538 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register indicating that no adverse or 

negative comments were received and 

confirming the date on which the final 

rule will become effective. If the FAA 

does receive, within the comment 

period, an adverse or negative comment, 

or written notice of intent to submit 

such a comment, a document 

withdrawing the direct final rule will be 

published in the Federal Register, and 

a notice of proposed rulemaking may be 

published with a new comment period. 

Comment Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting such written data, views, or 

arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2005–23375/Airspace 

Docket No. 05–ACE–35.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Agency Findings 

The regulations adopted herein will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, it is 

determined that this final rule does not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation—(1) 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 

40103. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations to 

assign the use of the airspace necessary 

to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

since it contains aircraft executing 

instrument approach procedures to 

Beatrice Municipal Airport, Beatrice, 

NE. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 

as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; 

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 

POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 if Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9N, dated 

September 1, 2005, and effective 

September 16, 2005, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ACE NE E5 Beatrice, NE 

Beatrice Municipal Airport, NE 

(Lat. 40°18′05′′ N., long. 96°45′15′′ W.) 

Shaw NDB 

(Lat. 40°15′54′′ N., long. 96°45′25′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile 

radius of Beatrice Municipal Airport and 

within 3.1 miles each side of the 185° bearing 

from the Shaw NDB extending from the 7.5- 

mile radius of the airport to 7 miles south of 

the Shaw NDB. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on December 

19, 2005. 

Paul J. Sheridan, 

Area Director, Western Flight Services 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 06–80 Filed 1–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP San Francisco Bay 05–011] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Mission Creek Waterway, 

China Basin, San Francisco Bay, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has 

established a temporary safety zone in 

the navigable waters of the Mission 

Creek Waterway in China Basin 

surrounding the construction site of the 

Fourth Street Bridge, San Francisco, 

California. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to protect persons and vessels 

from hazards associated with ongoing 

bridge construction activities scheduled 

to continue through September 1, 2006. 

The safety zone temporarily prohibits 

use of the Mission Creek Waterway 

surrounding the Fourth Street Bridge, 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, or his designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 

a.m. on January 1, 2006 to 11:59 p.m. on 

September 1, 2006. Comments and 

related material must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before March 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket COTP 05–011 and are available 

for inspection or copying at the 

Waterways Safety Branch of Sector San 

Francisco, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, 

California, 94501, between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Eric Ramos, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Francisco, at (510) 

437–2770. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 


bjneal on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 539 

the Coast Guard finds that good cause 

exists for not publishing an NPRM. A 

delay in the effective date of this rule 

would expose mariners to undue 

hazards associated with bridge 

construction operations. For the same 

reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for making this rule effective less than 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Although the Coast Guard has 

good cause to issue this effective 

temporary rule without first publishing 

a proposed rule, you are invited to 

submit comments and related material 

regarding this rule on or before March 

1, 2006. We may change the temporary 

final rule based on your comments. 

Background and Purpose 

The San Francisco Department of 

Public Works requested a temporary 

closure of the Mission Creek waterway 

for the purpose of performing significant 

work to the Fourth Street Bridge. The 

Fourth Street Bridge was erected across 

the Mission Creek Waterway at the 

China Basin in 1917, and was 

determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places in 

1985 as part of the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Historic Bridge Inventory. Caltrans, 

Division of Structures, evaluated the 

Fourth Street Bridge and recommended 

that the bridge be brought up to current 

seismic safety standards. The three 

objectives of the rehabilitation project 

are to: (i) Seismically retrofit the 

structure while not significantly altering 

the historical appearance of the bridge; 

(ii) repair the damage to the concrete 

approaches and several steel and 

concrete members of the movable span, 

and (iii) reinitiate light rail service 

across the bridge. The Federal Highway 

Administration, the State of California 

and the City of San Francisco are 

funding the Fourth Street Bridge Retrofit 

Project. 

The first phase of this project 

included the removal of the lift span, 

and took place between May 1 and July 

28, 2003. During that period, the 

channel was closed at the Fourth Street 

Bridge to boating traffic by a temporary 

final rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on May 13, 2003 (68 

FR 25500) and a subsequent change in 

effective period temporary final rule 

that was published on July 9, 2003 (68 

FR 40772). Those two rules established 

a safety zone that extended 100 yards on 

either side of the Fourth Street Bridge. 

The second phase of the construction 

project included rebuilding the north 

and south approaches and the new 

counterweight and its enclosing pit; but 

did not require that the waterway be 

closed to boating traffic. A temporary 

final rule was published in the Federal 

Register on the March 31, 2005 (70 FR 

16413) which established a safety zone 

that extended 100 yards on either side 

of the Fourth Street Bridge during the 

final phase of construction. However, 

the final phase has been extended due 

to construction delays. 

The safety zone established in this 

particular rule is for the final stages of 

construction, which includes replacing 

the lift span and aligning the bridge to 

accept the light rail track system. Due to 

unforeseen conditions which have 

delayed the complicated installation of 

the bridge counterweights, mechanical 

and electrical systems, miscellaneous 

connections and adjustments, and the 

completion of the final balancing and 

alignment of the bridge to accept the 

light rail tracks system, the completion 

date has been extended to September 1, 

2006. A safety zone of 100 yards on 

either side of the Fourth Street Bridge is 

needed during this period to protect 

boating traffic public from the dangers 

posed by the construction operations 

and to allow the construction operations 

to be completed. 

There are two major environmental 

issues that affect the scheduling of 

construction in the channel, namely the 

annual pacific herring spawning season 

that runs from December 1 to March 31, 

and noise constraints for steelhead from 

December 1 to June 1. Any demolition, 

pile driving and excavation in the water 

during those time periods will be 

monitored and restricted for possible 

impacts on these species. 

The Fourth Street Bridge Project is 

related to the larger Third Street Light 

Rail Project, and many public 

presentations on the project’s 

components, channel closure schedules, 

impacts to surrounding uses and project 

duration have been made by the City 

and Port of San Francisco. The Third 

Street Light Rail Advisory Group was 

created as a forum to keep the public 

informed on the progress being made on 

the Third Street Light Rail Project. Also, 

this project has been presented at many 

Mission Bay Citizen Advisory 

Committee meetings. At these meetings, 

the public was notified of the project 

components, impacts and the need to 

temporarily close the waterway. 

Specific to the Fourth Street Bridge 

project, an Environmental Assessment, 

required by the Federal Highway 

Administration and Caltrans, (under the 

National Environmental Protection Act) 

was conducted by the City of San 

Francisco. A public hearing regarding 

the Environmental Assessment was held 

on January 17, 2002 at San Francisco 

Arts College, Timken Lecture Hall, 1111 

8th Street in San Francisco California, 

and was well attended. 

In addition, the City of San Francisco 

advised the Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port in January of 2003 that two channel 

closures would be necessary in order to 

accomplish the Fourth Street Bridge 

project. The Coast Guard met with 

various City and Port officials to ensure 

that there would be minimal impacts on 

area boaters and other involved entities. 

Discussion of the Rule 

The Coast Guard has established a 

safety zone that consists of a portion of 

the navigable waters located at the 

Fourth Street Bridge in the Mission 

Creek Waterway in China Basin, San 

Francisco, California. This safety zone is 

to affect a waterway closure during 

periods of reconstruction of the Fourth 

Street Bridge and would be effective 24 

hours a day between January 1, 2006 

and September 1, 2006. 

This safety zone is necessary to 

protect persons and vessels from 

hazards, injury and damage associated 

with bridge construction activities. No 

vessel or person may come within 100 

yards of either side of the bridge, or pass 

beneath the bridge during construction. 

This safety zone encompasses the 

navigable waters, from the surface to the 

bottom, within two lines; one line 

drawn from a point on the north shore 

of Mission Creek extending southeast to 

a point on the opposite shore, 100 yards 

west of the bridge, and the other line 

drawn from a point on the north shore 

of Mission Creek extending southeast to 

a point on the opposite shore, 100 yards 

east of the bridge. 

Vessels and people may be allowed to 

enter an established safety zone on a 

case-by-case basis with authorization 

from the Captain of the Port or a 

designated representative thereof. 

Section 165.23 of Title 33, Code of 

Federal Regulations, prohibits any 

unauthorized person or vessel from 

entering or remaining in this safety 

zone. 

Coast Guard personnel will enforce 

this regulation and the Captain of the 

Port may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the regulation. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 


bjneal on PROD1PC70 with RULES
540 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

Although this rule restricts access to 

the waters encompassed by the safety 

zone, the effect of this rule is not 

significant because: (i) Owners of boats 

located within Mission Creek have been 

advised of the planned waterway 

closures at several Mission Bay Citizen 

Advisory Committee meetings, (ii) the 

San Francisco Department of Public 

Works and the Port of San Francisco 

have consulted with the Mission Creek 

Harbor Association to address the 

impacts of temporarily closing the 

channel to local boaters, (iii) the 

Department of Public works has made 

arrangements to accommodate the 

requests of owners that have asked to 

temporarily moor their house boats or 

pleasure boats at the head of the 

channel, (iv) the channel closure will 

not impact land access to the 

houseboats west of the bridge during the 

waterway closure and (v) the zone is not 

permanent. 

The size of the zone is the minimum 

necessary to provide adequate 

protection for the boating public and an 

adequate distance to ensure vessel 

wakes to not interfere with construction 

operations. The entities most likely to 

be affected are pleasure craft engaged in 

recreational activities and sightseeing. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The effect of this rule on small entities 

is not expected to be significant 

because: (i) Owners of boats located 

within Mission Creek have been advised 

of the planned waterway closures at 

several Mission Bay Citizen Advisory 

Committee meetings, (ii) the San 

Francisco Department of Public Works 

and the Port of San Francisco have 

consulted with the Mission Creek 

Harbor Association to address the 

impacts of temporarily closing the 

channel to local boaters, (iii) the 

Department of Public works has made 

arrangements to accommodate the 

requests of owners that have asked to 

temporarily moor their house boats or 

pleasure boats at the head of the 

channel, (iv) the channel closure will 

not impact land access to the 

houseboats west of the bridge during the 

waterway closure and (v) the zone is not 

permanent. However, a small number of 

sailboats that moor in the harbor may be 

impacted. Small entities and the 

maritime public will be advised of this 

safety zone via public notice to 

mariners. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. If the rule will affect your small 

business, organization, or government 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT for assistance in understanding 

this rule. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal Regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Cast Guard, call 1–

800–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule does not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule does not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 


bjneal on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 541 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation because it establishes a 

safety zone. 

A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ (CED) will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–056 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–056 Safety Zone; Mission Creek 

Waterway, China Basin, San Francisco Bay, 

California. 

(a) Location. One hundred yards to 

either water-side of the Fourth Street 

Bridge, encompassing the navigable 

waters, from the surface to the sea floor, 

bounded by two lines; one line drawn 

from a point on the north shore of 

Mission Creek [37°46′29′′ N, 122°23′36′′ 

W] extending southeast to a point on the 

opposite shore [37°46′28′′ N, 122°23′34′′ 

W], and the other line drawn from a 

point on the north shore of Mission 

Creek [37°46′34′′ N, 122°23′30′′ W] 

extending southeast to a point on the 

opposite shore [37°46′33′′ N, 122°23′28] 

[Datum: NAD 83]. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transit through, or anchoring 

within this zone by all vessels is 

prohibited, unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Francisco, or his designated 

representative. 

(c) Effective period. The safety zone 

will be in effect from 12:01 a.m. on 

January 1, 2006, to 11:59 p.m. on 

September 1, 2006. If the need for this 

safety zone ends before the scheduled 

termination time, the Captain of the Port 

will cease enforcement of the safety 

zone and will announce that fact via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

(d) Enforcement. The Captain of the 

Port will enforce this zone and may 

enlist the aid and cooperation of any 

Federal, State, county, or municipal 

agency to assist in the enforcement of 

the regulation. All persons and vessels 

shall comply with the instructions of 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or 

the designated on-scene patrol 

personnel. Patrol personnel comprise 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard onboard 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

federal, state, and local law enforcement 

vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

Dated: December 21, 2005. 

William J. Uberti, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, San Francisco, California. 

[FR Doc. 06–83 Filed 1–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2005–IN–0010; FRL–

8019–5] 

Determination of Attainment, Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans and Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Vigo County 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment of 

the 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the 

Vigo County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is 

approving a request from the State of 

Indiana, submitted on July 5, 2005 and 

supplemented on October 20, 2005 and 

November 4, 2005, to redesignate Vigo 

County from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s approval 

of the redesignation request is based on 

the determination that Vigo County and 

the State of Indiana have met the criteria 

for redesignation to attainment set forth 

in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including 

the determination that Vigo County has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In 

conjunction with this approval, EPA is 

approving the State’s plan for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

in Vigo County through 2015 as a 

revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also 

finds as adequate and approves the 2015 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for this area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005–IN–0010. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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

copy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 


bjneal on PROD1PC70 with RULES