52956 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

take as may be required under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 250.223 to read as follows: 

§ 250.223 What mitigation measures 

information must accompany the EP? 

If you propose to use any measures 

beyond those required by the 

regulations in this part to minimize or 

mitigate environmental impacts from 

your proposed exploration activities, a 

description of the measures you will use 

must accompany your EP. If there is a 

reason to believe that protected species 

may be incidentally taken by planned 

exploration activities, you must include 

mitigation measures designed to avoid 

or minimize the incidental take of 

threatened and endangered species 

listed under the Endangered Species 

Act. You must also describe your 

mitigation measures for marine 

mammals, as appropriate, if you have 

not already received authorization for 

incidental take as may be required 

under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. 

5. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1) 

in § 250.227 to read as follows: 

§ 250.227 What environmental impact 

analysis (EIA) information must accompany 

the EP? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Be as detailed as necessary to 

assist the Regional Supervisor in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other 

relevant Federal laws such as the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Analyze the potential direct and 

indirect impacts (including those from 

accidents, cooling water intake 

structures, and those identified in 

relevant Endangered Species Act 

biological opinions such as, but not 

limited to, noise, vessel collisions, and 

marine trash and debris) that your 

proposed exploration activities will 

have on the identified resources, 

conditions, and activities; 

* * * * * 

6. In § 250.247 revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.247 What biological, physical, and 

socioeconomic information must 

accompany the DPP or DOCD? 

* * * * * 

(a) Biological environment reports. 

Site-specific information on 

chemosynthetic communities, federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, 

marine mammals protected under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

sensitive underwater features, marine 

sanctuaries, critical habitat designated 

under the Endangered Species Act, or 

other areas of biological concern. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 250.252 revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.252 What environmental monitoring 

information must accompany the DPP or 

DOCD? 

* * * * * 

(a) Monitoring systems. A description 

of any existing and planned monitoring 

systems that are measuring, or will 

measure, environmental conditions or 

will provide project-specific data or 

information on the impacts of your 

development and production activities. 

If there is a reason to believe that 

protected species may be incidentally 

taken by planned development and 

production activities, you must describe 

how you will monitor for incidental 

take of threatened and endangered 

species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act and for marine mammals, as 

appropriate, if you have not already 

received authorization for incidental 

take of marine mammals as may be 

required under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

* * * * * 

8. Revise § 250.254 to read as follows: 

§ 250.254 What mitigation measures 

information must accompany the DPP or 

DOCD? 

If you propose to use any measures 

beyond those required by the 

regulations in this part to minimize or 

mitigate environmental impacts from 

your proposed development and 

production activities, a description of 

the measures you will use must 

accompany your DPP or DOCD. If there 

is a reason to believe that protected 

species may be incidentally taken by 

planned development and production 

activities, you must include mitigation 

measures designed to avoid or minimize 

that incidental take of threatened and 

endangered species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. You must also 

describe your mitigation measures for 

marine mammals, as appropriate, if you 

have not already received authorization 

for incidental take as may be required 

under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. 

9. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(1) 

in § 250.261 to read as follows: 

§ 250.261 What environmental impact 

analysis (EIA) information must accompany 

the DPP or DOCD? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Be as detailed as necessary to 

assist the Regional Supervisor in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other 

relevant Federal laws such as the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Analyze the potential direct and 

indirect impacts (including those from 

accidents, cooling water intake 

structures, and those identified in 

relevant Endangered Species Act 

biological opinions such as, but not 

limited to, those from noise, vessel 

collisions, and marine trash and debris) 

that your proposed development and 

production activities will have on the 

identified resources, conditions, and 

activities; 

* * * * * 

10. Revise the introductory paragraph 

to § 250.282 to read as follows: 

§ 250.282 Do I have to conduct postapproval monitoring? 

After approving your EP, DPP, or 

DOCD, the Regional Supervisor may 

direct you to conduct monitoring 

programs, including monitoring in 

accordance with the Endangered 

Species Act and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. You must retain copies 

of all monitoring data obtained or 

derived from your monitoring programs 

and make them available to MMS upon 

request. 

The Regional Supervisor may require 

you to: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17543 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket ID #: R10–OAR–2005–OR–0001; 

FRL–7964–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Oregon; 

Portland Carbon Monoxide Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve 

the second 10-year maintenance plan for 

carbon monoxide (CO) for the Portland, 

Oregon CO Attainment Area. 

Specifically, in this action EPA 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52957 

proposes to approve the following: 

Oregon’s demonstration that the 

Portland CO Attainment Area will 

maintain air quality standards for CO 

through the year 2017; a revised CO 

motor vehicle emissions budget for 

transportation conformity purposes 

using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model 

and latest growth and planning 

assumptions; and revised state 

implementation plan (SIP) control 

strategies and contingency measures. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 6, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. R10–OAR–

2005–OR–0001, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

3. Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

Attn: Connie Robinson, Mail code: 

AWT–107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

4. Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 10, Attn: 

Connie Robinson (AWT–107), 1200 

Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during EPA’s normal hours of operation, 

and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. R10–OAR–2005–OR–

0001. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The EPA EDOCKET and the 

Federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, such as 

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 in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Please contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Connie Robinson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

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

Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; phone: 

(206) 553–1086; fax number: (206) 553–

0110; e-mail address: 

robinson.connie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed 

Rulemaking? 

III. What Is the Background for This Action? 

IV. What Is the Status of Current CO Levels 

in the Portland Area and How Do They 

Compare With the Federal Standards? 

V. How Have the Public and Stakeholders 

Been Involved in This Rulemaking 

Process? 

VI. What Are the Sources and Magnitude of 

CO Emitted in the Portland Maintenance 

Area? 

VII. How Does the State Demonstrate 

Maintenance of the CO Standard for the 

Second 10-Year Period? 

VIII. What Control Measures Are Being 

Proposed for This Second 10–Year Plan? 

IX. What Contingency Measures Are 

Considered, in Case of the Monitored 

Exceedance or Violation of the Federal 

Standard? 

X. How Does this Action Affect 

Transportation Conformity? 

XI. In Conclusion, How Would This EPA 

Approval Affect the General Public and 

Citizens of the Portland Area? 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through RME, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions—The Agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a CFR part or section 

number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Is the Purpose of This 

Proposed Rulemaking? 

The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to solicit comment on the 

52958 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

State of Oregon’s plan to replace the 

existing CO maintenance plan for the 

Portland area in Oregon with a second 

10-year maintenance plan to 

demonstrate continued maintenance of 

the CO ambient air quality standard 

through 2017. 

The State of Oregon presented a trend 

analysis of the historical CO monitored 

data for the Portland area demonstrating 

that since the Portland area was 

redesignated to attainment, CO 

concentrations have fallen steadily. That 

trend reflects a national pattern of new 

vehicles producing considerably 

reduced amounts of CO. 

Implementation of new national control 

measures including tighter standards for 

motor vehicle tailpipe emissions and 

cleaner fuel will result in significant 

improvements of air quality for the next 

10-year period. EPA agrees with 

Oregon’s analysis and proposes to 

approve the second 10-year 

maintenance plan through this 

rulemaking and notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Federal transportation conformity 

regulations require that transportation 

agencies use the latest EPA mobile 

source emissions model for conformity 

determinations. EPA officially released 

a new version of motor vehicle 

emissions model (MOBILE6) on January 

29, 2002. All SIPs that are adopted after 

that date must use the new model to 

estimate motor vehicle emissions. The 

release of MOBILE6 also began a 24- 

month grace period for conformity. All 

conformity determinations that are 

initiated after January 29, 2004 must use 

a MOBILE6 model. The Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) used MOBILE6.2 to estimate CO 

emissions for the Portland area for the 

next 10-year maintenance period 

through 2017 and conducted a technical 

analysis with MOBILE6.2 that showed 

new motor vehicle emissions will not 

cause or contribute to violations of the 

air quality standards. EPA agrees with 

this analysis and proposes to approve 

revised motor vehicle emissions budgets 

for conformity determinations. 

The State of Oregon took this 

rulemaking opportunity to change 

several of the emission control strategies 

and contingency measures. EPA finds 

these changes acceptable and proposes 

to approve them in this rulemaking. 

III. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

In a March 15, 1991 letter to the EPA 

Region 10 Administrator, the Governor 

of Oregon recommended the Portland 

area be designated as nonattainment for 

CO as required by section 107(d)(1)(A) 

of the Clean Air Act (the ‘‘Act’’). The 

area was designated by EPA as 

nonattainment for CO and classified as 

‘‘moderate’’ with a design value less 

than or equal to 12.7 parts per million 

(ppm) under the provisions outlined in 

sections 186 and 187 of the Act. 

The State of Oregon, following the 

requirements of the Act, prepared and 

submitted revisions to the Oregon SIP 

that first included an attainment plan, 

and then developed a plan to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

standard for a 10-year period beyond the 

statutory attainment date. EPA 

published approval of a redesignation 

request to attainment and the first 10- 

year maintenance plan on September 2, 

1997. 

The first 10-year CO maintenance 

plan included a commitment for 

periodic review of the plan and 

submission of the second 10-year 

maintenance plan to EPA during the last 

two years of the first 10-year 

maintenance period. The planning effort 

included detailed technical analyses 

such as preparation of base and future 

year emissions inventories, review of 

control measures for CO, etc. The results 

of this planning effort provide the basis 

of today’s proposed approval by EPA. 

IV. What Is the Status of Current CO 

Levels in the Portland Area and How 

Do They Compare With the Federal 

Standards? 

The national 8-hour CO ambient 

standard is attained when the daily 

average 8-hour CO concentration of 9.0 

ppm is exceeded no more than one time 

in a calendar year for two consecutive 

years. Since the redesignation of the 

Portland area to attainment for CO on 

October 2, 1997, the second highest 

concentration in a calendar year 

measured by the approved monitoring 

network was 7.3 ppm, which is less 

than 9.0 ppm. 

V. How Have the Public and 

Stakeholders Been Involved in This 

Rulemaking Process? 

ODEQ met directly with a variety of 

stakeholder groups, including 

representative of the petroleum and 

ethanol industries, the Oregon 

Environmental Council and with other 

state agencies to seek input on the CO 

maintenance plan. Those state agencies 

included the Oregon Department of 

Energy, Agriculture, and Economic and 

Community Development. Notices were 

published in the newspaper and public 

hearings were conducted by ODEQ. 

ODEQ responded to all comments and 

the Environmental Quality Commission 

adopted the revisions to the SIP under 

OAR 340–200–0040 on December 10, 

2004, effective December 25, 2004. 

VI. What Are the Sources and 

Magnitude of CO Emitted in the 

Portland Maintenance Area? 

An emissions inventory was prepared 

for the Portland area for the base year 

of 1999. The year 1999 was selected for 

the inventory because that year reflected 

the highest ambient CO concentrations 

in Portland’s recent history and 

therefore represented a conservative 

base for demonstrating future 

compliance with the CO NAAQS. The 

emissions inventory is a list, by source, 

of the air contaminants directly emitted 

into the Portland CO Area’s air. The 

data in the emissions inventory is based 

on calculations and is developed using 

emission factors, which is a method for 

converting source activity levels into an 

estimate of emissions contributions for 

those sources. Because violations of the 

CO NAAQS are most like to occur on 

winter weekdays, the inventory 

prepared reflects a ‘‘design day’’ with 

ambient temperatures, traffic volumes 

and other emission source activity 

levels of a typical winter weekday in 

1999. 

In addition to the base year 1999 

inventory, emission forecasts were 

prepared for 2005, 2010 and 2017. 

These projected inventories were 

prepared in accordance with EPA 

guidance. The projections in Table 1 

below show that total calculated CO 

emissions, are not expected to exceed 

the level of the 1999 base year inventory 

during the second 10-year maintenance 

plan period. 

TABLE 1.—1999 BASE YEAR ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND *2005, *2010 AND *2017 PROJECTED EMISSIONS

[Pounds CO/winter day] 

Emissions 1999 *2005 *2010 *2017 

Point Source .................................................................................... 106,590 67,401 71,085 76,241 

Area Source ..................................................................................... 809,454 872,852 925,684 999,648

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52959 

TABLE 1.—1999 BASE YEAR ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND *2005, *2010 AND *2017 PROJECTED EMISSIONS—Continued 

[Pounds CO/winter day] 

Emissions 1999 *2005 *2010 *2017 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................................. 372,098 530,435 619,753 690,469 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 1,525,114 1,226,323 975,074 834,301 

Total .......................................................................................... 2,813,256 2,697,011 2,591,596 2,600,659 

* Without oxy fuel program and without enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) testing. 

The large decrease in point source 

emissions between 1999 and 2005 is the 

result of permanent closure of a large 

aluminum company. The emissions 

inventory predicts substantial future 

reductions in CO emissions, largely as a 

result of a decrease in on-road 

emissions, which are expected to 

continue to decline as older motor 

vehicles are replaced by newer vehicles 

that meet Federal Tier II emission 

standards and operate on low sulfur 

fuels. 

VII. How Does the State Demonstrate 

Maintenance of the CO Standard for the 

Second 10-Year Period? 

The current, EPA-approved first 10- 

year CO maintenance plan used a 

rollforward approach to demonstrate 

maintenance of the CO standard. A 

review and update of this methodology 

to a probabilistic rollback approach 

using more recent monitored air quality 

and projected emissions data was 

conducted to demonstrate continued 

maintenance of the CO standard for a 

second 10-year period. The probabilistic 

analysis showed that the CO standard 

was maintained on all three permanent 

monitoring sites in 1999 with at least 

99% probability. The probabilistic 

rollback approach demonstrated 

regional, long-term maintenance by 

demonstrating that maintenance at the 

monitoring site with the highest design 

value (82nd and Division) will be 

maintained for a second 10-year period 

with the same level of assurance. 

VIII. What Control Measures Are Being 

Proposed for This Second 10-Year 

Plan? 

The second 10-year plan changes the 

I/M program requirement for CO from 

the current Enhanced I/M program to a 

basic I/M program for CO. Moderate CO 

Attainment areas were only required to 

implement a basic I/M program. This is 

a change to the CO SIP only. The Ozone 

Maintenance Plan continues to require 

the Enhanced I/M Program. ODEQ will 

consider vehicles that meet the 

enhanced test requirement as also 

meeting the basic test requirement. If 

the Ozone Plan is changed to a basic I/ 

M program, it will already be approved 

for CO. 

The Oxygenated Fuel Program 

remains a control measure in the 

Portland CO maintenance area until 

October 31, 2007 when it will be 

discontinued. It will then become a 

contingency measure in the second 10- 

year maintenance plan as required by 

175A(d). 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) continues to be required. The 

plan also continues to offer an industrial 

Growth Allowance that may be used by 

new or expanding sources instead of 

securing emission offsets. 

The Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) in this plan replace the TCMs 

specified in the first Portland Area CO 

Maintenance Plan. The emission 

reduction benefits of these TCMs are 

included in the emission projections on 

which the Portland Area CO 

Maintenance Plan is based. The revised 

TCMS are: 

Transit Service Increase: Region 

transit service revenue hours (weighted 

by capacity) shall be increased 1.0% per 

year. The increase shall be assessed on 

the basis of a 5-year rolling average of 

actual hours for assessments conducted 

between 2006 and 2017. 

Bicycle Paths: Jurisdictions and 

government agencies shall program a 

minimum of 28 miles of bikeways or 

trails within the Portland metropolitan 

area between the years 2006 through 

2017. 

Pedestrian Paths: Jurisdictions and 

government agencies shall program at 

least nine miles of pedestrian paths in 

mixed use centers between the years 

2006 through 2017. 

Oregon has a TCM substitution policy 

under which identified TCMs may be 

substituted in whole, or in part, with 

other TCMs providing equivalent 

emission reductions. See 62 FR 4621, 

September 2, 1997. Appendix D9–2 of 

the second 10-year maintenance plan 

identifies the requirements for TCM 

substitutions. 

IX. What Contingency Measures Are 

Considered, in Case of the Monitored 

Exceedance or Violation of the Federal 

Standard? 

The maintenance plan is to contain 

contingency measures to ensure that the 

State will promptly correct any 

violation of the standard that occurs 

during the maintenance period. The 

contingency measures in the second 10- 

year maintenance plan for the Portland 

area are based on risk of violation and 

actual violation. 

If monitored CO levels at any 

monitoring site register a second high 

concentration equaling or exceeding 8.1 

ppm during a calendar year, ODEQ will 

form a planning group to evaluate the 

implementation of additional emission 

strategies. Additional strategies to be 

considered include, but are not limited 

to: Increased parking pricing in the 

Central City, increased funding for 

transit, value pricing on major roadways 

that increase vehicle travel capacity, a 

trip reduction program, modified 

regional parking ratios, and accelerated 

implementation of bicycle and 

pedestrian networks. 

If the Portland area violates the 

NAAQS for CO, the following 

contingency measures will 

automatically be implemented. New 

Source Review requirements will be 

changed. The requirement to install Best 

Available Control Technology will be 

replaced with Lowest Achievable 

Emissions Rate technology. The 

downtown parking lid will be reinstated 

if the violation occurs in the downtown 

area formerly subject to the parking lid 

requirement. If the violation occurs in 

2007 or later, the Oxygenated Fuel 

Program will be reinstated. 

X. How Does This Action Affect 

Transportation Conformity? 

Under Section 176(c) of the Act, 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that are funded or 

approved under the Federal Transit Act, 

must conform to the applicable SIP. In 

short, a transportation plan is deemed to 

conform to the applicable SIP if the 

emissions resulting from 

52960 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

implementation of that transportation 

plan are less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emission level established in the 

SIP for the maintenance year and other 

analysis years. 

In this maintenance plan, procedures 

for estimating motor vehicle emissions 

are well documented. The regional 

motor vehicle emissions calculated by 

MOBILE6.2 were used in the 

probabilistic rollback method to 

compute a threshold level of regional 

emissions inventory that would provide 

maintenance of the CO standard with 

99% certainty and confidence through 

the second 10-year maintenance period. 

The computed attainment threshold of 

regional motor vehicle emissions can be 

used to assess the long term attainment 

prospects. The total on-road motor 

vehicle CO emissions in the Portland 

area for 2005, 2010 and 2017 are shown 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—PORTLAND MAINTENANCE AREA CO MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Pounds per winter day] 

Year 2005 2010 2017 

Budget ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,238,575 1,033,578 1,181,341 

For the purpose of demonstrating 

transportation conformity in the 

timeframe of the area’s transportation 

plan for all years beyond 2017, motor 

vehicle emissions must be less than or 

equal to the maintenance plan’s motor 

vehicle emissions budget for 2017. 

XI. In Conclusion, How Would This 

EPA Approval Affect the General 

Public and Citizens of the Portland 

Area? 

This action proposes to approve 

measures adopted by ODEQ to ensure 

maintenance of the Federal air quality 

standards for CO in the Portland area for 

a second 10-year period and protect the 

health and welfare of the area citizens 

from adverse effects of degraded air 

quality levels. 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 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 

proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it 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 proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Julie M. Hagensen, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

10. 

[FR Doc. 05–17537 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R09–OAR–2005–AZ–0003; FRL–7960–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Arizona; Correction of 

Redesignation of Phoenix To 

Attainment for the Carbon Monoxide 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

the regulations that identify revisions to 

the Arizona state implementation plan 

and the regulations that identify area 

designations within Arizona. In so 

doing, EPA is acting pursuant to the 

Agency’s authority under the Clean Air 

Act to correct errors made in approving 

plan revisions and area redesignations. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is to 

correct an error in the adoption and 

submittal date shown for a revision to 

the implementation plan that EPA 

recently approved and to correct a 

transcription error in, and to make a 

more general correction to, the