Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 35157 

employee from each employer in such 

calendar year for such services. This 

exclusion from wages has no 

application to remuneration paid for 

services performed as a home worker 

who is an employee under section 

3121(d)(2) (see § 31.3121(d)–1(c)) 

relating to common law employees. 

(d) Cash remuneration includes 

checks and other monetary media of 

exchange. Remuneration paid in any 

other medium, such as clothing, car 

tokens, transportation passes or tickets, 

or other goods or commodities, is 

disregarded in determining whether the 

$100 cash-remuneration test is met. If 

the cash remuneration paid in any 

calendar year by an employer to an 

employee for services performed as a 

home worker of the character described 

in paragraph (a) of this section is $100 

or more, then no remuneration, whether 

in cash or in any medium other than 

cash, paid by the employer to the 

employee in such calendar year for such 

services is excluded from wages under 

this exception. 

(e)(1) For provisions relating to 

deductions of employee tax or amounts 

equivalent to the tax from cash 

payments for services performed as a 

home worker within the meaning of 

section 3121(d)(3)(C), see § 31.3102–1. 

(2) For provisions relating to the time 

of payment of wages for services 

performed as a home worker within the 

meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C), see 

§ 31.3121(a)–2. 

(3) For provisions relating to records 

to be kept with respect to payment of 

wages for services performed as a home 

worker within the meaning of section 

3121(d)(3)(C), see § 31.6001–2. 

(f) The provisions of this section 

apply to any payment for services 

performed as a home worker within the 

meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) made 

on or after January 1, 1978. For rules 

applicable to any payment for services 

performed as a home worker within the 

meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) made 

prior to January 1, 1978, see 

§ 31.3121(a)(10)–1 in effect at such time 

(see 26 CFR part 31 contained in the 

edition of 26 CFR parts 30 to 39, revised 

as of April 1, 2006). 

■ Par. 7. Section 31.3121(i)–1 is 

amended as follows: 

■ 1. Redesignate the existing text as 

paragraph (a). 

■ 2. Remove the language ‘‘quarter’’

each place it appears and add ‘‘year’’ in 

its place in newly designated paragraph 

(a). 

■ 3. Add new paragraph (b). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 31.3121(i)–1 Computation to nearest 

dollar of cash remuneration for domestic 

service. 

* * * * * 

(b) The provisions of this section 

apply to any cash payment for domestic 

service in a private home of the 

employer made on or after January 1, 

1994. For rules applicable to any cash 

payment for domestic service in a 

private home of the employer made 

prior to January 1, 1994, see 

§ 31.3121(i)–1 in effect at such time (see 

26 CFR part 31 contained in the edition 

of 26 CFR parts 30 to 39, revised as of 

April 1, 2006). 

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: June 8, 2006. 

Eric Solomon, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Treasury. 

[FR Doc. E6–9532 Filed 6–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0281; FRL–8182–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

a revision to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (District) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision was proposed 

in the Federal Register on March 29, 

2006. The revision adds qualifying 

electric generating facilities to the list of 

stationary sources that are allowed to 

use emission reduction credits from a 

bank of credits maintained by the 

District. We are approving the revision 

of a local District rule that was approved 

in 1996 under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 19, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0281 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, Yannayon.Laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15656), 

EPA proposed to approve a revision of 

District Rule 1309.1, Priority Reserve 

Bank, into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule 

number Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD .......................................................... 1309.1 Priority Reserve ................................................ 05/03/02 12/23/02 

We proposed to approve this revision 

of Rule 1309.1 because we determined 

that the revision complied with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the revised rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received two comment 

letters: one from Adams Broadwell 

Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of California 

Unions for Reliable Energy, Kristopher 

Johns and Donald Lee Selby, Jr. 

(hereinafter collectively ‘‘CURE’’) and 

one from the District. We have prepared 

a separate detailed response to CURE’s 

comment that is available in the final 

docket on this rulemaking. In this 

action, we are providing a summary of 

the comment and our response. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
35158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

In summary, CURE commented that 

the revision of Rule 1309.1 does not 

ensure that emission reduction credits 

provided to qualifying electric 

generating facilities from the Priority 

Reserve fund will comply with the 

requirements of section 173(c) of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA disagrees with the 

comment. EPA approved Rule 1309.1 on 

December 4, 1996. 61 FR 64291 

(December 4, 1996). In approving Rule 

1309.1 in 1996, we determined that the 

District’s implementation of a tracking 

system demonstrated that the Priority 

Reserve bank’s emission reduction 

credits complied with the requirements 

of section 173(c). 61 FR 64292. CURE’s 

comment that the Priority Reserve 

bank’s emissions reduction credits 

should be reserved for use by essential 

public services rather than qualifying 

electric generating facilities seeks to 

overturn a policy decision that is within 

the discretion of the local permitting 

authority. In this instance, the District 

Board decided in 2002, following an 

electricity shortage, to provide banked 

emission reduction credits to qualifying 

electric generating facilities if credits 

were not otherwise available. The 

District’s basis for its decision is set 

forth in its comment letter dated April 

25, 2006, which is available in the 

docket. EPA’s role is to determine 

whether the SIP revision meets the 

requirements of the CAA. The comment 

does not provide information showing 

that adding qualifying electric 

generating facilities to the list of sources 

eligible to use emission reduction 

credits from the Priority Reserve Fund 

does not satisfy the requirements of 

section 173(c). 

III. EPA Action 

CURE’s comment letter has not 

changed our assessment that the 

District’s revision of Rule 1309.1 

complies with the relevant CAA 

requirements. The District’s comment 

letter supports EPA’s proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving this revision of Rule 1309.1 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4). This rule also does 

not have tribal implications because it 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 18, 2006. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 25, 2006. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(311)(i)(A)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(311) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 35159 

(3) Rule 1309.1, adopted on May 3, 

2002. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–5508 Filed 6–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2006–0010; FRL–8179–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Lakeview PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2006, EPA 

published a direct final rule to approve 

a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

maintenance plan revision for the 

Lakeview, Oregon nonattainment area 

and to redesignate the area from 

nonattattainment to attainment for 

PM10. PM10 air pollution is suspended 

particulate matter with a nominal 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

ten micrometers. We stated in the direct 

final rule that if EPA received adverse 

comment, we would publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule. We 

received adverse comment on the direct 

final rule, and, therefore, in a separate 

action, are withdrawing our direct final 

rule. In a parallel notice of proposed 

rulemaking, also published on March 

22, 2006, we stated that if we received 

adverse comments we would address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. This 

final action addresses the adverse 

comments we received and finalizes our 

approval of the SIP revision and 

redesignation request for the Lakeview 

PM10 nonattainment area. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

19, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2006–0010. 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, 

e.g., 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 EPA, Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA. EPA requests 

that, if at all possible, you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics (AWT–107), EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; 

telephone number: (206) 553–6706; fax 

number: (206) 553–0110; e-mail address: 

deneen.donna@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Is the Background of This 

Rulemaking? 

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the 

Proposed Action? 

III. What Is Our Final Action? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is the Background of This 

Rulemaking? 

On October 25, 2005, the State of 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ or State) submitted a SIP 

revision and redesignation request for 

the Lakeview, Oregon PM10 

nonattainment area. On March 22, 2006, 

EPA published a direct final rule to 

approve this SIP revision and request on 

the basis that the State’s submission 

adequately demonstrated that the 

control measures being implemented in 

the Lakeview area result in maintenance 

of the PM10 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and all 

other requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(the Act) for redesignation to attainment 

are met. 71 FR 14399. We stated in the 

direct final rule that if EPA received 

adverse comment, we would publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule. We received adverse comment on 

the direct final rule, and, therefore, in a 

separate action, are withdrawing our 

direct final rule. In a parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking, also published on 

March 22, 2006, we stated that if we 

received adverse comments we would 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. 71 FR 14438. This final 

action addresses the adverse comments 

we received and finalizes our approval 

of the State’s SIP revision and 

redesignation request for the Lakeview 

PM10 nonattainment area. 

II. What Comments Did We Receive on 

the Proposed Action? 

We received one comment on the 

proposed rulemaking. This comment 

was from the Oregon Division of the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA). FHWA’s comment and our 

response are summarized as follows: 

Comment: The commenter expressed 

concern that the language stating that 

‘‘the motor vehicle emissions budget is 

established for all years’’ could be 

interpreted to mean that a budget for 

Lakeview is created for each year, 2006 

through 2017. The commenter added 

that since transportation conformity 

requires a demonstration of meeting 

budgets for every year a budget is 

established, requiring the Department of 

Transportation to demonstrate meeting a 

budget for each year through 2017 

seems to be overly burdensome and 

return little value. The commenter 

concluded that demonstrating that the 

2017 budget is met, as well as any 

required interim years, meets the 

purpose of the Clean Air Act and this 

SIP. 

Response: EPA’s statement that the 

motor vehicle emissions budget is 

established for all years is in the 

preamble to our rulemaking at 71 FR 

14404 (March 22, 2006). Because this 

statement is based on information in the 

State’s SIP submittal, we asked DEQ to 

clarify the period for which the motor 

vehicle emissions budget is established. 

In a letter to EPA, dated May 2, 2006, 

DEQ clarified that the motor vehicle 

emissions budget is established for the 

Lakeview PM10 nonattainment area for 

2017 and that DEQ never intended to 

require a yearly transportation 

conformity analysis. DEQ added that 

analysis years are determined by the 

conformity rule and through interagency 

consultation and that DEQ does not 

believe that its language could be, or 

should be, interpreted to mean that an 

analysis must be conducted every year. 

The phrase ‘‘for all years’’ makes clear 

that if, as a result of conformity rules 

and interagency consultation, an 

intervening year conformity 

determination is required or needed, 

then the budget established for 2017 

governs. 

Based on the comment from FHWA, 

the clarifying letter from DEQ, the SIP 

revision for the Lakeview PM10 

nonattainment area, and 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(2)(i), which sets the minimum 

years for which a regional emissions 

analyses must be conducted, we are 

clarifying that the motor vehicle 

emissions budget for Lakeview is 

established for 2017. Accordingly, the 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES