Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54267 

(3) Include a provision that any patent 

granted on that application or any 

patent subject to the reexamination 

proceeding shall be enforceable only for 

and during such period that said patent 

is commonly owned with the 

application or patent which formed the 

basis for the judicially created double 

patenting. 

(d) A terminal disclaimer, when filed 

in a patent application or in a 

reexamination proceeding to obviate 

double patenting based upon a patent or 

application that is not commonly owned 

but was disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 

103(c) as resulting from activities 

undertaken within the scope of a joint 

research agreement, must: 

(1) Comply with the provisions of 

paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this 

section; 

(2) Be signed in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed 

in a patent application or be signed in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section if filed in a reexamination 

proceeding; and 

(3) Include a provision waiving the 

right to separately enforce any patent 

granted on that application or any 

patent subject to the reexamination 

proceeding and the patent or any patent 

granted on the application which 

formed the basis for the double 

patenting, and that any patent granted 

on that application or any patent subject 

to the reexamination proceeding shall 

be enforceable only for and during such 

period that said patent and the patent, 

or any patent granted on the 

application, which formed the basis for 

the double patenting are not separately 

enforced. 

PART 3—ASSIGNMENT, RECORDING 

AND RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE 

■ 10. The authority citation for 37 CFR 

part 3 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35 U.S.C. 

2(b)(2). 

■ 11. Section 3.11 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 3.11 Documents which will be recorded. 

* * * * * 

(c) A joint research agreement or an 

excerpt of a joint research agreement 

will also be recorded as provided in this 

part. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 05–18217 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R08–OAR–2005–UT–0003; FRL–7961–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Ogden City Revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan and 

Approval of Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Utah. On November 29, 2004, 

the Governor of Utah submitted 

revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–12, 

‘‘Section IX, Control Measures for Area 

and Point Sources, Part C, Carbon 

Monoxide,’’ which incorporates a 

revised maintenance plan for the Ogden 

carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance 

area for the CO National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised 

maintenance plan contains revised 

transportation conformity budgets for 

the years 2005 and 2021. In addition, 

the Governor submitted revisions to 

Utah’s Rule R307–110–35, ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part E, Weber County,’’ which 

incorporates a revised vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program for 

Weber County. In this action, EPA is 

approving the Ogden City CO revised 

maintenance plan, the revised 

transportation conformity budgets, the 

revised vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program for Weber County, 

and the revisions to rules R307–110–12 

and R307–110–35. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 14, 2005 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by October 14, 2005. If 

adverse comment is received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by RME Docket Number R08–

OAR–2005–UT–0003, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system for regional actions, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov, 

russ.tim@epa.gov, and 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–

UT–0003. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, 

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 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

EPA’s Regional Materials in EDOCKET 

and federal regulations.gov website 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 included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket 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 

54268 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

EDOCKET online 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 Regional Materials in 

EDOCKET index at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in 

hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th 

Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air and 

Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466, 

phone (303) 312–6436, and e-mail at: 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is the State’s process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s evaluation of the Revised 

Maintenance Plan 

V. EPA’s evaluation of the Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

VI. EPA’s evaluation of the Revised Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

VII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

VIII. Final Action 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials NAAQS mean 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(v) The word State means the State of 

Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

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 Regional 

Materials in EDOCKET, 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: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

In this action, we are approving a 

revised maintenance plan for the Ogden 

CO attainment/maintenance area that is 

designed to keep the area in attainment 

for CO through 2021, we’re approving 

revised transportation conformity motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs), and 

we’re approving revisions to the vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program for 

Weber County. We are also approving 

revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–12, 

‘‘Section IX, Control Measures for Area 

and Point Sources, Part C, Carbon 

Monoxide,’’ and Rule R307–110–35, 

‘‘Section X, Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber 

County,’’ which merely incorporate the 

State’s SIP revisions to the Ogden CO 

maintenance plan and the vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program for 

Weber County, respectively. 

We approved the original CO 

redesignation to attainment and 

maintenance plan for the Ogden area on 

March 9, 2001 (see 66 FR 14078). 

The original Ogden CO maintenance 

plan that we approved on March 9, 2001 

(hereafter March 9, 2001 maintenance 

plan) utilized the then applicable EPA 

mobile sources emission factor model, 

MOBILE5a. On January 18, 2002, we 

issued policy guidance for States and 

local areas to use to develop SIP 

revisions using the new, updated 

version of the model, MOBILE6. The 

policy guidance was entitled ‘‘Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for 

SIP Development and Transportation 

Conformity’’ (hereafter, January 18, 2002 

MOBILE6 policy). On November 12, 

2002, EPA’s Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality (OTAQ) issued an 

updated version of the MOBILE6 model, 

MOBILE6.2, and notified Federal, State, 

and Local agency users of the model’s 

availability. MOBILE6.2 contained 

additional updates for air toxics and 

particulate matter. However, the CO 

emission factors were essentially the 

same as in the MOBILE6 version of the 

model. 

For the revised maintenance plan, the 

State recalculated the CO emissions for 

the 1992 attainment year, projected 

emission inventories for 2004, 2005, 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021, 

and calculated all the mobile source 

emissions using MOBILE6.2. Based on 

projected significant mobile source 

emission reductions for the interim 

years between 2005 and 2021, the 

State’s revised maintenance 

demonstration is also able to 

accommodate the relaxation of certain 

provisions for newer vehicles in the 

Weber County Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program while 

continuing to demonstrate maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS. Thus, the State has 

asked us to approve a revision to 

‘‘Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Weber County’’ (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Weber County I/M 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54269 

program’’ or ‘‘I/M program’’)that allows 

vehicles less than six years old to be 

inspected every other year instead of 

annually. The State calculated a CO 

MVEB for 2005 and applied a selected 

amount of the available safety margin to 

the 2005 transportation conformity 

MVEB. The State calculated a CO MVEB 

for 2021 and beyond and also applied a 

selected amount of the available safety 

margin to the 2021 and beyond 

transportation conformity MVEB. We 

have determined that all the revisions 

noted above are Federally-approvable, 

as described further below. 

III. What Is the State’s Process To 

Submit These Materials to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

our actions on submissions of revisions 

to a SIP. The CAA requires States to 

observe certain procedural requirements 

in developing SIP revisions for 

submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA requires that each SIP revision be 

adopted after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. This must occur prior to 

the revision being submitted by a State 

to us. 

The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) 

held a public hearing for the revised 

Ogden CO maintenance plan, the 

revised Weber County vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program, 

and the revisions to Rule R307–110–12 

and Rule R307–110–35 on September 

22, 2004. The revised plan elements and 

rules were adopted by the UAQB on 

November 3, 2004. The revised CO 

maintenance plan and Rule R307–110–

12 became State effective on January 4, 

2005 and the revised vehicle inspection 

and maintenance program and Rule 

R307–110–35 became State effective on 

November 4, 2004. The Governor 

submitted these SIP revisions to us on 

November 29, 2004. Additional 

administrative materials were submitted 

to us by the State on March 3, 2005. 

We have evaluated the Governor’s 

submittal for these SIP revisions and 

have determined that the State met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. As required by section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed 

these SIP materials for conformance 

with the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V and 

determined that the submittals were 

administratively and technically 

complete. Our completeness 

determination was sent on March 22, 

2005, through a letter from Robert E. 

Roberts, Regional Administrator, to 

Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Maintenance Plan 

EPA has reviewed the State’s revised 

maintenance plan for the Ogden 

attainment/maintenance area and 

believes that approval is warranted. The 

following are the key aspects of this 

revision along with our evaluation of 

each: 

(a) The State has air quality data that 

show continuous attainment of the CO 

NAAQS. 

As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts 

per million (10 milligrams per cubic 

meter) for an 8-hour average 

concentration not to be exceeded more 

than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 

continues by stating that the levels of 

CO in the ambient air shall be measured 

by a reference method based on 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix C and designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The 

March 9, 2001 maintenance plan relied 

on ambient air quality data from 1992 

through 1999. In our consideration of 

the revised Ogden maintenance plan, 

submitted by the Governor on 

November 29, 2004, we reviewed 

ambient air quality data from 1992 

through 2004. The Ogden area shows 

continuous attainment of the CO 

NAAQS from 1992 to present. All of the 

above-referenced air quality data are 

archived in our Air Quality System 

(AQS). 

(b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission 

factor model, the State revised the 

attainment year inventory (1992) and 

provided projected emissions 

inventories for the years 2004, 2005, 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021. 

The revised maintenance plan that the 

Governor submitted on November 29, 

2004, includes comprehensive 

inventories of CO emissions for the 

Ogden area. These inventories include 

emissions from stationary point sources, 

area sources, non-road mobile sources, 

and on-road mobile sources. More 

detailed descriptions of the revised 1992 

attainment year inventory, and the 

projected emissions inventories for 

2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

2020, and 2021, are documented in the 

maintenance plan in section IX.C.8.b 

entitled ‘‘Emission Inventories and 

Maintenance Demonstration,’’ and in 

the State’s Technical Support Document 

(TSD). The State’s submittal contains 

emission inventory information that was 

prepared in accordance with EPA 

guidance. Summary emission figures 

from the 1992 attainment year and the 

projected years are provided in Table 

IV–1 below. 

TABLE IV–1 

[Summary of CO emissions in tons per day for the Ogden area] 

Source category 1992 2004 2005 2008 

Point* ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................................................................. 6.28 3.15 3.14 3.14 

Non-Road ......................................................................................................................................... 6.71 7.81 7.99 8.40 

On-Road .......................................................................................................................................... 93.50 42.58 44.54 34.14 

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 106.49 53.54 55.67 45.68 

Source category 2011 2014 2017 2020 2021 

Point* ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Area .............................................................................................................................. 3.16 3.17 3.15 3.10 3.09 

Non-Road ..................................................................................................................... 8.82 9.26 9.72 10.21 10.38 

On-Road ....................................................................................................................... 32.07 30.48 29.72 29.28 29.47 

Total ...................................................................................................................... 44.05 42.91 42.59 42.59 42.94 

* There were no major CO point sources in the Ogden maintenance area; the State included point source emissions in the Area source 

category. 

54270 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

The revised mobile source emissions 

show that the largest change from the 

original March 9, 2001 maintenance 

plan is primarily due to the use of 

MOBILE6.2 instead of MOBILE5a. The 

MOBILE6.2 modeling information is 

contained in the State’s TSD (see 

‘‘Mobile Source 1992 Base Year 

Inventory Using MOBILE6.2,’’ pages 

3.b.v-1 through 3.b.v-5; and ‘‘Mobile 

Source Projection Year Inventories 

Using MOBILE6.2,’’ pages 4.e-1 through 

4.e-3) and on a compact disk produced 

by the State (see ‘‘Supplemental Mobile 

Source Data (CD–ROM),’’ section 2.d.). 

A copy of the State’s compact disk is 

available upon request to EPA. The 

compact disk contains much of the 

modeling data, MOBILE6.2 input-output 

files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input 

parameters, and other information, and 

is included with the docket for this 

action. Other revisions to the mobile 

sources category resulted from revised 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates 

provided to the State by the Wasatch 

Front Regional Council (WFRC) which 

is the metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) for the Ogden area. 

In summary, the revised maintenance 

plan and State TSD contain detailed 

emission inventory information that was 

prepared in accordance with EPA 

guidance and is acceptable to EPA. 

(c) The State revised the March 9, 

2001 Ogden maintenance plan. 

The March 9, 2001 CO maintenance 

plan utilized the then applicable EPA 

mobile sources emission factor model, 

MOBILE5a. On January 18, 2002, we 

issued policy guidance for States and 

local areas to use to develop SIP 

revisions using the updated version of 

the model, MOBILE6. The policy 

guidance was entitled ‘‘Policy Guidance 

on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP 

Development and Transportation 

Conformity’’ (hereafter, January 18, 2002 

MOBILE6 policy). Additional policy 

guidance regarding EPA’s MOBILE 

model was issued on November 12, 

2002, which notified Federal, State, and 

Local agencies that the updated 

MOBILE6.2 model was now available 

and was the recommended version of 

the model to be used. We note that the 

State used the MOBILE6.2 model to 

revise the Ogden maintenance plan. 

Our January 18, 2002, MOBILE6 

policy allows areas to revise their motor 

vehicle emission inventories and 

transportation conformity MVEBs using 

the MOBILE6 model without needing to 

revise the entire SIP or completing 

additional modeling if: (1) The SIP 

continues to demonstrate attainment or 

maintenance when the MOBILE5-based 

motor vehicle emission inventories are 

replaced with MOBILE6 base year and 

attainment/maintenance year 

inventories and, (2) the State can 

document that the growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor 

vehicle emission sources continue to be 

valid and minor updates do not change 

the overall conclusion of the SIP. Our 

January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy also 

speaks specifically to CO maintenance 

plans on page 10 of the policy. The first 

paragraph on page 10 of the policy 

states ‘‘* * *if a carbon monoxide (CO) 

maintenance plan relied on either a 

relative or absolute demonstration, the 

first criterion could be satisfied by 

documenting that the relative emission 

reductions between the base year and 

the maintenance year are the same or 

greater using MOBILE6 as compared to 

MOBILE5.’’

The State could have used the 

streamlined approach described in our 

January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy to 

update the Ogden carbon monoxide 

MVEBs. However, the Governor’s 

November 29, 2004 SIP submittal 

instead contained a completely revised 

maintenance plan and maintenance 

demonstration for the Ogden area. That 

is, all emission source categories (point, 

area, non-road, and on-road mobile) 

were updated using the latest versions 

of applicable models (including 

MOBILE6.2,) transportation data sets, 

emissions data, emission factors, 

population figures and other 

demographic information. We have 

determined that this fully revised 

maintenance plan SIP submittal exceeds 

the requirements of our January 18, 

2002 MOBILE6 policy and, therefore, 

our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy is 

not relevant to our approval of the 

revised maintenance plan and its 

MVEBs. 

As discussed above, the State 

prepared a revised attainment year 

inventory for 1992, and new emission 

inventories for the years 2004, 2005, 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2021. 

The results of these calculations are 

presented in Table 3 ‘‘Emissions 

Projections for Interim Years’’ on page 5 

of the revised Ogden maintenance plan 

(Utah SIP Section IX, Part C.8) and are 

also summarized in our Table IV–1 

above. In addition, we note that the 

State modified the Weber County I/M 

program to specify that vehicles less 

than six years old are to have their 

emissions tested every other year 

instead of annually (see our discussion 

and evaluation in section VI below.) 

The State performed an analysis of 

this relaxation of the Weber County I/M 

program and determined that this 

change could be implemented for Weber 

County, beginning in 2005, without 

jeopardizing maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS. As noted below in section VI, 

we reviewed the State’s methodology 

and analysis and we have determined 

they are acceptable. The effects of this 

I/M rule relaxation were incorporated 

into the State’s mobile sources modeling 

with MOBILE6.2, as applicable to the 

years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

2020, and 2021, and these results are 

reflected in the Table 3 of the 

maintenance plan and in our Table IV–

1 above. 

We have determined that the State has 

demonstrated, using MOBILE6.2, that 

mobile source emissions continuously 

decline from 1992 to 2021 and that the 

total CO emissions from all source 

categories, projected for years 2004, 

2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 

2021, are all below the 1992 attainment 

year level of CO emissions. Therefore, 

we are approving the revised 

maintenance plan as it demonstrates 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS from 

1992 through 2021, while allowing the 

I/M relaxations from the revisions to the 

Weber County I/M program. 

(d) Monitoring Network and 

Verification of Continued Attainment. 

Continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS in the Ogden area depends, in 

part, on the State’s efforts to track 

indicators throughout the maintenance 

period. This requirement is met in 

section IX.C.8.e: ‘‘Monitoring Network/ 

Verification of Continued Attainment’’

of the revised Ogden CO maintenance 

plan. In section IX.C.8.e, the State 

commits to continue the operation of 

the CO monitor in the Ogden area, in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR 58, and to annually review this 

monitoring network and gain EPA 

approval before making any changes. 

Also, in section IX.C.8.e and IX.C.8.f, 

the State commits to track mobile 

sources’ CO emissions (which are the 

largest component of the inventories) 

through the ongoing regional 

transportation planning process that is 

done by the WFRC. Since regular 

revisions to Ogden’s transportation 

improvement programs and long range 

transportation plans must go through a 

transportation conformity finding, the 

State will use this process to 

periodically review the Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT) and mobile source 

emissions projections used in the 

revised maintenance plan. This regional 

transportation conformity process is 

conducted by WFRC in coordination 

with Utah’s Division of Air Quality 

(UDAQ), the UAQB, the Utah 

Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

and EPA. 

Based on the above, we are approving 

these commitments as satisfying the 

relevant requirements. We note that our 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54271 

final rulemaking approval renders the 

State’s commitments federally 

enforceable. 

(e) Contingency Plan. 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions. To meet this 

requirement, the State has identified 

appropriate contingency measures along 

with a schedule for the development 

and implementation of such measures. 

As stated in section IX.C.8.f of the 

revised maintenance plan, the 

contingency measures for the Ogden 

area will be triggered by a violation of 

the CO NAAQS. However, the State 

approaches the development and 

implementation of contingency 

measures from a two-step process; first, 

upon an exceedance of the CO NAAQS 

and second, upon a violation of the CO 

NAAQS. 

The UDAQ will notify the Ogden City 

government and EPA of an exceedance 

of the CO NAAQS generally within 30, 

but no more than 45 days. Upon 

notification of a CO exceedance, the 

UDAQ in coordination with the WFRC, 

will begin evaluating and developing 

potential contingency measures that are 

intended to correct a violation of the CO 

NAAQS. This process will be completed 

within six months of the notification 

that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS 

has occurred. If a violation of the CO 

NAAQS has occurred, a public hearing 

process will begin at the local and State 

levels. Should the UAQB conclude that 

the implementation of local measures 

will prevent further exceedances or 

violations of the CO NAAQS, the UAQB 

may approve or endorse local measures 

without adopting State requirements. If, 

however, the UDAQ decides locallyadopted contingency measures are 

inadequate, the UDAQ will recommend 

to the UAQB that they instead adopt 

State-enforceable measures as deemed 

necessary to address the current 

violation(s) and prevent additional 

exceedances or violations. Regardless of 

whether the selected contingency 

measures are local-or State-adopted, the 

necessary contingency measures will be 

implemented within one year of a CO 

NAAQS violation. The State also 

indicates in section IX.C.8.f that any 

State-enforceable measure will become 

part of the next revised maintenance 

plan submitted for EPA approval. 

The potential contingency measures 

identified in section IX.C.8.f(3) of the 

revised Ogden CO maintenance plan 

include: (1) A return to annual 

inspections for all vehicles; (2) 

improvements to the current I/M 

program in the Ogden area; (3) 

mandatory employer-based travel 

reduction programs as allowed by 

statute; (4) implementation of 2.7% 

oxygenated gasoline in Weber County 

from November 1 through the end of 

February; (5) and other emission control 

measures appropriate for the area. 

Based on the above, we find that the 

contingency measures provided in the 

State’s revised Ogden CO maintenance 

plan are sufficient and continue to meet 

the requirements of section 175A(d) of 

the CAA. 

(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions. 

Section IX.C.8.g of the State’s revised 

maintenance plan states that: 

‘‘No maintenance plan revision will be 

needed after 2021, as that is the 20th year 

following EPA approval of the original 

maintenance plan. No further maintenance 

plan is needed after successful maintenance 

of the standard for 20 years. However, the 

State will update the Plan if conditions 

warrant.’’

This is essentially a correct 

interpretation of the length of time that 

an area is required to demonstrate 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS as 

provided in sections 175A(a) and 

175A(b) of the CAA. Although this 

language in section IX.C.8.g of the 

revised Ogden CO maintenance plan 

does not address the specific 

requirements for the submittal of a 

revised maintenance plan as stated in 

section 175A(b) of the CAA, we have 

concluded it is sufficient to meet the 

intent of section 175A(b). 

The requirement for a subsequent 

maintenance plan submittal appears in 

section 175A(b) of the CAA which states 

‘‘8 years after redesignation of any area 

as an attainment area under section 

107(d), the State shall submit to the 

Administrator an additional revision of 

the applicable State implementation 

plan for maintaining the national 

primary ambient air quality standard for 

10 years after the expiration of the 10- 

year period referred to in subsection 

(a).’’ As EPA redesignated the Ogden 

City CO nonattainment area to 

attainment on March 9, 2001, a 

subsequent maintenance plan submittal 

from the State, to address the 

requirements of section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, would normally be submitted to 

us by March 9, 2009. However, as the 

Governor’s November 29, 2004 

submittal of the revised Ogden CO 

maintenance plan provides a 

sufficiently robust maintenance 

demonstration through 2021, we find 

that this revised maintenance plan 

addresses the requirements of section 

175A(b) of the CAA. 

Regardless of the requirements of 

section 175(A) of the CAA, though, 

other sections of the CAA, presently in 

place or adopted in the future, may 

require the State to revise the 

maintenance plan and/or Utah SIP more 

generally, to ensure that the area 

continues to meet the CO NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA is an 

example of such a provision. Also, we 

interpret the quoted statement above as 

merely indicating that section 175A 

does not require a further maintenance 

plan revision after 2021; we do not 

interpret it to mean that the 

maintenance plan will automatically 

terminate after 2021. EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation is that SIP 

provisions remain in place until EPA 

approves a revision to such provisions. 

The only exception is if the SIP contains 

explicit language that some or all of its 

provisions will terminate upon a 

specific future date. The maintenance 

plan does not contain such explicit 

language. Based on our interpretation, 

section IX.C.8.g of the State’s revised 

maintenance plan is acceptable to us. 

Based on our review and evaluation of 

the components of the revised Ogden 

CO maintenance plan, as discussed in 

our items IV.(a) through IV.(f) above, we 

have concluded that the State has met 

the necessary requirements in order for 

us to approve the revised Ogden CO 

maintenance plan. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Transportation Conformity 

Requirements 

One key provision of our conformity 

regulation (40 CFR part 93) requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

long range transportation plan and 

Transportation Improvement Program 

are consistent with the emissions 

budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 

93.124). The emissions budget is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions relied upon in the attainment 

or maintenance demonstration to 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS 

in the nonattainment or maintenance 

area. The rule’s requirements and EPA’s 

policy on emissions budgets are found 

in the preamble to the November 24, 

1993, transportation conformity rule (58 

FR 62193–96) and in the sections of the 

rule referenced above. 

With respect to maintenance plans, 

our conformity regulation requires that 

MVEB(s) must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan and may 

be established for any other years 

deemed appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). 

For transportation plan analysis years 

after the last year of the maintenance 

plan (in this case 2021), a conformity 

determination must show that emissions 

are less than or equal to the 

maintenance plan’s motor vehicle 

emissions budget(s) for the last year of 

the implementation plan. EPA’s 

54272 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1This doesn’t mean the State would have had to 

retain the same exact budget. With a proper 

demonstration, a state can revise the budget for the 

last year of the first 10-year maintenance period. 

conformity regulation (40 CFR 93.124) 

also allows the implementation plan to 

quantify explicitly the amount by which 

motor vehicle emissions could be higher 

while still demonstrating compliance 

with the maintenance requirement. The 

implementation plan can then allocate 

some or all of this additional ‘‘safety 

margin’’ to the emissions budget(s) for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Section IX.C.8.d ‘‘Mobile Source 

Carbon Monoxide Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity’’ of the 

revised Ogden CO maintenance plan 

briefly describes the applicable 

transportation conformity requirements, 

provides MVEB calculations, identifies 

‘‘safety margin,’’ and indicates that the 

UAQB elected to apply some of the 

‘‘safety margin’’ to the MVEB(s) for 2005 

and 2021. 

In section IX.C.8.d of the revised 

maintenance plan, the State evaluated 

two MVEBs: a budget for 2005, and a 

budget applicable to the maintenance 

year 2021. For the 2021 MVEB, the State 

subtracted the total estimated 2021 

emissions (from all sources) of 42.94 

Tons Per Day (TPD) from the 1992 

attainment year total emissions of 

106.49 TPD. This produced a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ of 63.55 TPD. The State then 

reduced this ‘‘safety margin’’ by 20 TPD. 

The identified ‘‘safety margin’’ of 43.55 

TPD for 2021 was then added to the 

estimated 2021 mobile sources 

emissions, 29.47 TPD, to produce a 2021 

MVEB of 73.02 TPD. For the 2005 

MVEB, the State subtracted the total 

estimated 2005 emissions (from all 

sources) of 55.67 TPD from the 1992 

attainment year total emissions of 

106.49 TPD. This produced a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ of 50.82 TPD. The State then 

reduced this ‘‘safety margin’’ by 20 TPD. 

The identified ‘‘safety margin’’ of 30.82 

TPD for 2005 was then added to the 

estimated 2005 mobile sources 

emissions, 44.54 TPD, to produce a 2005 

MVEB of 75.36 TPD. 

As noted above, the Governor 

submitted the original Ogden CO 

maintenance plan to us on December 9, 

1996 and we approved it on March 9, 

2001 (see 66 FR 14078). This original 

maintenance plan demonstrated 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 

2007. While our conformity rule (see 40 

CFR 93) does not require a MVEB for 

years other than the last year of the 

maintenance period, states have the 

option to establish MVEBs for other 

years too. The State’s December 9, 1996, 

maintenance plan established MVEB(s) 

for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and the years 

2008 through 2017. As noted in our 

March 9, 2001 action, the State 

identified a 55 TPD MVEB for the years 

2008 through 2017, and EPA approved 

this 55 TPD MVBE for use in any 

transportation conformity 

determinations for the years 2008 and 

beyond (see 66 FR 14078, pages 14083 

and 14084). 

The revised Ogden CO maintenance 

plan, that was submitted to us on 

November 29, 2004, states, ‘‘This plan 

retracts the emissions budgets for 2005–

2017 that were included in the original 

Ogden Carbon Monoxide Maintenance 

Plan submitted to EPA in 1996.’’ EPA 

interprets this language to mean that the 

State is retracting the 1996 maintenance 

plan budgets for years 2005, 2006, 2007, 

and 2008 through 2017. The November 

29, 2004 maintenance plan establishes 

new MVEBs for 2005 and 2021 based on 

MOBILE6.2. In part, the State chose 

these budget years and retracted budgets 

for other years based on input from 

Region 8. 

However, Region 8 recently 

discovered that we misinterpreted the 

CAA requirements regarding initial 

maintenance plan MVEBs and 

mistakenly advised the State that it 

could entirely remove a MVEB for 2007 

from the maintenance plan. Instead, 

EPA’s interpretation is that a MVEB for 

the last year of the first maintenance 

period must be retained as a specific 

MVEB year when a second maintenance 

plan is submitted to meet the 

requirements of section 175A(b) of the 

CAA. We should have advised the State 

to retain a MVEB for 2007.1

As described below, however, we 

believe the lack of a 2007 MVEB in this 

case is not significant and that approval 

of the revised maintenance plan and 

MVEBs is still warranted. In section IV 

of this action, we describe how the 

revised Ogden CO maintenance plan 

meets our criteria for approval and that 

the State has demonstrated maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS for the entire 

maintenance period through 2021. 

Essentially, the State demonstrated that 

total CO emissions in future years 

through 2021 will be less than the 1992 

attainment year level of CO emissions. 

Table V–1 below, which is taken from 

Table 3 of section IX.C.8.b of the State’s 

revised maintenance plan, illustrates 

this point. We have also included in this 

table the available safety margin that the 

State could have applied to the MVEB 

in each projection year. 

TABLE V–1 

[All emissions are in tons per day of CO] 

Year Area 

sources 

On-road 

mobile 

sources 

Non-road 

sources 

Point 

sources* 

Total 

emissions 

Available 

safety 

margin 

1992 ................................................................................. 6.28 93.50 6.71 0.00 106.49 

2004 ................................................................................. 3.15 42.58 7.81 0.00 53.54 52.95 

2005 ................................................................................. 3.14 44.54 7.99 0.00 55.67 50.82 

2008 ................................................................................. 3.14 34.14 8.40 0.00 45.68 60.81 

2011 ................................................................................. 3.16 32.07 8.82 0.00 44.05 62.44 

2014 ................................................................................. 3.17 30.48 9.26 0.00 42.91 63.58 

2017 ................................................................................. 3.15 29.72 9.72 0.00 42.59 63.90 

2020 ................................................................................. 3.10 29.28 10.21 0.00 42.59 63.90 

2021 ................................................................................. 3.09 29.47 10.38 0.00 42.94 63.55 

* The State indicated there were no major point sources of CO and that point source emissions were included with the Area Sources category. 

Based on the information from Table 

V–1 above, Table V–2 below illustrates 

the State-specified MVEBs for 2005 and 

2021. It also shows that, based on 

available safety margin, the State could 

have specified the same 2005 budget of 

75.36 TPD for any of the other 

projection years. We note the emissions 

estimates for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54273 

and 2020 are provided in Table V–2 for 

illustrative purposes only; emissions 

estimates for these years do not 

represent MVEBs. 

TABLE V–2 

[All emissions are in tons per day of CO.; MVEBs are shown in bold] 

Year 

On-road 

mobile 

source 

emissions 

Available 

safety 

margin 

On-road 

mobile 

source 

emissions 

with allocated safety 

margins 

Remaining 

safety 

margin 

2005 ** ............................................................................................................................ 44.54 50.82 75.36 20 

2008 ............................................................................................................................... 34.14 60.81 75.36 19 .59 

2011 ............................................................................................................................... 32.07 62.44 75.36 19 .15 

2014 ............................................................................................................................... 30.48 63.58 75.36 18 .70 

2017 ............................................................................................................................... 29.72 63.90 75.36 18 .26 

2020 ............................................................................................................................... 29.28 63.90 75.36 17 .82 

2021 ** ............................................................................................................................ 29.47 63.55 73.02 20 

**Emissions estimates for 2005 and 2021 represent MVEBs established in the CO maintenance plan. 

It is evident from the emissions trends 

from 2005 forward, and from the 

amount of remaining safety margin in 

2005 and 2008, that the State could have 

established 75.36 tons per day of CO as 

the 2007 MVEB too. In other words, the 

2005 MVEB is reasonably representative 

of 2007. 

A 2007 MVEB would have applied for 

any conformity determination for 

analysis years between 2007 and 2021. 

The 2005 MVEB must be used for any 

conformity determination for analysis 

years between 2005 and 2021. See 40 

CFR 93.118(b)(2)(iv). In other words, the 

elimination of the 2007 MVEB has 

limited, if any, practical effect. For a 

conformity analysis of any 

transportation plan or program, there 

will still be a quantitative budget 

analysis for any analysis years between 

2005 and 2021, as required by 40 CFR 

93.118(b), and conformity will have to 

be shown to a MVEB of 75.36 TPD of 

CO, the same MVEB the State could 

have specified for 2007. 

We also note that the 2005 MVEB is 

reasonably representative of 2011. This 

was the year for which EPA extracted 

data from the State’s TSD in its March 

9, 2001 action to meet the 10-year 

maintenance requirement in section 

175A(a) of the CAA. See 66 FR 14078. 

Normally, the initial maintenance plan 

would have established a MVEB for 

2011, and the current maintenance plan 

should then have included a MVEB for 

2011. However, Table V–2 above shows 

that a budget identical to the 2005 

MVEB of 75.36 tons per day of CO could 

have also been established in 2008 and 

2011. Based on our discussion above 

relative to MVEB for 2005 and 2007, and 

the information from Table V–2, it is 

evident that the 2005 MVEB could have 

been established for 2011 as well. For 

the same reasons that the lack of a 2007 

MVEB has limited, if any, practical 

effect, the lack of a 2011 MVEB also has 

limited, if any, practical effect. 

Pursuant to § 93.118(e)(4) of EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, as 

amended, EPA must determine the 

adequacy of submitted mobile source 

emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the 

revised Ogden CO maintenance plan’s 

emission budget for 2021 for adequacy 

using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), 

and determined that the budget was 

adequate for conformity purposes. 

EPA’s adequacy determination was 

made in a letter to the Utah Division of 

Air Quality May 2, 2005, and was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

May 26, 2005 (70 FR 30440). As a result 

of this adequacy finding, the 2021 

budget took effect for conformity 

determinations in the Ogden area on 

June 10, 2005. However, we note that 

we are not bound by this determination 

in acting on the revised Ogden CO 

maintenance plan. 

We have concluded that the State has 

satisfactorily demonstrated continued 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS while 

using transportation conformity MVEBs 

of 75.36 TPD for 2005 and 73.02 TPD for 

2021. Therefore, we are approving the 

transportation conformity MVEBs of 

75.36 and 73.02 TPD of CO for the 

Ogden attainment/maintenance area, for 

2005 and 2021. 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program 

In developing the Ogden revised CO 

maintenance plan, the State revised 

section X, part E, of the Utah State 

Implementation Plan, ‘‘Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Weber County,’’ to go from an annual to 

an every-other-year testing program for 

vehicles less than six years old. 

The Weber County I/M program 

revisions adopted by the UAQB on 

November 3, 2004, State effective on 

November 4, 2004, and submitted by the 

Governor on November 29, 2004, reflect 

the changes in State law, section 41–6–

163.4, Utah Code Annotated, for 

implementing the I/M program in Weber 

County. After EPA approval, this State 

provision will become part of the 

federally-enforceable SIP. The revised 

maintenance plan reflects the changes 

in the Weber County I/M program in 

that mobile source CO emissions were 

calculated for the Ogden area for the 

years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

2020, and 2021, assuming every-otheryear testing for vehicles less than six 

years old. Even with this relaxation of 

the I/M requirements, the emission 

projections indicate that the Ogden area 

will maintain the CO NAAQS from 2005 

through 2021. 

We note a discrepancy between the 

Weber County I/M program and 

appendix 1, ‘‘Weber-Morgan Health 

Department Regulation for Motor 

Vehicle Inspection Maintenance 

Program’’ (hereafter ‘‘appendix 1’’). 

Appendix 1, section 6.0, ‘‘General 

Provisions,’’ indicates that the WeberMorgan Health Department can require 

either an annual or biennial program. 

The maintenance demonstration is 

based on an annual program for vehicles 

six years or older and a biennial 

program for vehicles less than six years 

old. Any decision by the Weber-Morgan 

Health Department to expand the 

biennial program to other vehicles will 

only be federally effective upon EPA 

approval as a SIP revision. 

Also, section 13.2 of appendix 1 

indicates that the adopted cut-points for 

54274 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

motor vehicle emission inspections 

contained in appendix C to appendix 1 

shall remain in effect until changed by 

the Board of Health. However, section 

13.2 also states that the maximum 

concentration of cut-points shall be 

adopted by the Board of Health to meet 

the NAAQS established by EPA. As 

with the frequency of inspections 

described above, the maintenance 

demonstration is based on the cutpoints contained in appendix C to 

appendix 1. Given this, any decision by 

the Board of Health to change the cutpoints in Appendix C to Appendix 1 

shall only be federally effective upon 

EPA approval of such change as a SIP 

revision. 

This is consistent with the 

interpretation of the Utah Division of 

Air Quality expressed in an August 2, 

2005 letter from Richard W. Sprott to 

Gary House of the Weber-Morgan Board 

of Health. 

We have evaluated and determined 

that the Weber County I/M program 

revisions described above are acceptable 

to us and we are approving them now 

in conjunction with this action. 

VII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The revised 

Ogden CO maintenance plan and Weber 

County I/M program will not interfere 

with attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

VIII. Final Action 

In this action, EPA is approving the 

revised Ogden CO maintenance plan, 

the revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–

12 (which incorporates the revised CO 

maintenance plan into the Utah Rules,) 

the revised transportation conformity 

CO motor vehicle emission budget for 

the years 2005 and 2021, the revised 

Weber County vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program, and the revisions 

to Utah’s Rule R307–110–35 (which 

incorporates the revised Weber County 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program into the Utah Rules,) all as 

submitted by the Governor on 

November 29, 2004. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register publication, EPA is publishing 

a separate document that will serve as 

the proposal to approve the SIP revision 

if adverse comments are filed. This rule 

will be effective November 14, 2005 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comments by 

October 14, 2005. If the EPA receives 

adverse comments, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

IX. 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 

(Pub. L. 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 November 14, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 54275 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 17, 2005. 

Stephen S. Tuber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 TT—UTAH 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(61) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(61) Revisions to the Utah State 

Implementation Plan, Section IX, Part 

C.8, ‘‘Carbon Monoxide Maintenance 

Provisions for Ogden,’’ as submitted by 

the Governor on November 29, 2004; 

revisions to UAC R307–110–12, 

‘‘Section IX, Control Measures for Area 

and Point Sources, Part C, Carbon 

Monoxide,’’ as submitted by the 

Governor on November 29, 2004; 

revisions to the Utah State 

Implementation Plan, Section X, 

‘‘Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part E, Weber County,’’ as 

submitted by the Governor on 

November 29, 2004; and revisions to 

UAC R307–110–35, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part E, Weber County,’’ as submitted by 

the Governor on November 29, 2004. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) UAC R307–110–12, as adopted by 

the Utah Air Quality Board on 

November 3, 2004, effective January 4, 

2005. This incorporation by reference of 

UAC R307–110–12 only extends to the 

following Utah SIP provisions and 

excludes any other provisions that UAC 

R307–110–12 incorporates by reference: 

Section IX, Part C.8, ‘‘Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Provisions for 

Ogden,’’ adopted by the Utah Air 

Quality Board on November 3, 2004, 

effective January 4, 2005. 

(B) UAC R307–110–35, ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part E, Weber County,’’ as 

adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

on November 3, 2004, effective 

November 4, 2004. 

(ii) Additional Materials 

(A) A July 28, 2005 letter from Jan 

Miller, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Kerri Fiedler, 

EPA Region VIII, to address 

typographical errors in the November 

29, 2004 submittal. 

(B) An August 2, 2005 letter from 

Richard Sprott, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Gary House, 

Weber-Morgan Board of Health, 

addressing limits on Weber County 

authority to revise vehicle emission 

cutpoints. 

[FR Doc. 05–18232 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP–2002–0166; FRL–7729–6] 

Ethylhexyl Glucopyranosides; 

Exemption from the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

two exemptions from the requirement of 

a tolerance for residues of [alpha]-Dglucopyranoside, 2-ethylhexyl 6-O- 

[alpha]-D glucopyranosyl- and [alpha]- 

D-glucopyranoside, 2-ethylhexyl when 

used as inert ingredients in or on 

growing crops. Akzo Nobel Surface 

Chemistry LLC submitted a petition to 

EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by 

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 

(FQPA), requesting an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of these two ethylhexyl 

glucopyranoside chemicals. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 14, 2005. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit XI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2002–

0166. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., 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 the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This docket facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6304; e-mail address: 

boyle.kathryn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111) 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112) 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311) 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532) 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Electronic Documents 

and Other Related Information? 

In addition to using EDOCKET at 

(http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may