, page 3.) necessary for continued attainment of ‘‘These emission budgets will apply to
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, the CO NAAQS. all subsequent analysis years * * *
ARB brings forward the seven including: Any interim year conformity
E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
contingency measures included in the analyses, the 2018 horizon year, and
1996 Maintenance Plan, identifies Maintenance plan submittals must years beyond 2018.’’ EPA requested
several additional regulatory measures specify the maximum emissions of clarification from ARB because the
that have already been adopted and transportation-related CO emissions Agency was unsure whether the State
implemented as contingency measures allowed in the last year of the had intended to set budgets for every
(tighter emission standards for cars, maintenance period. The submittal must year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter
truck, buses, off-road equipment), and, also demonstrate that these emissions on December 23, 2004 confirming ARB’s
as noted above, brings forward the levels, when considered with emissions intent to remove and entirely replace
commitment from the 1998 from all other sources, are consistent the emissions budgets established by the
Maintenance Plan SIP revision with maintenance of the NAAQS. In first ten year plan with new budgets for
submittal to reinstate the wintertime order for us to find these emissions 2003 and 2018.
oxygenated gasoline requirement. The levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate and Because the transportation conformity
CO emissions reductions associated approvable, the submittal must meet the regulations (described above) require
with the seven contingency measures conformity adequacy provisions of 40 States to demonstrate conformity to the
adopted as part of the 1996 CO CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), and be last year of the maintenance plan, EPA
Maintenance Plan and the additional approvable under all pertinent SIP requested further clarification from ARB
contingency measures described in the requirements. concerning the MVEBs in the submitted
2004 CO Maintenance Plan are The existing CO motor vehicle 2004 CO Maintenance Plan for year
accounted for in the inventories that emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the areas 2010. On May 23, 2005, ARB submitted
provide the basis for the maintenance addressed in this notice derive from a letter to EPA clarifying their intent to
demonstrations for the ten planning California’s first maintenance plan (i.e., update the MVEBs from the first
areas. Although we find early the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan), which maintenance plan by setting new, more
implementation of contingency EPA approved March 31, 1998 (63 FR stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These
measures to be acceptable (see EPA 15305). The CAA requires that the first MVEBs would also apply for 2010 and
policy memorandum ‘‘Early installment of the maintenance plan 2018. The letter included a table
Implementation of Contingency cover at least ten years; California’s CO showing the MVEBs and applicable
Measures for Ozone and Carbon maintenance plan covered twelve years: budget years (see Table 4).

TABLE 4.—PROPOSED ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE CO EMISSION BUDGETS


[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]

Emission budget
CO maintenance area Area included in inventory
2003 2010 2018

Bakersfield ........................................................................ Western Kern County ....................................................... 180 180 180


Chico ................................................................................. Butte County .................................................................... 80 80 80
Fresno ............................................................................... Fresno County .................................................................. 240 240 240
Lake Tahoe North Shore .................................................. Eastern Placer County ..................................................... 11 11 11
Lake Tahoe South Shore .................................................. Eastern El Dorado County ............................................... 19 19 19
Modesto ............................................................................ Stanislaus County ............................................................ 130 130 130

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71783

TABLE 4.—PROPOSED ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE CO EMISSION BUDGETS—Continued


[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]

Emission budget
CO maintenance area Area included in inventory
2003 2010 2018

Sacramento ....................................................................... Sacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer 420 420 420
County.
San Diego ......................................................................... San Diego County ............................................................ 730 730 730
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose .................................... San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin .................................. 1850 1850 1850
Stockton ............................................................................ San Joaquin County ......................................................... 170 170 170

In setting MVEBs, States generally use California need not, however, cap California has a ‘‘safety margin’’ that the
motor vehicle emission inventories. MVEBs at projected motor vehicle State may use to set MVEBs at a higher
California took this approach, for emissions levels. Because overall level. As long as emissions from all
example, in the 1996 CO Maintenance projected levels of emissions from all sources are lower than needed to
Plan. As Table 5 illustrates, motor sources (as demonstrated in Table 2) are provide for continued maintenance, the
vehicle emissions are expected to fall to expected to be less than the levels State may allocate additional emissions
comparatively low levels by 2018. necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS, to the MVEBs (see 40 CFR 93.124).

TABLE 5.—ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE CO EMISSION INVENTORY


[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]

CO maintenance area Area included in inventory 1993 2003 2010 2018

Bakersfield ................................................................. Western Kern County .............................................. 347 177 112 66


Chico ......................................................................... Butte County ............................................................ 138 75 46 23
Fresno ....................................................................... Fresno County ......................................................... 450 236 141 77
Lake Tahoe North Shore Lake ................................. Eastern Placer County ............................................. 18 10 7 4
Tahoe South Shore ................................................... Eastern El Dorado County ....................................... 32 18 13 7
Modesto ..................................................................... Stanislaus County .................................................... 246 126 74 42
Sacramento ............................................................... Sacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer 857 410 244 96
County.
San Diego ................................................................. San Diego County .................................................... 1,472 728 457 249
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ............................ San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin .......................... 3,314 1,840 979 563
Stockton .................................................................... San Joaquin County ................................................ 326 162 97 55
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 13.

In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, emissions will be 244 tons per day of the MVEB, while still leaving a large
ARB’s proposed MVEBs (Table 4, above) CO (77 from motor vehicles, 167 from margin between emissions levels from
meet the safety margin test. Take, for all other sources) [see Table 6]. This all sources, including motor vehicles
example, Fresno, which attained the CO provides a safety margin of 383 tons per and related safety margin (i.e., 220 tons
NAAQS in 1993 with a CO wintertime day. By setting the MVEB for Fresno at per day), and the emissions level that
emissions level of 627 tons per day. By 240 tons per day, ARB allocates some of allows for continued maintenance of the
2018, ARB predicts that Fresno’s the safety margin (163 tons per day) to NAAQS (627 tons per day).

TABLE 6.—EXAMPLE OF HOW ARB CAN ALLOCATE EMISSIONS TO MVEBS FOR FRESNO AREA
Fresno urbanized area 2018 emissions

Projected Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory ............................................................................................................................... 77


Projected Emissions from Other Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 167
Total Projected Emissions ............................................................................................................................................................. 244
Allowable emissions1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 627
Emissions available to allocate to MVEB ...................................................................................................................................... 383
Proposed MVEB (See Table 4, above) ......................................................................................................................................... 240
Difference b/w MVEB and Projected MV emissions ..................................................................................................................... 163
Remaining Unallocated Safety Margin .......................................................................................................................................... 220
1 Based on the revised inventory for year in which Fresno attained the standard (1993).

Our detailed evaluation of the 2004 planning areas as set forth in the 2004 submittals of maintenance plans under
CO Maintenance Plan and related CO Maintenance Plan and clarified by sections 110 and part D of the Act.
MVEBs under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and ARB in its letter dated May 23, 2005 In the submittal letter dated
(5) is provided in section IV of this because the plan and budgets meet the November 8, 2004, ARB requested that
notice. Based on that evaluation and the requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) EPA limit the duration of our approval
discussion provided above, we approve and (5) and because we find that ARB of the MVEBs in the 2004 CO
the CO MVEBs for each of the ten has met all statutory requirements for Maintenance Plan to last only until the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
71784 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

effective date of future EPA adequacy timely attainment of the national 2003, 2010 (the last year of the 1996 CO
findings for replacement budgets. This ambient air quality standards. Maintenance Plan), and 2018 (the last
would mean that if ARB decided to On March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of year of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan).
amend the CO MVEBs sometime in the Appeals for the District of Columbia The criteria by which we determine
future, then the new MVEBs would Circuit issued a decision in whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for
become effective as soon as EPA Environmental Defense Fund v. conformity purposes are outlined in 40
determined adequacy, rather than after Environmental Protection Agency, No. CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following
comprehensive rulemaking (which is a 97–1637, that we must make an paragraphs provide our review of ARB’s
longer process). ARB had made a similar affirmative determination that the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP
request, and EPA granted it, in submitted MVEBs contained in SIPs are submittal against our adequacy criteria
connection with the MVEBs in the 1996 adequate before they are used to and, based on that review, we conclude
CO Maintenance Plan (see 67 FR 46618, determine the conformity of that all of the criteria have been met and
at 46620, November 15, 2002). That Transportation Improvement Programs that the MVEBs in the submitted 2004
request, however, was accompanied or Long Range Transportation Plans. In CO Maintenance Plan are adequate for
with significant documentation that response to the court decision, we are transportation conformity purposes.
demonstrated why limiting the duration making any submitted SIP revision Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we
of our approval provided an advantage containing a control strategy or review a submitted plan to determine
to air quality and public health maintenance plan available for public whether the plan was endorsed by the
protection. With the current request, comment and responding to those Governor (or designee) and was subject
however, ARB has not provided any comments before announcing our to a public hearing. The transmittal
supporting documentation. We note that adequacy determination. The letter for the submitted 2004 CO
ARB’s request to limit the duration of conformity rule was recently changed to Maintenance Plan was signed by
the approvals of the MVEBs was reflect the procedures we have been Catherine Witherspoon, Executive
contained only in the submittal letter using since the court decision. See 69 Officer, ARB, the Governor’s designee
and is not, therefore, considered a part FR 40004 (July 1, 2004) and related for CAA SIP purposes. ARB Resolution
of the maintenance plan itself. correction notice at 69 FR 43325 (July 04–20, included as enclosure 2 of the
Therefore, our denial of ARB’s request 20, 2004). SIP submittal, provides evidence of
does not affect our approval of the plan ARB submitted the 2004 CO adoption and legal authority. Enclosure
or the budgets contained therein. Maintenance Plan to EPA by letter dated 3 of the SIP submittal contains
November 8, 2004, and we received this documentation of a public hearing on
IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor plan on November 12, 2004. The plan the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan that was
Vehicle Emissions Budgets identifies CO MVEBs (calculated as held on July 22, 2004. As such, the
winter seasonal emissions in tons per submitted plan meets the criterion
In this notice, we announce our
day) for each of the ten planning areas under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
finding that the motor vehicle emissions Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we
for years 2003 and 2018.
budgets (MVEBs) in the submitted 2004 We announced receipt of the plan on review a submitted plan to determine
Revision to the California State the Internet and requested public whether the plan was developed
Implementation Plan for Carbon comment by December 27, 2004. We through consultation with Federal, State
Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan requested clarification from ARB and local agencies and whether full
for Ten Federal Planning Areas because we were unsure whether ARB implementation plan documentation
(adopted by ARB on July 22, 2004) had intended to set budgets for every was provided to EPA and EPA’s stated
(‘‘2004 CO Maintenance Plan’’) are year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter concerns, if any, were addressed.
adequate for transportation conformity on December 23, 2004 explaining ARB’s Consultation for development of this
purposes. As a result of this finding, the intent to replace the 1996 CO plan largely consisted of public hearing
various metropolitan planning Maintenance Plan budgets with new notices that were published in
organizations (MPOs) with jurisdictions budgets for 2003 and 2018. newspapers of general circulation in
in the ten planning areas and the U.S. Subsequently, we extended the each of the ten planning areas. Given
Department of Transportation must use comment period until February 10, the nature of this subsequent
the CO MVEBs from the 2004 CO 2004, although we had not received any maintenance plan submittal, which
Maintenance Plan for future conformity comments in response to our Internet includes no new control measures but
determinations. We are also announcing posting on December 27, 2004. We did simply shifts one control measure (the
this finding on our conformity Web site: not receive any comments during the wintertime oxygenated gasoline
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/trasp/ extended comment period either. requirement) from active to contingent
conform/adequate.htm (once there, Because the transportation conformity status, and updates a previous plan to
click on the ‘‘What SIP submissions has regulations require States to reflect better emission estimates (based
EPA already found adequate or demonstrate conformity to the last year on improved calculation methods and
inadequate?’’ button). of the maintenance plan, EPA requested updated source type and activity data)
Transportation conformity is required further clarification from ARB on the and to extend the maintenance
by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our status of the MVEBs for 2010 (the last demonstrations further into the future,
transportation conformity rule (codified year of the EPA-approved 1996 CO such limited consultation is sufficient
in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires Maintenance Plan). On May 23, 2005, for the purposes of 40 CFR
that transportation plans, programs, and ARB submitted a letter to EPA 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
projects conform to SIPs and establishes indicating that their intent was to Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we
the criteria and procedures for update the MVEBs from the 1996 CO review a submitted plan to determine
determining whether or not they do. Maintenance Plan by setting new, more whether the MVEBs are clearly
Conformity to the SIP means that stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These identified and precisely quantified. The
transportation activities will not new MVEBs would apply to 2003, 2010 2004 CO Maintenance Plan clearly
produce new air quality violations, and 2018. Table 4, above, shows the identifies and precisely quantifies the
worsen existing violations, or delay 2004 CO Maintenance Plan MVEBs for CO MVEBs for each of the ten planning

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71785

area on pages 13 through 17 of the plan, submitted plan meets this criterion for inadequacy determination or take
thereby meeting the adequacy criterion adequacy. subsequent final action to approve or
under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii). Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review disapprove the plan.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we the State’s compilation of public
comments and response to comments V. Technical Correction
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the MVEBs, when considered that are required to be submitted with In 1996, ARB submitted the 1996 CO
together with all other emissions any SIP revision. Enclosure 4 of the SIP Maintenance Plan covering the ten
sources, is consistent with applicable submittal contains one comment letter planning areas and requested they be
requirements for reasonable further that was received on the proposed 2004 redesignated to attainment for the CO
progress, attainment, or maintenance CO Maintenance Plan. This comment NAAQS. On March 31, 1998, EPA
(whichever is relevant to a given SIP letter supported ARB approval of the approved the 1996 Plan as a revision to
submission). The 2004 CO Maintenance proposed plan. Enclosure 6 of the SIP the California SIP and redesignated the
Plan shows how the CO MVEBs and submittal contains minutes from the ten planning areas to attainment
related safety margins are consistent July 22, 2004 public hearing. No further effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR 15305). To
with continued maintenance of the CO comments on the plan were submitted codify this rulemaking, we amended the
NAAQS in each of the ten planning on the proposed plan at the public table in 40 CFR part 81, section 305 (40
areas through 2018 (see pages 13 hearing. Thus, the submitted plan meets CFR 81.305), that lists the designations
through 17 of the plan). In particular, this criterion for adequacy. for air quality planning areas in
Table 12 on page 17 of the maintenance Therefore, we find the CO MVEBs California, but in doing so, we
plan shows the extent to which contained in the submitted 2004 CO incorrectly identified April 30, 1998 as
maximum potential 2018 emissions (i.e., Maintenance Plan to be adequate for the effective date for redesignation of
transportation conformity purposes. the ten planning areas to attainment for
including the budget safety margins) fall
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), motor CO. The correct date is June 1, 1998. In
below emissions calculated for the 1993
vehicle emissions budgets in submitted addition, in our March 31, 1998 final
attainment year. Thus, the submitted
plans do not supersede the motor rule, we inadvertently deleted from the
plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
vehicle emissions budgets in approved California-Carbon Monoxide table the
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we detailed descriptions of three of the ten
plans for the same CAA requirement
review a submitted plan to determine and the period of years addressed by the planning areas: the Lake Tahoe North
whether the MVEBs are consistent with previously approved implementation Shore Area, the Lake Tahoe South Shore
and clearly related to the emissions plan, unless EPA specifies otherwise in Area, and the San Diego Area.
inventory and the control measures in its approval of a SIP. See 69 FR 40004, Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act
the submitted control strategy plan or at 40078 (July 1, 2004). In this instance, provides, ‘‘Whenever the Administrator
maintenance plan. The 2004 CO the submitted plan (the 2004 CO determines that the Administrator’s
Maintenance Plan contains no new Maintenance Plan) is a maintenance action approving, disapproving, or
measures but the budgets appropriately plan that establishes MVEBs that are promulgating any plan or plan revision
reflect the State’s adopted emissions intended to supersede previously (or part thereof), area designation,
standards, fuel regulations (including approved budgets from an earlier redesignation, classification, or
repeal of the wintertime oxygenated maintenance plan (the 1996 CO reclassification was in error, the
gasoline requirements), and the vehicle Maintenance Plan) for year 2010, the out Administrator may in the same manner
inspection and maintenance program, as year of the 1996 plan. However, in a as the approval, disapproval, or
applicable in each of the ten planning final rule published on November 15, promulgation revise such action as
areas. Thus, the submitted plan meets 2002, we limited the duration of our appropriate without requiring any
this criterion for adequacy. approvals of the MVEBs in the 1996 CO further submission from the State. Such
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we Maintenance Plan to last only until the determination and the basis thereof
review a submitted plan to determine effective date of our adequacy finding shall be provided to the State and
whether revisions to previously for new budgets that replace the existing public.’’ Under the authority vested in
submitted plans explain and document approved budgets for the same EPA under section 110(k)(6) of the Act,
any changes to previously submitted pollutant, CAA requirement, and year. we are taking direct final action to
budgets and control measures; impacts See 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002). amend the California-Carbon Monoxide
on point and area source emissions; any Thus, upon the effective date of this table in 40 CFR 81.305 by changing the
changes to established safety margins; adequacy finding, the MVEBs in the effective date for redesignation from
and reasons for the changes (including 2004 CO Maintenance Plan will April 30, 1998 to June 1, 1998 for each
the basis for any changes related to supersede the previously-approved CO of the ten areas addressed in this notice
emissions factors or estimates of vehicle MVEBs from the 1996 CO Maintenance and by re-codifying the previous
miles traveled). The 2004 CO Plan. detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe
Maintenance Plan explains and The effective date for our adequacy North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore,
documents the various changes that finding will coincide with the effective and San Diego Areas.
have been made to the CO emissions date for our approval of the budgets as
inventories, motor vehicle emissions part of our overall approval of the 2004 VI. EPA’s Final Action
budgets, safety margins, and control CO Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA,
measures, including updates to the if we do not withdraw this direct final EPA is approving as a revision to the
emissions factor model (EMFAC2002 for rule in response to receipt of adverse California SIP the 2004 Revision to the
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan versus comments. If we receive adverse California State Implementation Plan
EMFAC7F for the 1996 CO Maintenance comments on this direct final action, we for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Plan), updates to the travel activity data will withdraw the final rule as it relates Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal
from the local transportation agencies, to the approval of the 2004 CO Planning Areas (‘‘2004 CO Maintenance
and the shift of the wintertime Maintenance Plan (and budgets), but the Plan’’), as adopted by ARB on July 22,
oxygenated gasoline requirements from adequacy determination will remain in 2004 and submitted by ARB to EPA on
active to contingent status. Thus, the effect until we either make a subsequent November 8, 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
71786 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

In so doing, EPA has determined that South Shore, Modesto, Sacramento, San • Contingency provisions under CAA
this submittal meets the CAA Diego, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, section 175A(d), specifically, the State’s
requirement under section 175A(b) to and Stockton. commitment related to the wintertime
prepare and submit a SIP revision that As part of our overall approval of the oxygenated gasoline requirements
provides for continued maintenance of 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, we approve contained in ARB Resolution 98–52 and
the CO NAAQS for a period of 10 years the following specific plan elements: included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO
following the initial 10-year • Emission inventory updates and Maintenance Plan; and
projections, as well as the maintenance
maintenance period that began with • CO motor vehicle emissions
demonstrations through 2018, for the
redesignation of the following ten budgets (in terms of winter seasonal
ten planning areas covered by the plan;
planning areas from nonattainment to • Commitment to continue emissions in tons per day) for the years
attainment: Bakersfield, Chico, Fresno, monitoring for the purpose of verifying 2003, 2010, and 2018, for each of the ten
Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe continued attainment; planning areas as follows:

2003 2010 2018

Bakersfield ....................................................................................................................................................................... 180 180 180


Chico ................................................................................................................................................................................ 80 80 80
Fresno .............................................................................................................................................................................. 240 240 240
Lake Tahoe North Shore ................................................................................................................................................. 11 11 11
Lake Tahoe South Shore ................................................................................................................................................ 19 19 19
Modesto ........................................................................................................................................................................... 130 130 130
Sacramento ...................................................................................................................................................................... 420 420 420
San Diego ........................................................................................................................................................................ 730 730 730
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ................................................................................................................................... 1,850 1,850 1,850
Stockton ........................................................................................................................................................................... 170 170 170

In connection with the motor vehicle comments by December 30, 2005, we Administrator certifies that this rule
emissions budgets, we are denying will publish a timely withdrawal in the will not have a significant economic
ARB’s request to limit our approval of Federal Register to notify the public impact on a substantial number of small
the above budgets to last only until the that the direct final approval will not entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
effective date of future EPA adequacy take effect and we will address the Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
findings for replacement budgets, but comments in a subsequent final action rule approves pre-existing requirements
our denial of ARB’s request does not based on the proposal. Such a under State law and does not impose
affect our approval of the plan itself or withdrawal of this direct final rule will any additional enforceable duty beyond
the budgets contained therein. not, however, affect the adequacy that required by State law, it does not
Also, in connection with the motor finding related to the motor vehicle contain any unfunded mandate or
vehicle emissions budgets, we are emissions budgets. The adequacy significantly or uniquely affect small
finding them adequate for the purposes finding will become effective January governments, as described in the
of transportation conformity. As a result 30, 2006 and remain in effect unless and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
of this finding, the various metropolitan until EPA makes an inadequacy finding, (Pub. L. 104–4).
planning organizations in the ten or takes final action to approve or
planning areas and the U.S. Department disapprove the plan. If we do not This rule also does not have tribal
of Transportation must use the CO receive timely adverse comments, the implications because it will not have a
motor vehicle emissions budgets from direct final action will be effective substantial direct effect on one or more
the submitted maintenance plan for without further notice on January 30, Indian tribes, on the relationship
future conformity determinations. 2006 and our approval of the motor between the Federal Government and
Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6), vehicle emissions budgets will be Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
we are correcting our 1998 final rule in effective on the same date as our power and responsibilities between the
which we approved ARB’s submittal of adequacy finding related to those Federal Government and Indian tribes,
the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan and budgets. as specified by Executive Order 13175
redesignated the ten planning areas to (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
attainment for the CO NAAQS by fixing VII. Statutory and Executive Order action also does not have federalism
the erroneous effective date listed in the Reviews implications because it does not have
table entitled ‘‘California—Carbon Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR substantial direct effects on the States,
Monoxide’’ in 40 CFR part 81.305 and 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is on the relationship between the
by re-codifying in that same table not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and National Government and the States, or
detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe therefore is not subject to review by the on the distribution of power and
North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, Office of Management and Budget. For responsibilities among the various
and San Diego areas that had this reason, this action is also not levels of government, as specified in
inadvertently been deleted in that same subject to Executive Order 13211, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
1998 rulemaking. ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That August 10, 1999). This action merely
We do not anticipate any objections to Significantly Affect Energy Supply, approves a State rule implementing a
this action, so we are finalizing the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Federal standard, and does not alter the
correction action without proposing it 22, 2001). This action merely approves relationship or the distribution of power
in advance. However, in the Proposed State law as meeting Federal and responsibilities established in the
Rules section of this Federal Register, requirements and imposes no additional Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
we are simultaneously proposing this requirements beyond those imposed by subject to Executive Order 13045
same action. If we receive adverse State law. Accordingly, the ‘‘Protection of Children from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71787

Environmental Health Risks and Safety is published in the Federal Register. § 52.220 Identification of plan.
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as * * * * *
because it is not economically defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). (c) * * *
significant as defined in Executive Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of (341) The 2004 Revision to the
Order 12866, and because the Agency
this action must be filed in the United California State Implementation Plan for
does not have reason to believe the
States Court of Appeals for the Carbon Monoxide, Updated Carbon
environmental health or safety risks
appropriate circuit by January 30, 2006. Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Ten
addressed by this rule present a
disproportionate risk to children. Filing a petition for reconsideration by Federal Planning Areas, submitted on
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s the Administrator of this final rule does November 8, 2004 by the Governor’s
role is to approve State choices, not affect the finality of this rule for the designee.
provided that they meet the criteria of purposes of judicial review nor does it (i) Incorporation by reference.
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the extend the time within which a petition (A) California Air Resources Board.
absence of a prior existing requirement for judicial review may be filed, and (1) 2004 Revision to the California
for the State to use voluntary consensus shall not postpone the effectiveness of State Implementation Plan for Carbon
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority such rule or action. This action may not Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan
to disapprove a SIP submission for be challenged later in proceedings to for Ten Federal Planning Areas, adopted
failure to use VCS. It would thus be enforce its requirements. (See CAA by the California Air Resources Board
inconsistent with applicable law for section 307(b)(2).) on July 22, 2004. The ten Federal
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, List of Subjects planning areas include Bakersfield
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 40 CFR Part 52 Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the Environmental protection, Air Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe
requirements of section 12(d) of the pollution control, Carbon monoxide, South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized
National Technology Transfer and Incorporation by reference, Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Intergovernmental relations. Reporting Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San
272 note) do not apply. This rule does and recordkeeping requirements. Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area.
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the 40 CFR Part 81 PART 81—[AMENDED]
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Air pollution control, National Parks,
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Wilderness areas. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 81
The Congressional Review Act, 5 Dated: November 15, 2005. continues to read as follows:
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Jane Diamond, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Subpart C—[Amended]
that before a rule may take effect, the 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
agency promulgating the rule must as follows:
■ 2. In § 81.305, the table entitled
submit a rule report, which includes a ‘‘California—Carbon Monoxide’’ is
PART 52—[AMENDED]
copy of the rule, to each House of the amended by revising the entry for
Congress and to the Comptroller General ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Bakersfield Area, Chico Area, Fresno
of the United States. EPA will submit a continues to read as follows: Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore Area,
report containing this rule and other Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Modesto
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
required information to the U.S. Senate, Area, Sacramento Area, San Diego Area,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and Subpart F—California San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area,
the Comptroller General of the United and Stockton Area to read as follows:
States prior to publication of the rule in ■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by
the Federal Register. A major rule adding paragraph (c)(341) to read as § 81.305 California.
cannot take effect until 60 days after it follows: * * * * *

CALIFORNIA—CARBON MONOXIDE
Designation Classification
Designated area
Date1 Type Date Type

Bakersfield Area:
Kern County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area (Urbanized part) .....................................
Chico Area:
Butte County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Chico Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized part) ......................
Fresno Area:
Fresno County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Fresno Urbanized Area ..........................................................................

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
71788 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

CALIFORNIA—CARBON MONOXIDE—Continued
Designation Classification
Designated area
Date1 Type Date Type

Lake Tahoe North Shore Area:


Placer County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
That portion of Placer County within the drainage area naturally tribu-
tary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, plus that area in the vicinity
of the head of the Truckee River described as follows: commencing
at the point common to the aforementioned drainage area crestline
and the line common to Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount
Diablo Base, and Meridian (M.D.B. & M.), and following that line in
a westerly direction to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township
15 North, Range 16 East, M.D.B. & M., thence south along the
west line of Sections 3 and 10, Township 15 north, Range 16 East,
M.D.B. & M., to the intersection with the said drainage area
crestline, thence following the said drainage area boundary in a
southeasterly, then northeasterly direction to and along the Lake
Tahoe Dam, thence following the said drainage area crestline in a
northeasterly, then northwesterly direction to the point of beginning.
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area:
El Dorado County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
That portion of El Dorado County within the drainage area naturally
tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, as described under 40
CFR 81.275.

* * * * * * *
Modesto Area:
Stanislaus County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Modesto Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized Area) ................
Sacramento Area:
Census Bureau Urbanized Area) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Placer County (part).
Sacramento County (part).
Yolo County (part).
San Diego Area:
San Diego County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
The Western Section of Air Pollution Control District of San Diego
County is defined as all that portion of San Diego County, State of
California, lying westerly of the following described line:.
1. Beginning at the Northwest of Township 9 South, Range 1
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
2. thence running Southerly along the West line of said township
to the south line therof;
3. thence Easterly along said South line to the range line be-
tween Range 1 West and Range 1 East;
4. thence Southerly along said range line to the township line be-
tween Township 11 South and 12 South;
5. thence Easterly along said township line to the range line be-
tween Range 1 East and Range 2 East;
6. thence Southerly along said range line to the international
boundary between the United States of America and Mexico.
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area:
Urbanized Areas June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Alameda County (part)
Contra Costa County (part)
Marin County (part)
Napa County (part)
San Francisco County
San Mateo County (part)
Santa Clara County (part)
Solano County (part)
Sonoma County (part)
Stockton Area:
San Joaquin County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment
Stockton Urbanized Area

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71789

* * * * * B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of the United States. EPA will submit a
[FR Doc. 05–23502 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] of this Document and Other Related report containing this rule and other
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Information? required information to the U.S. Senate,
In addition to using EDOCKET at the U.S. House of Representatives, and
http://www.epa.gov/edocket/, you may the Comptroller General of the United
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION access this Federal Register document States prior to publication of this final
AGENCY electronically through the EPA Internet rule in the Federal Register. This final
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by
40 CFR Part 710 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
frequently updated electronic version of List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 710
[OPP–2005–0075; FRL–7744–8] 40 CFR part 710 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at http:// Environmental protection, Chemicals,
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. Hazardous materials, 1,2,3-Propanetriol,
RIN–2070 AC61
Reporting and recordkeeping
TSCA Inventory Update Reporting II. What Does this Correction Do? requirements.
Partially Exempted Chemicals In FR Doc. 05–20771 appearing on Dated: November 7, 2005.
List;Addition of 1,2,3-Propanetriol; page 60217, the following correction is Charles M. Auer,
Correction made: Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and
§ 710.46 [Corrected] Toxics.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection On page 60221 in the second column,
[FR Doc. 05–23436 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am]
Agency (EPA). the section heading for § 710.46 is
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ACTION: Final rule; correction. corrected to read: ‘‘§ 710.46 Chemical
substances for which information is not
SUMMARY: EPA issued a direct final rule required.’’
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
in theFederal Register of October 17, III. Why is this Correction Issued as a COMMISSION
2005, to amend the Toxic Substances Final Rule?
Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) 47 CFR Part 73
Section 553 of the Administrative
Inventory Update Reporting (IUR)
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. [DA 05–2942; MB Docket No. 05–188; RM–
regulations by adding 1,2,3-propanetriol
553(b)(B), provides that, when an 11240]
(CASRN 56–81–5) to the list of chemical
Agency for good cause finds that notice
substances in 40 CFR 710.46(b)(2)(iv) Radio Broadcasting Services; Bass
and public procedure are impracticable,
which are exempt from reporting River Township and Ocean City, NJ
unnecessary or contrary to the public
processing and use information required
interest, the agency may issue a final AGENCY: Federal Communications
by 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4). The document
rule without providing notice and an Commission.
incorrectly listed the section heading for
opportunity for public comment. EPA
§ 710.46 in the regulatory text. This ACTION: Final rule.
has determined that there is good cause
document is being issued to correct that
for making today’s technical correction SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of
error.
final without prior proposal and Proposed Rule Making, 70 FR 31409
DATES: This final rule is effective on opportunity for comment, because the (June 1, 2005), this Report and Order
November 30, 2005. use of notice and comment procedures substitutes Channel 293A for Channel
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed are unnecessary to effectuate this 292A, Station WKOE(FM), Ocean City,
instructions as provided under the correction. EPA finds that this New Jersey; reallots Channel 293A, from
ADDRESSES unit in the Federal Register constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. Ocean City to Bass River Township; and
document of October 17, 2005. 553(b)(B). modifies Station WKOE’s license
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IV. Do Any of the Statutory and accordingly. The coordinates for
Susan Sharkey, Project Manager, Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Channel 293A at Bass River Township,
Economics, Exposure and Technology Action? New Jersey, are 39–39–00 NL and 74–
Division (7406M), Office of Pollution 21–20 WL, with a site restriction of 10.4
No. This action only corrects an kilometers (6.4 miles) northeast of Bass
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental inadvertent error in the section heading
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania River Township.
of the regulatory text for a previously
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– DATES: Effective December 27, 2005.
published final rule and does not
0001; telephone number: (202) 564– impose any new requirements. EPA’s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
8789; e-mail address: compliance with the statutes and Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202)
sharkey.susanepa.gov. Executive Orders for the underlying rule 418–2180.
is discussed in Unit V. of the October SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
17, 2005, direct final rule (70 FR 60217). synopsis of the Commission’s Report
I. General Information and Order, MB Docket No. 05–188,
V. Congressional Review Act adopted November 9, 2005, and released
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
The Congressional Review Act, 5 November 10, 2005. The full text of this
The Agency included in the direct U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Commission decision is available for
final rule a list of those who may be Business Regulatory Enforcement inspection and copying during normal
potentially affected by this action. If you Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides business hours in the FCC’s Reference
have questions regarding the that before a rule may take effect, the Information Center at Portals II, 445
applicability of this action to a agency promulgating the rule must 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
particular entity, consult the person submit a rule report, which includes a Washington, DC 20554. The document
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION copy of the rule, to each House of the may also be purchased from the
CONTACT. Congress and to the Comptroller General Commission’s duplicating contractor,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Nov 29, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM 30NOR1