71776 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 January 30, 2006. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 8, 2005. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart FF—New Jersey 

■ 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (c)(78) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

(78) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted on July 

28, 2004 by the State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

that establishes an expanded control 

program for architectural coatings. 

(i) Incorporation by reference: 

(A) Regulation Subchapter 23 of Title 

7, Chapter 27 of the New Jersey 

Administrative Code, entitled 

‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution From 

Architectural Coatings,’’ adopted on 

May 21, 2004 and effective on July 20, 

2004. 

(ii) Additional material: 

(A) Letter from State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

dated July 28, 2004, requesting EPA 

approval of a revision to the Ozone SIP 

which contains amendments to the 

Subchapter 23 ‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution From Architectural Coatings.’’

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1605 is amended by 

revising the entry under Title 7, Chapter 

27 for Subchapter 23 in the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1605 EPA—approved New Jersey 

regulations. 

State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Title 7, Chapter 27.

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter 23, Prevention of Air Pollution 

From Architectural Coatings.

July 20, 2004 ............. November 30, 2005 ... Variances or exemptions approved by the 

State pursuant to Subchapter 23.3(j) become applicable only if approved by EPA 

as a SIP revision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23418 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0010; FRL–8002–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; California; Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan Update for 

Ten Planning Areas; Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets; Technical 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a State 

Implementation Plan revision, 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board on November 8, 2004, 

that includes the 2004 Revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

for Carbon Monoxide, Updated 

Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal 

Planning Areas. This revision will 

provide a ten-year update to the carbon 

monoxide maintenance plan, as well as 

replace existing and establish new 

carbon monoxide motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the purposes of 

determining transportation conformity, 

for the following ten areas: Bakersfield 

Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized 

Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71777 

Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe 

South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized 

Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San 

Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San 

Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area. 

EPA is taking this action pursuant to 

those provisions of the Clean Air Act 

that obligate the agency to take action 

on submittals of revisions to State 

implementation plans. The intended 

effect of this action is to fulfill the 

requirement under the Clean Air Act for 

a State to submit a subsequent 

maintenance plan that provides for 

continued maintenance of a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard within 

former nonattainment areas within eight 

years of redesignation of those areas to 

attainment. In connection with the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are 

denying a request by the California Air 

Resources Board for EPA to limit the 

duration of our approval of the budgets. 

Also, in this action, EPA is notifying 

the public that we have found that the 

carbon monoxide motor vehicle 

emissions budgets contained in the 

submitted maintenance plan are 

adequate for conformity purposes. As a 

result of this finding, the various 

metropolitan planning organizations in 

the ten planning areas and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation must use 

the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets 

from the submitted maintenance plan 

for future conformity determinations. 

Lastly, EPA is correcting certain errors 

made in our 1998 final rule approving 

California’s redesignation request for 

these ten planning areas. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

30, 2006 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

December 30, 2005. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09-OAR–

2005-CA–0010, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

3. E-mail: tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Toby Tiktinsky 

(Air–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ 

, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Toby Tiktinsky, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4223, tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to U.S. 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

B. Why Is California Submitting This SIP 

Revision? 

C. What Process Did California Use To 

Develop This Plan? 

D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide 

Concentrations 

E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets (MVEBs)? 

II. How Are We Evaluating This Submittal? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan 

A. Attainment Inventory 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

D. Contingency Provisions 

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

V. Technical Correction 

VI. EPA’s Final Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), we are 

approving a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (ARB) 

on November 8, 2004. This SIP revision 

consists of the 2004 Revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

for Carbon Monoxide, Updated 

Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal 

Planning Areas (‘‘2004 CO Maintenance 

Plan’’), ARB Board Resolution 04–20 

adopting the 2004 CO Maintenance 

Plan, and related public process 

documentation. The 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan will provide a tenyear update to the carbon monoxide 

(CO) maintenance plan, as well as 

replace existing and establish new 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs), for the following ten areas, 

referred to herein collectively as the 

‘‘ten planning areas’’: Bakersfield 

Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized 

Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake 

Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe 

South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized 

Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San 

Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San 

Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area. 

ARB’s November 8, 2004 SIP submittal 

was deemed complete by operation of 

law six months after receipt under 

section 110(k)(1)(B). 

In connection with the MVEBs, we are 

denying a request by the California Air 

Resources Board for EPA to limit the 

duration of our approval of the budgets. 

Also, in this notice, EPA is notifying the 

public that we have found that the 

MVEBs contained in the submitted 

maintenance plan are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Lastly, we are also correcting, 

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act, 

certain errors that we made in our 1998 

final rule approving California’s 

redesignation request for these ten 

planning areas. 

B. Why Is California Submitting This 

SIP Revision? 

All ten planning areas that are the 

subject of this rulemaking were 

originally designated as nonattainment 

areas for the CO National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 1978. 

See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). 

Because all of the ten planning areas 

remained ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the CO 

NAAQS at the time of enactment of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

their nonattainment designations were 

carried forward by operation of law 

71778 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, as 

amended in 1990. Based on their design 

values in 1990, eight of the ten areas 

were further classified as ‘‘moderate’’

nonattainment. The air quality in two of 

the areas (Lake Tahoe North Shore Area 

and Bakersfield Metropolitan Area), 

however, was near the standard, but not 

below it. Thus, these two areas were not 

further classified, but retained their 

‘‘nonattainment’’ designations. [See 56 

FR 56694, at 56723–56726 (November 6, 

1991).] 

Once an area achieves the NAAQS, 

and the area demonstrates in a 

maintenance plan that it can continue to 

meet the air quality standards, the State 

can request that EPA redesignate the 

area to attainment. Before an area can be 

redesignated to attainment, EPA must 

ensure the maintenance plan meets the 

criteria established in section 175A of 

the CAA. The plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after the 

Administrator approves a redesignation 

to attainment. 

In 1996, California submitted the 

Final Carbon Monoxide Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for Ten 

Federal Planning Areas (‘‘1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan’’). The 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan demonstrated 

continued maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS in the ten planning areas 

through 2010. On March 31, 1998, EPA 

approved the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan as a revision to the California SIP 

and redesignated the ten areas to 

attainment effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR 

15305). 

One of the control measures that the 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan relies upon 

is the State’s wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline requirement. Due to concerns 

over the effects of the predominant 

oxygenate used to comply with the 

wintertime gasoline requirements, 

methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), on 

water quality, the ARB rescinded the 

wintertime oxygenated gasoline 

requirement as it relates to the ten 

planning areas covered by the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan. In November 1998, 

ARB amended the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan to remove the CO 

emissions reductions benefits associated 

with the wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline requirement, and submitted the 

revised maintenance plan, Revision to 

1996 Carbon Monoxide Maintenance 

Plan for 10 Federal Planning Areas 

(‘‘1998 CO Maintenance Plan’’), as a SIP 

revision to EPA in December 1998. In 

the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB 

estimates that repeal of the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement results 

in an increase in CO emissions in the 

ten planning areas of approximately 9% 

but concludes that the CO NAAQS 

would still be maintained through 2010. 

We have taken no action on the 1998 CO 

Maintenance Plan SIP revision and 

consider the more recent submittal, i.e., 

the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP 

submittal, to supersede this earlier 

submittal. 

Section 175A(b) of the Act requires 

the State to submit, eight years after 

redesignation of any area to attainment, 

an additional revision of the SIP that 

provides for maintenance of the 

applicable NAAQS for the 10-year 

period following the initial maintenance 

period. ARB’s current submission 

updates the maintenance plan to cover 

the remainder of the twenty year 

maintenance period (1998 to 2018) 

required by the CAA and is intended to 

satisfy the section 175A(b) requirement 

for a subsequent maintenance plan. 

C. What Process Did California Use To 

Develop This Plan? 

ARB held a public hearing on the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan on July 22, 

2004 and adopted the plan on the same 

day. Thirty days prior to that date, ARB 

arranged for publication of notices of 

the July 22, 2004 public hearing in 

major newspapers that circulate in each 

of the ten planning areas. By letter dated 

November 8, 2004, ARB submitted the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan for approval 

by EPA as a revision to the California 

SIP. As enclosures to the November 8, 

2004 letter, ARB provided evidence of 

adoption (ARB resolution 04–20), the 

necessary legal authority under State 

law to adopt and implement the plan, 

copies of public hearing notices in 

which ARB was to address the contents 

of the plan revision, and minutes from 

the July 22, 2004 public hearing 

produced by a certified court reporting 

service. ARB is the Governor’s designee 

for submitting SIP revisions. 

D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide 

Concentrations 

The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan 

provides a summary of ambient CO 

concentration data collected within the 

ten planning areas since the areas 

attained the CO NAAQS. The data, 

which is summarized in Table 1 below, 

indicate that the CO NAAQS has been 

maintained in the ten planning areas 

since the mid-1990s, that design values 

are currently well below the CO 

NAAQS, and that, with one exception, 

there is a continuing downward trend in 

the CO design values in these areas. 

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

[Parts per million or ppm] 

CO maintenance area Attainment period 1995 2000 2003 

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

Chico ........................................................................................................................................ 1993–1995—5.4 5.0 4.0 3.4 

Fresno ...................................................................................................................................... 1993–1995—9.1 8.5 7.6 4.3 

Lake Tahoe North Shore ......................................................................................................... 1993–1994—3.8 3.2 0.9 N/A 

Lake Tahoe South Shore ........................................................................................................ 1993–1994—7.4 6.8 4.3 6.5 

Modesto ................................................................................................................................... 1993–1994—6.6 6.3 6.3 3.7 

Sacramento .............................................................................................................................. 1993–1995—9.1 8.0 6.2 4.2 

San Diego ................................................................................................................................ 1993–1994—7.0 7.4 4.9 4.1 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ........................................................................................... 1993–1994—7.2 7.5 6.9 4.9 

Stockton ................................................................................................................................... 1993–1994—7.5 7.5 6.3 3.2 

Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 5. 

NOTE: The 8-hour CO design value is computed by first finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values at each 

monitoring site for each year of a given two-year period. Then the higher of the two ‘‘second high’’ values is used as the design value for a given 

monitoring site, and the highest design value among the various CO monitoring sites represents the CO design value for the given area. 

N/A = Not Available. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71779 

E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets (MVEBs)? 

In developing plans for improving or 

maintaining air quality under the CAA, 

regions must estimate the total 

emissions from motor vehicles. These 

estimates act as a budget or ceiling for 

emissions from motor vehicles. EPA 

evaluates these budgets to ensure that 

current and future motor vehicle 

emissions will not prevent a region from 

attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) must ensure that transportation 

plans and programs do not lead to 

increases in motor vehicle emissions 

that would exceed the established 

budgets and, consequently, hinder a 

region from attaining or maintaining the 

NAAQS. 

II. How Are We Evaluating This 

Submittal? 

We are evaluating this SIP revision 

submittal under sections 110 and 175A 

of the Act. 

Section 110(k) of the Act requires EPA 

to approve, disapprove, or conditionally 

approve all SIP submittals found or 

deemed to be complete. As noted above, 

ARB’s SIP submittal containing the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan was deemed 

complete by operation of law. 

Section 110(l) of the Act requires that 

each SIP revision submitted by a State 

be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

As noted above, ARB adopted the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan on July 22, 2004 

after having provided for reasonable 

notice and a public hearing. We find the 

public process ARB used to develop and 

adopt this SIP revision to be acceptable 

under section 110(l) of the Act. 

Section 110(l) also states that EPA 

shall not approve a SIP revision if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. We evaluate the 

potential for this SIP revision to 

interfere with continued maintenance in 

Section III.B (‘‘Maintenance 

Demonstration’’) of this notice in the 

context of approving the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement as a 

contingency measure. 

Section 175A(b) of the Act requires 

the State to submit, eight years after 

redesignation of any area to attainment, 

an additional revision of the SIP that 

provides for maintenance of the 

applicable NAAQS for the 10-year 

period following the initial maintenance 

period. Section 175A(d) requires that 

plan revisions submitted under section 

175A contain such contingency 

provisions as EPA deems necessary to 

assure that the State will promptly 

correct any violation of the standard 

which occurs after the redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area. Such 

contingency provisions must include a 

requirement that the State will 

implement all measures with respect to 

the control of the air pollutant 

concerned which were contained in the 

SIP for the area before redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area. 

Maintenance plans submitted under 

section 175A of the Act should include 

the following core provisions: An 

attainment inventory, a maintenance 

demonstration, commitment to continue 

operating an appropriate monitoring 

network, commitment to verify 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. See EPA Policy 

Memorandum, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate Ares 

to Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Regional Air Division 

Directors, September 4, 1992 (‘‘Calcagni 

memo’’). Our evaluation of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan is provided in the 

following section of this notice. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan 

A. Attainment Inventory 

For maintenance plans, a State should 

develop a comprehensive, accurate 

inventory of actual emissions for an 

attainment year to identify the level of 

emissions which is sufficient to 

maintain the NAAQS. A State should 

develop these inventories consistent 

with EPA’s most recent guidance on 

emissions inventory development. 

The 1996 CO Maintenance Plan 

included attainment inventories for 

each of the ten planning areas. As part 

of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB 

updated the emissions inventories for 

year 1993, which was the common 

attainment year for all ten planning 

areas in the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, 

to reflect better calculation methods and 

emissions factors. ARB also developed a 

CO emissions inventory for a more 

recent attainment year, 2003. Table 2 

presents a summary of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan’s emissions estimates 

for these two attainment years (1993 and 

2003) as well as the plan’s updated 

projections of emissions for 2010 (the 

horizon or out-year of the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan) and a projection of 

emissions for 2018 (the out-year of the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan). Table 2 

shows wintertime seasonal CO 

emissions decreasing steadily over the 

next thirteen years. ARB attributes the 

continuing decline in emissions, despite 

growth in population and vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT), to the benefits of 

increasingly tighter emissions standards 

for new engines, fuel requirements, and 

turnover of the vehicle fleet to loweremitting models. 

TABLE 2.—TOTAL CO EMISSIONS IN EACH MAINTENANCE AREA

[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day] 

CO maintenance area 1993 2003 2010 2018 

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

Chico ................................................................................................................................................................ 232 164 134 113 

Fresno .............................................................................................................................................................. 627 400 302 244 

Lake Tahoe North Shore Area ........................................................................................................................ 25 19 16 14 

Lake Tahoe South Shore Area ........................................................................................................................ 61 49 45 43 

Modesto ........................................................................................................................................................... 331 206 151 120 

Sacramento ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,125 658 487 388 

San Diego ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,889 1,101 829 643 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ................................................................................................................... 4,254 2,645 1,716 1,322 

Stockton ........................................................................................................................................................... 433 258 188 153 

Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 8. 

Appendix B of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan shows emission 

inventories by major source category. 

ARB prepared the motor-vehicle portion 

of the emissions inventories by using 

the current version of California’s motor 

71780 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

vehicle emission factor model 

EMFAC2002, version 2.2. EPA approved 

the use of EMFAC2002 to estimate 

motor vehicle emissions on April 1, 

2003 (see 68 FR 15720). The emissions 

estimates in table 2 above for inventory 

years 2003, 2010, and 2018 do not 

include the emissions benefit from the 

(now rescinded) wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline requirement but do include the 

emissions benefit from the measures 

that ARB adopted as contingency 

measures in the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan. These measures, which are listed 

on page 12 of the 2004 CO Maintenance 

Plan, include improvements to the 

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ 

M) program, on-board diagnostics 

systems testing for newer vehicles, 

California cleaner burning gasoline, offhighway recreational vehicle standards, 

tighter lawn and garden equipment 

standards, and tighter low-emission 

vehicle and clean fuel regulations. 

EPA has reviewed the emissions 

inventories included in the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan and the related 

emissions inventory preparation 

documentation and concludes that the 

inventories are comprehensive and 

reflect acceptable methods and 

emissions factors and that the 

inventories present reasonably accurate 

estimates of actual and projected CO 

emissions in the ten planning areas. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

Generally, a State may demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by modeling to show that 

the future mix of sources and emissions 

rates will not cause a violation of the 

NAAQS. For areas that are required 

under the Act to submit modeled 

attainment demonstrations, the 

maintenance demonstration should use 

the same type of modeling. In areas 

where modeling is not required, the 

State may rely on the attainment 

inventory approach. For subsequent 

maintenance plans, to comply with 

section 175A(b) of the Act, the State’s 

maintenance demonstration must 

extend 10 years after the expiration of 

the 10-year maintenance period covered 

by the initial maintenance plan. 

In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, 

ARB provided maintenance 

demonstrations (through 2010) for nine 

of the 10 areas based on the attainment 

inventory approach and provided a 

maintenance demonstration (through 

2010) based on modeling (rollback 

method) for the one area (Fresno) for 

which modeling had been required for 

attainment demonstration purposes 

under the Act. 

In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, 

ARB updated the emissions inventories 

for all ten areas (see Table 2, above). For 

the nine areas for which maintenance 

demonstrations are based on the 

inventory approach, the updated 

estimates of total CO emissions in each 

area show a continuing downward trend 

through 2018 (i.e., 20 years after 

redesignation) and thus demonstrate 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 

the required period. ARB also updated 

the maintenance demonstration for the 

Fresno area, once again relying on the 

rollback method to show that the CO 

NAAQS would be maintained in that 

area through 2018. Table 3 summarizes 

the updated rollback analysis for Fresno 

and shows that the design values for 

Fresno are anticipated to continue to fall 

well below those achieved in the 1993–

1995 attainment period. 

We find the maintenance 

demonstrations for the ten planning 

areas in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan 

to be acceptable for the purposes of 

CAA section 175A(b). Further, we find 

that, based on the maintenance 

demonstrations contained in the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan, the revision in 

the status of one of the principal control 

measures relied upon in the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan, the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement, from 

‘‘active’’ status to ‘‘contingent’’ status is 

approvable under section 110(l) because 

it will not interfere with continued 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

ten planning areas. 

TABLE 3.—CO ROLLBACK ANALYSIS FOR FRESNO AREA

[Winter seasonal emissions] 

Fresno urbanized area 1993 2003 2010 2018 

All Sources of CO in the Emission Inventory (tons per day) .................................................................. 627 400 302 244 

Projected Design Value for All Sources in the Inventory (in ppm) ......................................................... 9.1 5.8 4.4 3.5 

On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the CO Emission Inventory (tons per day) ...................................... 450 236 141 77 

Projected Design Value for On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the Inventory (in ppm) ......................... 9.1 4.8 2.9 1.6 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (in thousands) .................................................................................................... 15,987 20,624 24,895 29,487 

Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 11. 

C. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Once an area has been redesignated, 

the State should continue to operate an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network, in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58, to verify the attainment status 

of the area. The maintenance plan 

should contain provisions for continued 

operation of air quality monitors that 

will provide such verification. The 

maintenance plan should also indicate 

how the State will track the progress of 

the maintenance plan, such as by 

periodically updating the emissions 

inventory. 

In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, 

ARB indicates that it intends to 

continue to comply with the monitoring 

criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 58, and 

that it will annually review data from 

the two most recent, consecutive years 

in order to verify continued attainment 

of the CO NAAQS. In the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan, ARB reiterates its 

intent to continue to collect air quality 

data and to review data on an annual 

basis from the two most recent 

consecutive years to verify continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS. 

Based on the compilation of 

information in appendix A of the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan, we note that, in 

the aggregate, ten CO monitoring sites in 

the ten planning areas have closed since 

redesignation of these areas to 

attainment for the CO NAAQS, but 33 

sites remain open with at least one CO 

monitoring site continuing to operate in 

each planning area, except for the Lake 

Tahoe North Shore Area. The reduction 

in the number of CO monitoring sites is 

acceptable in light of the sharp decline 

in maximum CO concentrations in each 

of the ten planning areas and the need 

to shift resources to address other air 

quality priorities. We also believe that 

the lack of a CO monitoring site in the 

Lake Tahoe North Shore Area is 

acceptable given the very low CO 

concentrations measured there. In 

addition, audits of a number of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71781 

ambient monitoring networks in the ten 

planning areas since redesignation have 

found no significant problems with any 

of the networks. 

Under EPA’s Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule, published in the 

Federal Register on June 10, 2002 (see 

67 FR 39602), states are required to 

prepare comprehensive statewide 

inventories every three years. In 

addition, under State law (California 

Health and Safety Code Section 

39607.3), ARB is required to update 

emissions inventories for all areas of 

California for CO as well as the other 

criteria pollutants on an on-going basis. 

Although not cited in the 2004 

Maintenance Plan, the Federal and State 

inventory update requirements suffice 

to track progress of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan. 

We find ARB’s stated intention to 

continue to collect air quality data and 

to verify continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS to be acceptable for the 

purposes of CAA section 175A(b) based 

on our conclusion that ARB has 

consistently operated its monitoring 

networks in compliance with 40 CFR 

part 58 and continues to operate an 

appropriate number of CO monitoring 

sites in the planning areas covered by 

the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan. 

D. Contingency Provisions 

CAA section 175A(d) requires that 

‘‘Each plan revision submitted under 

this section shall contain such 

contingency provisions as the 

Administrator deems necessary to 

assure that the State will promptly 

correct any violation of the standard 

which occurs after the redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area. Such 

provisions shall include a requirement 

that the State will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned which were 

contained in the State implementation 

plan for the area before redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area.’’ The 

following sections discuss the 

contingency provisions included in the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan. 

The EPA-approved 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan included seven 

contingency measures: improved basic 

I/M program requirements (Chico, Lake 

Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South 

Shore, and San Francisco-Oakland-San 

Jose Areas); enhanced I/M program 

requirements (Bakersfield, Fresno, 

Modesto, and Sacramento Areas); onboard diagnostics systems testing 

requirements in I/M programs 

(Statewide); California Cleaner-Burning 

Gasoline regulations (Statewide); OffHighway Recreational Vehicles 

standards (Statewide); lawn and garden 

equipment—tier II requirements 

(Statewide); and low-emission vehicles 

and clean fuels (post-1995) standards 

(Statewide). At the time of ARB’s 

adoption of the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan, these measures had already been 

adopted and were anticipated to be 

implemented during the 1996 through 

2001 period regardless of any triggering 

event associated with high CO 

concentrations. The CO emissions 

reductions associated with these seven 

contingency measures were not 

included in the maintenance 

demonstrations for the ten planning 

areas and thus were surplus to the CO 

emissions reductions assumed in the 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan. 

CAA section 211(m) establishes 

particular requirements for adopting 

provisions requiring the use of 

oxygenated fuels in areas designated 

nonattainment for the CO NAAQS and 

registering design values above 9.5 ppm. 

Pursuant to this section of the CAA, 

ARB submitted its motor vehicle fuels 

regulations, including its requirements 

for wintertime oxygen content, to EPA 

for approval on November 15, 1994. 

Eight areas in California were required 

to provide for the sale of oxygenated 

gasoline during winter months under 

section 211(m): Chico, Fresno, Modesto, 

Sacramento, San Diego and Sacramento 

MSAs, and the Los Angeles-AnaheimRiverside and San Francisco-OaklandSan Jose CSMAs. Because of the number 

of carbon monoxide nonattainment 

areas, however, ARB required the use of 

wintertime oxygenates for the entire 

State. EPA approved the State’s 

wintertime oxygenated gasoline 

regulations on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 

43379). 

California succeeded in reducing 

significantly CO emissions, prompting 

ARB to request that EPA redesignate the 

ten planning areas to attainment and to 

submit a maintenance plan (adopted by 

ARB April 25, 1996) and referred to 

herein as the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan 

that demonstrates how the State will 

continue to meet NAAQS for CO. The 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan (which EPA 

approved March 31, 1998 [63 FR 

15305]) identified the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement as one 

of the principal control measures and 

relied on the associated emissions 

reductions to demonstrate continued 

attainment. 

On November 19, 1998, ARB 

approved an amendment to California’s 

CO maintenance plan rescinding in 

most areas the wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline requirement (see ARB 

Resolution 98–52, November 19, 1998 

included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan). Because the State 

had achieved significant reductions in 

CO emissions from other control 

measures, the wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline requirement was no longer 

necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS in 

the ten planning areas. The growing 

concern about the risks of the widely 

used oxygenate MTBE (methyl tertiary 

butyl ether) also influenced ARB’s 

decision to rescind the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement. 

Because it is highly soluble in water and 

transfers to groundwater faster, farther 

and more easily than other gasoline 

constituents, ARB concluded that MTBE 

poses a significant threat to 

groundwater, surface water, and 

drinking water systems. The following 

year (March 26, 1999), Governor Gray 

Davis signed Executive Order D–5–99 

ordering the phase-out of MTBE. The 

Executive Order also directed ARB to 

develop new gasoline requirements that 

eliminated the use of MTBE, which ARB 

adopted in December 1999 (known as 

Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline 

Regulations). In July 2002, ARB 

amended the Phase 3 gasoline 

regulations to postpone the prohibition 

of the use of MTBE for one year, as 

directed by a second Executive Order 

issued by the Governor in March 2002. 

The final deadline for eliminating 

MTBE from gasoline in California was 

December 31, 2003. 

Because certain areas of the State 

needed to rely on the benefits of 

oxygenated fuels to ensure attainment 

and maintenance of the CO NAAQS, 

ARB retained the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement in the 

counties of Los Angeles, Orange, 

Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and 

Imperial, but not in the ten planning 

areas. 

Additionally, in adopting the 1998 CO 

Maintenance Plan, which revised the 

1996 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB 

committed to the following: ‘‘* * * the 

Board directs ARB staff to review carbon 

monoxide air quality data in the areas 

no longer subject to the wintertime 

oxygen requirement; if violations are 

monitored in any of the areas, staff will 

propose that appropriate action be taken 

regarding reinstatement of the minimum 

wintertime oxygen content in gasoline 

previously contained in section 2262.5, 

title 13, CCR, in the area at the 

beginning of the following winter 

season * * *’’ (ARB Resolution 98–52, 

November 19, 1998; see page C–4 of the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan). ARB 

revised the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan 

to demonstrate California’s ability to 

continue meeting the CO NAAQS 

without the wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline program and submitted the 

amended plan (the ‘‘1998 CO 

71782 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Maintenance Plan’’) to EPA for approval 

on December 10, 1998. EPA has not 

taken action on this submittal. The 

current SIP revision submittal to EPA 

supersedes the 1998 CO Maintenance 

Plan SIP revision submittal, but 

includes a resubmission of ARB 

Resolution 98–52 and thereby continues 

the State’s commitment in the 1998 

submittal to reintroduce the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement if 

violations are monitored. This prior 

commitment is referenced and reiterated 

in the ARB resolution adopting the 2004 

revisions to the CO maintenance plans: 

‘‘* * * in Resolution 98–52, the Board 

directed that ‘* * * if violations are 

monitored in any of the areas, staff will 

propose that appropriate action be taken 

regarding reinstatement of the minimum 

wintertime oxygen content in gasoline 

previously contained in section 2262.5, 

title 13, CCR, in the area at the 

beginning of the following winter 

season. * * *’ ’’ (ARB Resolution 04–20, 

July 22, 2004, page 3.) 

In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, 

ARB brings forward the seven 

contingency measures included in the 

1996 Maintenance Plan, identifies 

several additional regulatory measures 

that have already been adopted and 

implemented as contingency measures 

(tighter emission standards for cars, 

truck, buses, off-road equipment), and, 

as noted above, brings forward the 

commitment from the 1998 

Maintenance Plan SIP revision 

submittal to reinstate the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement. The 

CO emissions reductions associated 

with the seven contingency measures 

adopted as part of the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan and the additional 

contingency measures described in the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan are 

accounted for in the inventories that 

provide the basis for the maintenance 

demonstrations for the ten planning 

areas. Although we find early 

implementation of contingency 

measures to be acceptable (see EPA 

policy memorandum ‘‘Early 

Implementation of Contingency 

Measures for Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’

from G.T. Helms to Air Branch Chiefs, 

August 13, 1993), we find that the 

inclusion of the CO emissions 

reductions benefits from the various 

contingency measures in the 

maintenance demonstrations for the ten 

planning areas disqualifies them from 

serving as contingency measures for the 

purposes of CAA section 175A(d). 

However, we find that the 

commitment to reinstate the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirement, 

originally made in Resolution 98–52 

and reaffirmed in Resolution 04–20, in 

the event that CO violations are 

monitored provides a sufficient basis for 

us to determine that the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan meets the minimum 

contingency requirements under section 

175A(d) given the extent to which 

California’s motor vehicle control 

program will continue to provide CO 

emissions reductions in the ten 

planning areas over and above those 

necessary for continued attainment of 

the CO NAAQS. 

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Maintenance plan submittals must 

specify the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related CO emissions 

allowed in the last year of the 

maintenance period. The submittal must 

also demonstrate that these emissions 

levels, when considered with emissions 

from all other sources, are consistent 

with maintenance of the NAAQS. In 

order for us to find these emissions 

levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate and 

approvable, the submittal must meet the 

conformity adequacy provisions of 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), and be 

approvable under all pertinent SIP 

requirements. 

The existing CO motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the areas 

addressed in this notice derive from 

California’s first maintenance plan (i.e., 

the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan), which 

EPA approved March 31, 1998 (63 FR 

15305). The CAA requires that the first 

installment of the maintenance plan 

cover at least ten years; California’s CO 

maintenance plan covered twelve years: 

1998 to 2010. The 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan did not specifically identify a 

particular year in which the MVEBs 

apply for transportation conformity 

purposes. Applicable transportation 

conformity regulations (40 CFR 

93.118(b)(2)(i)), however, require that 

‘‘Emissions must be less than or equal 

to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) 

established for the last year of the 

maintenance plan * * *.’’ This compels 

EPA to interpret California’s first CO 

maintenance plan as establishing 

MVEBs for the final year of the first 

maintenance period, which is 2010. 

This interpretation, however, does not 

preclude the State from revising the 

2010 budgets. 

In addition to establishing new 

MVEBs for the final year of the second 

maintenance period (2018), the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan also revises the 

current CO MVEBs. Page 14 of the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan identifies 2003 

and 2018 as budget years and states that 

‘‘These emission budgets will apply to 

all subsequent analysis years * * * 

including: Any interim year conformity 

analyses, the 2018 horizon year, and 

years beyond 2018.’’ EPA requested 

clarification from ARB because the 

Agency was unsure whether the State 

had intended to set budgets for every 

year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter 

on December 23, 2004 confirming ARB’s 

intent to remove and entirely replace 

the emissions budgets established by the 

first ten year plan with new budgets for 

2003 and 2018. 

Because the transportation conformity 

regulations (described above) require 

States to demonstrate conformity to the 

last year of the maintenance plan, EPA 

requested further clarification from ARB 

concerning the MVEBs in the submitted 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan for year 

2010. On May 23, 2005, ARB submitted 

a letter to EPA clarifying their intent to 

update the MVEBs from the first 

maintenance plan by setting new, more 

stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These 

MVEBs would also apply for 2010 and 

2018. The letter included a table 

showing the MVEBs and applicable 

budget years (see Table 4). 

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

[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day] 

CO maintenance area Area included in inventory 

Emission budget 

2003 2010 2018 

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

Chico ................................................................................. Butte County .................................................................... 80 80 80 

Fresno ............................................................................... Fresno County .................................................................. 240 240 240 

Lake Tahoe North Shore .................................................. Eastern Placer County ..................................................... 11 11 11 

Lake Tahoe South Shore .................................................. Eastern El Dorado County ............................................... 19 19 19 

Modesto ............................................................................ Stanislaus County ............................................................ 130 130 130 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71783 

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

[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day] 

CO maintenance area Area included in inventory 

Emission budget 

2003 2010 2018 

Sacramento ....................................................................... Sacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer

County.

420 420 420 

San Diego ......................................................................... San Diego County ............................................................ 730 730 730 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose .................................... San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin .................................. 1850 1850 1850 

Stockton ............................................................................ San Joaquin County ......................................................... 170 170 170 

In setting MVEBs, States generally use 

motor vehicle emission inventories. 

California took this approach, for 

example, in the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan. As Table 5 illustrates, motor 

vehicle emissions are expected to fall to 

comparatively low levels by 2018. 

California need not, however, cap 

MVEBs at projected motor vehicle 

emissions levels. Because overall 

projected levels of emissions from all 

sources (as demonstrated in Table 2) are 

expected to be less than the levels 

necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS, 

California has a ‘‘safety margin’’ that the 

State may use to set MVEBs at a higher 

level. As long as emissions from all 

sources are lower than needed to 

provide for continued maintenance, the 

State may allocate additional emissions 

to the MVEBs (see 40 CFR 93.124). 

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

[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day] 

CO maintenance area Area included in inventory 1993 2003 2010 2018 

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

Chico ......................................................................... Butte County ............................................................ 138 75 46 23 

Fresno ....................................................................... Fresno County ......................................................... 450 236 141 77 

Lake Tahoe North Shore Lake ................................. Eastern Placer County ............................................. 18 10 7 4 

Tahoe South Shore ................................................... Eastern El Dorado County ....................................... 32 18 13 7 

Modesto ..................................................................... Stanislaus County .................................................... 246 126 74 42 

Sacramento ............................................................... Sacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer 

County.

857 410 244 96 

San Diego ................................................................. San Diego County .................................................... 1,472 728 457 249 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ............................ San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin .......................... 3,314 1,840 979 563 

Stockton .................................................................... San Joaquin County ................................................ 326 162 97 55 

Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 13. 

In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, 

ARB’s proposed MVEBs (Table 4, above) 

meet the safety margin test. Take, for 

example, Fresno, which attained the CO 

NAAQS in 1993 with a CO wintertime 

emissions level of 627 tons per day. By 

2018, ARB predicts that Fresno’s 

emissions will be 244 tons per day of 

CO (77 from motor vehicles, 167 from 

all other sources) [see Table 6]. This 

provides a safety margin of 383 tons per 

day. By setting the MVEB for Fresno at 

240 tons per day, ARB allocates some of 

the safety margin (163 tons per day) to 

the MVEB, while still leaving a large 

margin between emissions levels from 

all sources, including motor vehicles 

and related safety margin (i.e., 220 tons 

per day), and the emissions level that 

allows for continued maintenance of the 

NAAQS (627 tons per day). 

TABLE 6.—EXAMPLE OF HOW ARB CAN ALLOCATE EMISSIONS TO MVEBS FOR FRESNO AREA

Fresno urbanized area 2018 emissions 

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

Projected Emissions from Other Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 167 

Total Projected Emissions ............................................................................................................................................................. 244 

Allowable emissions1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 627 

Emissions available to allocate to MVEB ...................................................................................................................................... 383 

Proposed MVEB (See Table 4, above) ......................................................................................................................................... 240 

Difference b/w MVEB and Projected MV emissions ..................................................................................................................... 163 

Remaining Unallocated Safety Margin .......................................................................................................................................... 220 

1Based on the revised inventory for year in which Fresno attained the standard (1993). 

Our detailed evaluation of the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan and related 

MVEBs under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5) is provided in section IV of this 

notice. Based on that evaluation and the 

discussion provided above, we approve 

the CO MVEBs for each of the ten 

planning areas as set forth in the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan and clarified by 

ARB in its letter dated May 23, 2005 

because the plan and budgets meet the 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

and (5) and because we find that ARB 

has met all statutory requirements for 

submittals of maintenance plans under 

sections 110 and part D of the Act. 

In the submittal letter dated 

November 8, 2004, ARB requested that 

EPA limit the duration of our approval 

of the MVEBs in the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan to last only until the 

71784 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

effective date of future EPA adequacy 

findings for replacement budgets. This 

would mean that if ARB decided to 

amend the CO MVEBs sometime in the 

future, then the new MVEBs would 

become effective as soon as EPA 

determined adequacy, rather than after 

comprehensive rulemaking (which is a 

longer process). ARB had made a similar 

request, and EPA granted it, in 

connection with the MVEBs in the 1996 

CO Maintenance Plan (see 67 FR 46618, 

at 46620, November 15, 2002). That 

request, however, was accompanied 

with significant documentation that 

demonstrated why limiting the duration 

of our approval provided an advantage 

to air quality and public health 

protection. With the current request, 

however, ARB has not provided any 

supporting documentation. We note that 

ARB’s request to limit the duration of 

the approvals of the MVEBs was 

contained only in the submittal letter 

and is not, therefore, considered a part 

of the maintenance plan itself. 

Therefore, our denial of ARB’s request 

does not affect our approval of the plan 

or the budgets contained therein. 

IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

In this notice, we announce our 

finding that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) in the submitted 2004 

Revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan for Carbon 

Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan 

for Ten Federal Planning Areas 

(adopted by ARB on July 22, 2004) 

(‘‘2004 CO Maintenance Plan’’) are 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. As a result of this finding, the 

various metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) with jurisdictions 

in the ten planning areas and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation must use 

the CO MVEBs from the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan for future conformity 

determinations. We are also announcing 

this finding on our conformity Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/trasp/ 

conform/adequate.htm (once there, 

click on the ‘‘What SIP submissions has 

EPA already found adequate or 

inadequate?’’ button). 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our 

transportation conformity rule (codified 

in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires 

that transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to SIPs and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they do. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. 

On March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit issued a decision in 

Environmental Defense Fund v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, No. 

97–1637, that we must make an 

affirmative determination that the 

submitted MVEBs contained in SIPs are 

adequate before they are used to 

determine the conformity of 

Transportation Improvement Programs 

or Long Range Transportation Plans. In 

response to the court decision, we are 

making any submitted SIP revision 

containing a control strategy or 

maintenance plan available for public 

comment and responding to those 

comments before announcing our 

adequacy determination. The 

conformity rule was recently changed to 

reflect the procedures we have been 

using since the court decision. See 69 

FR 40004 (July 1, 2004) and related 

correction notice at 69 FR 43325 (July 

20, 2004). 

ARB submitted the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan to EPA by letter dated 

November 8, 2004, and we received this 

plan on November 12, 2004. The plan 

identifies CO MVEBs (calculated as 

winter seasonal emissions in tons per 

day) for each of the ten planning areas 

for years 2003 and 2018. 

We announced receipt of the plan on 

the Internet and requested public 

comment by December 27, 2004. We 

requested clarification from ARB 

because we were unsure whether ARB 

had intended to set budgets for every 

year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter 

on December 23, 2004 explaining ARB’s 

intent to replace the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan budgets with new 

budgets for 2003 and 2018. 

Subsequently, we extended the 

comment period until February 10, 

2004, although we had not received any 

comments in response to our Internet 

posting on December 27, 2004. We did 

not receive any comments during the 

extended comment period either. 

Because the transportation conformity 

regulations require States to 

demonstrate conformity to the last year 

of the maintenance plan, EPA requested 

further clarification from ARB on the 

status of the MVEBs for 2010 (the last 

year of the EPA-approved 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan). On May 23, 2005, 

ARB submitted a letter to EPA 

indicating that their intent was to 

update the MVEBs from the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan by setting new, more 

stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These 

new MVEBs would apply to 2003, 2010 

and 2018. Table 4, above, shows the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan MVEBs for 

2003, 2010 (the last year of the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan), and 2018 (the last 

year of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan). 

The criteria by which we determine 

whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following 

paragraphs provide our review of ARB’s 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP 

submittal against our adequacy criteria 

and, based on that review, we conclude 

that all of the criteria have been met and 

that the MVEBs in the submitted 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the plan was endorsed by the 

Governor (or designee) and was subject 

to a public hearing. The transmittal 

letter for the submitted 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan was signed by 

Catherine Witherspoon, Executive 

Officer, ARB, the Governor’s designee 

for CAA SIP purposes. ARB Resolution 

04–20, included as enclosure 2 of the 

SIP submittal, provides evidence of 

adoption and legal authority. Enclosure 

3 of the SIP submittal contains 

documentation of a public hearing on 

the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan that was 

held on July 22, 2004. As such, the 

submitted plan meets the criterion 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i). 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the plan was developed 

through consultation with Federal, State 

and local agencies and whether full 

implementation plan documentation 

was provided to EPA and EPA’s stated 

concerns, if any, were addressed. 

Consultation for development of this 

plan largely consisted of public hearing 

notices that were published in 

newspapers of general circulation in 

each of the ten planning areas. Given 

the nature of this subsequent 

maintenance plan submittal, which 

includes no new control measures but 

simply shifts one control measure (the 

wintertime oxygenated gasoline 

requirement) from active to contingent 

status, and updates a previous plan to 

reflect better emission estimates (based 

on improved calculation methods and 

updated source type and activity data) 

and to extend the maintenance 

demonstrations further into the future, 

such limited consultation is sufficient 

for the purposes of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(ii). 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the MVEBs are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified. The 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan clearly 

identifies and precisely quantifies the 

CO MVEBs for each of the ten planning 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71785 

area on pages 13 through 17 of the plan, 

thereby meeting the adequacy criterion 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii). 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the MVEBs, when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, is consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance 

(whichever is relevant to a given SIP 

submission). The 2004 CO Maintenance 

Plan shows how the CO MVEBs and 

related safety margins are consistent 

with continued maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS in each of the ten planning 

areas through 2018 (see pages 13 

through 17 of the plan). In particular, 

Table 12 on page 17 of the maintenance 

plan shows the extent to which 

maximum potential 2018 emissions (i.e., 

including the budget safety margins) fall 

below emissions calculated for the 1993 

attainment year. Thus, the submitted 

plan meets this criterion for adequacy. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the MVEBs are consistent with 

and clearly related to the emissions 

inventory and the control measures in 

the submitted control strategy plan or 

maintenance plan. The 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan contains no new 

measures but the budgets appropriately 

reflect the State’s adopted emissions 

standards, fuel regulations (including 

repeal of the wintertime oxygenated 

gasoline requirements), and the vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program, as 

applicable in each of the ten planning 

areas. Thus, the submitted plan meets 

this criterion for adequacy. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether revisions to previously 

submitted plans explain and document 

any changes to previously submitted 

budgets and control measures; impacts 

on point and area source emissions; any 

changes to established safety margins; 

and reasons for the changes (including 

the basis for any changes related to 

emissions factors or estimates of vehicle 

miles traveled). The 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan explains and 

documents the various changes that 

have been made to the CO emissions 

inventories, motor vehicle emissions 

budgets, safety margins, and control 

measures, including updates to the 

emissions factor model (EMFAC2002 for 

the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan versus 

EMFAC7F for the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan), updates to the travel activity data 

from the local transportation agencies, 

and the shift of the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirements from 

active to contingent status. Thus, the 

submitted plan meets this criterion for 

adequacy. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review 

the State’s compilation of public 

comments and response to comments 

that are required to be submitted with 

any SIP revision. Enclosure 4 of the SIP 

submittal contains one comment letter 

that was received on the proposed 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan. This comment 

letter supported ARB approval of the 

proposed plan. Enclosure 6 of the SIP 

submittal contains minutes from the 

July 22, 2004 public hearing. No further 

comments on the plan were submitted 

on the proposed plan at the public 

hearing. Thus, the submitted plan meets 

this criterion for adequacy. 

Therefore, we find the CO MVEBs 

contained in the submitted 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in submitted 

plans do not supersede the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in approved 

plans for the same CAA requirement 

and the period of years addressed by the 

previously approved implementation 

plan, unless EPA specifies otherwise in 

its approval of a SIP. See 69 FR 40004, 

at 40078 (July 1, 2004). In this instance, 

the submitted plan (the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan) is a maintenance 

plan that establishes MVEBs that are 

intended to supersede previously 

approved budgets from an earlier 

maintenance plan (the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan) for year 2010, the out 

year of the 1996 plan. However, in a 

final rule published on November 15, 

2002, we limited the duration of our 

approvals of the MVEBs in the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan to last only until the 

effective date of our adequacy finding 

for new budgets that replace the existing 

approved budgets for the same 

pollutant, CAA requirement, and year. 

See 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002). 

Thus, upon the effective date of this 

adequacy finding, the MVEBs in the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan will 

supersede the previously-approved CO 

MVEBs from the 1996 CO Maintenance 

Plan. 

The effective date for our adequacy 

finding will coincide with the effective 

date for our approval of the budgets as 

part of our overall approval of the 2004 

CO Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision 

if we do not withdraw this direct final 

rule in response to receipt of adverse 

comments. If we receive adverse 

comments on this direct final action, we 

will withdraw the final rule as it relates 

to the approval of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan (and budgets), but the 

adequacy determination will remain in 

effect until we either make a subsequent 

inadequacy determination or take 

subsequent final action to approve or 

disapprove the plan. 

V. Technical Correction 

In 1996, ARB submitted the 1996 CO 

Maintenance Plan covering the ten 

planning areas and requested they be 

redesignated to attainment for the CO 

NAAQS. On March 31, 1998, EPA 

approved the 1996 Plan as a revision to 

the California SIP and redesignated the 

ten planning areas to attainment 

effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR 15305). To 

codify this rulemaking, we amended the 

table in 40 CFR part 81, section 305 (40 

CFR 81.305), that lists the designations 

for air quality planning areas in 

California, but in doing so, we 

incorrectly identified April 30, 1998 as 

the effective date for redesignation of 

the ten planning areas to attainment for 

CO. The correct date is June 1, 1998. In 

addition, in our March 31, 1998 final 

rule, we inadvertently deleted from the 

California-Carbon Monoxide table the 

detailed descriptions of three of the ten 

planning areas: the Lake Tahoe North 

Shore Area, the Lake Tahoe South Shore 

Area, and the San Diego Area. 

Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act 

provides, ‘‘Whenever the Administrator 

determines that the Administrator’s 

action approving, disapproving, or 

promulgating any plan or plan revision 

(or part thereof), area designation, 

redesignation, classification, or 

reclassification was in error, the 

Administrator may in the same manner 

as the approval, disapproval, or 

promulgation revise such action as 

appropriate without requiring any 

further submission from the State. Such 

determination and the basis thereof 

shall be provided to the State and 

public.’’ Under the authority vested in 

EPA under section 110(k)(6) of the Act, 

we are taking direct final action to 

amend the California-Carbon Monoxide 

table in 40 CFR 81.305 by changing the 

effective date for redesignation from 

April 30, 1998 to June 1, 1998 for each 

of the ten areas addressed in this notice 

and by re-codifying the previous 

detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe 

North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, 

and San Diego Areas. 

VI. EPA’s Final Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

EPA is approving as a revision to the 

California SIP the 2004 Revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

for Carbon Monoxide, Updated 

Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal 

Planning Areas (‘‘2004 CO Maintenance 

Plan’’), as adopted by ARB on July 22, 

2004 and submitted by ARB to EPA on 

November 8, 2004. 

71786 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

In so doing, EPA has determined that 

this submittal meets the CAA 

requirement under section 175A(b) to 

prepare and submit a SIP revision that 

provides for continued maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS for a period of 10 years 

following the initial 10-year 

maintenance period that began with 

redesignation of the following ten 

planning areas from nonattainment to 

attainment: Bakersfield, Chico, Fresno, 

Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe 

South Shore, Modesto, Sacramento, San 

Diego, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, 

and Stockton. 

As part of our overall approval of the 

2004 CO Maintenance Plan, we approve 

the following specific plan elements: 

• Emission inventory updates and 

projections, as well as the maintenance 

demonstrations through 2018, for the 

ten planning areas covered by the plan; 

• Commitment to continue 

monitoring for the purpose of verifying 

continued attainment; 

• Contingency provisions under CAA 

section 175A(d), specifically, the State’s 

commitment related to the wintertime 

oxygenated gasoline requirements 

contained in ARB Resolution 98–52 and 

included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO 

Maintenance Plan; and 

• CO motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (in terms of winter seasonal 

emissions in tons per day) for the years 

2003, 2010, and 2018, for each of the ten 

planning areas as follows: 

2003 2010 2018 

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

Chico ................................................................................................................................................................................ 80 80 80 

Fresno .............................................................................................................................................................................. 240 240 240 

Lake Tahoe North Shore ................................................................................................................................................. 11 11 11 

Lake Tahoe South Shore ................................................................................................................................................ 19 19 19 

Modesto ........................................................................................................................................................................... 130 130 130 

Sacramento ...................................................................................................................................................................... 420 420 420 

San Diego ........................................................................................................................................................................ 730 730 730 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ................................................................................................................................... 1,850 1,850 1,850 

Stockton ........................................................................................................................................................................... 170 170 170 

In connection with the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, we are denying 

ARB’s request to limit our approval of 

the above budgets to last only until the 

effective date of future EPA adequacy 

findings for replacement budgets, but 

our denial of ARB’s request does not 

affect our approval of the plan itself or 

the budgets contained therein. 

Also, in connection with the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets, we are 

finding them adequate for the purposes 

of transportation conformity. As a result 

of this finding, the various metropolitan 

planning organizations in the ten 

planning areas and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation must use the CO 

motor vehicle emissions budgets from 

the submitted maintenance plan for 

future conformity determinations. 

Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6), 

we are correcting our 1998 final rule in 

which we approved ARB’s submittal of 

the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan and 

redesignated the ten planning areas to 

attainment for the CO NAAQS by fixing 

the erroneous effective date listed in the 

table entitled ‘‘California—Carbon 

Monoxide’’ in 40 CFR part 81.305 and 

by re-codifying in that same table 

detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe 

North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, 

and San Diego areas that had 

inadvertently been deleted in that same 

1998 rulemaking. 

We do not anticipate any objections to 

this action, so we are finalizing the 

correction action without proposing it 

in advance. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

we are simultaneously proposing this 

same action. If we receive adverse 

comments by December 30, 2005, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. Such a 

withdrawal of this direct final rule will 

not, however, affect the adequacy 

finding related to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. The adequacy 

finding will become effective January 

30, 2006 and remain in effect unless and 

until EPA makes an inadequacy finding, 

or takes final action to approve or 

disapprove the plan. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final action will be effective 

without further notice on January 30, 

2006 and our approval of the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets will be 

effective on the same date as our 

adequacy finding related to those 

budgets. 

VII. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71787 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this rule present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

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 January 30, 2006. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations. Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National Parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(341) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(341) The 2004 Revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan for 

Carbon Monoxide, Updated Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Ten 

Federal Planning Areas, submitted on 

November 8, 2004 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) 2004 Revision to the California 

State Implementation Plan for Carbon 

Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan 

for Ten Federal Planning Areas, adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

on July 22, 2004. The ten Federal 

planning areas include Bakersfield 

Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized 

Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake 

Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe 

South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized 

Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San 

Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San 

Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 2. In § 81.305, the table entitled 

‘‘California—Carbon Monoxide’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for 

Bakersfield Area, Chico Area, Fresno 

Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore Area, 

Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Modesto 

Area, Sacramento Area, San Diego Area, 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, 

and Stockton Area to read as follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date1 Type Date Type 

Bakersfield Area: 

Kern County (part) 

Bakersfield Metropolitan Area (Urbanized part) .....................................

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Chico Area: 

Butte County (part) 

Chico Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized part) ......................

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Fresno Area: 

Fresno County (part) 

Fresno Urbanized Area ..........................................................................

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

71788 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—CARBON MONOXIDE—Continued 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date1 Type Date Type 

Lake Tahoe North Shore Area: 

Placer County (part) 

That portion of Placer County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, plus that area in the vicinity 

of the head of the Truckee River described as follows: commencing 

at the point common to the aforementioned drainage area crestline 

and the line common to Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount 

Diablo Base, and Meridian (M.D.B. & M.), and following that line in 

a westerly direction to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 

15 North, Range 16 East, M.D.B. & M., thence south along the 

west line of Sections 3 and 10, Township 15 north, Range 16 East, 

M.D.B. & M., to the intersection with the said drainage area 

crestline, thence following the said drainage area boundary in a 

southeasterly, then northeasterly direction to and along the Lake 

Tahoe Dam, thence following the said drainage area crestline in a 

northeasterly, then northwesterly direction to the point of beginning.

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Lake Tahoe South Shore Area: 

El Dorado County (part) 

That portion of El Dorado County within the drainage area naturally 

tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, as described under 40 

CFR 81.275.

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

* * * * * * * 

Modesto Area: 

Stanislaus County (part) 

Modesto Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized Area) ................

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Sacramento Area: 

Census Bureau Urbanized Area) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Placer County (part).

Sacramento County (part).

Yolo County (part).

San Diego Area: 

San Diego County (part) 

The Western Section of Air Pollution Control District of San Diego 

County is defined as all that portion of San Diego County, State of 

California, lying westerly of the following described line:.

June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

1. Beginning at the Northwest of Township 9 South, Range 1 

West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; 

2. thence running Southerly along the West line of said township 

to the south line therof; 

3. thence Easterly along said South line to the range line between Range 1 West and Range 1 East; 

4. thence Southerly along said range line to the township line between Township 11 South and 12 South; 

5. thence Easterly along said township line to the range line between Range 1 East and Range 2 East; 

6. thence Southerly along said range line to the international 

boundary between the United States of America and Mexico. 

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area: 

Urbanized Areas June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Alameda County (part) 

Contra Costa County (part) 

Marin County (part) 

Napa County (part) 

San Francisco County 

San Mateo County (part) 

Santa Clara County (part) 

Solano County (part) 

Sonoma County (part) 

Stockton Area: 

San Joaquin County (part) June 1, 1998 .... Attainment 

Stockton Urbanized Area 

* * * * * * * 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 71789 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23502 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 710 

[OPP–2005–0075; FRL–7744–8] 

RIN–2070 AC61 

TSCA Inventory Update Reporting 

Partially Exempted Chemicals 

List;Addition of 1,2,3-Propanetriol; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a direct final rule 

in theFederal Register of October 17, 

2005, to amend the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) 

Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) 

regulations by adding 1,2,3-propanetriol 

(CASRN 56–81–5) to the list of chemical 

substances in 40 CFR 710.46(b)(2)(iv) 

which are exempt from reporting 

processing and use information required 

by 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4). The document 

incorrectly listed the section heading for 

§ 710.46 in the regulatory text. This 

document is being issued to correct that 

error. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under the 

ADDRESSES unit in the Federal Register 

document of October 17, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Sharkey, Project Manager, 

Economics, Exposure and Technology 

Division (7406M), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001; telephone number: (202) 564–

8789; e-mail address: 

sharkey.susanepa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

The Agency included in the direct 

final rule a list of those who may be 

potentially affected by this action. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to using EDOCKET at 

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

access this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 710 is available at E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. 

II. What Does this Correction Do? 

In FR Doc. 05–20771 appearing on 

page 60217, the following correction is 

made: 

§ 710.46 [Corrected] 

On page 60221 in the second column, 

the section heading for § 710.46 is 

corrected to read: ‘‘§ 710.46 Chemical 

substances for which information is not 

required.’’

III. Why is this Correction Issued as a 

Final Rule? 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), provides that, when an 

Agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a final 

rule without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making today’s technical correction 

final without prior proposal and 

opportunity for comment, because the 

use of notice and comment procedures 

are unnecessary to effectuate this 

correction. EPA finds that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews Apply to this 

Action? 

No. This action only corrects an 

inadvertent error in the section heading 

of the regulatory text for a previously 

published final rule and does not 

impose any new requirements. EPA’s 

compliance with the statutes and 

Executive Orders for the underlying rule 

is discussed in Unit V. of the October 

17, 2005, direct final rule (70 FR 60217). 

V. Congressional Review Act 

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 this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 710 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous materials, 1,2,3-Propanetriol, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Charles M. Auer, 

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. 

[FR Doc. 05–23436 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 05–2942; MB Docket No. 05–188; RM–

11240] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Bass 

River Township and Ocean City, NJ 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, 70 FR 31409 

(June 1, 2005), this Report and Order 

substitutes Channel 293A for Channel 

292A, Station WKOE(FM), Ocean City, 

New Jersey; reallots Channel 293A, from 

Ocean City to Bass River Township; and 

modifies Station WKOE’s license 

accordingly. The coordinates for 

Channel 293A at Bass River Township, 

New Jersey, are 39–39–00 NL and 74–

21–20 WL, with a site restriction of 10.4 

kilometers (6.4 miles) northeast of Bass 

River Township. 

DATES: Effective December 27, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 05–188, 

adopted November 9, 2005, and released 

November 10, 2005. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor,