Source: http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0010-0001
Timestamp: 2016-08-26 23:32:19
Document Index: 303209915

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 58', 'art 58', 'art 81', 'arts 52', 'art 52', 'art 81', '§ 81']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content 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 This Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[R09-OAR-2005-CA-0010; FRL-8002-4]
SummaryThe 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, LakeTahoe 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.
DatesThis 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 theFederal Registerto notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.
AddressesSubmit 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.
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 theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.
For Further Information ContactToby Tiktinsky, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4223, tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov.
Supplementary InformationThroughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to U.S. EPA.Table of ContentsI. Background
VII. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. BackgroundA. 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 ten-year 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).
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 lawunder 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).]
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 ConcentrationsThe 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.
CO maintenance areaAttainment period199520002003
Bakersfield1992-1994—6.16.15.22.5
Chico1993-1995—5.45.04.03.4
Fresno1993-1995—9.18.57.64.3
Lake Tahoe North Shore1993-1994—3.83.20.9N/A
Lake Tahoe South Shore1993-1994—7.46.84.36.5
Modesto1993-1994—6.66.36.33.7
Sacramento1993-1995—9.18.06.24.2
San Diego1993-1994—7.07.44.94.1
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose1993-1994—7.27.56.94.9
Stockton1993-1994—7.57.56.33.2
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.
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 PlanA. Attainment InventoryFor 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.
CO maintenance area1993200320102018
Bakersfield478298234191
Chico232164134113
Fresno627400302244
Lake Tahoe North Shore Area25191614
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area61494543
Modesto331206151120
Sacramento1,125658487388
San Diego1,8891,101829643
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose4,2542,6451,7161,322
Stockton433258188153
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 motorvehicle 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, off-highway 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 DemonstrationGenerally, 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.
Fresno urbanized area1993200320102018
All Sources of CO in the Emission Inventory (tons per day)627400302244
Projected Design Value for All Sources in the Inventory (in ppm)9.15.84.43.5
On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the CO Emission Inventory (tons per day)45023614177
Projected Design Value for On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the Inventory (in ppm)9.14.82.91.6
Vehicle Miles Traveled (in thousands)15,98720,62424,89529,487
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued AttainmentOnce 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.
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 theambient 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 theFederal Registeron 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 ProvisionsCAA 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.
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 COMaintenance 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.)
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 BudgetsMaintenance 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.
CO maintenance areaArea included in inventoryEmission budget200320102018
BakersfieldWestern Kern County180180180
ChicoButte County808080
FresnoFresno County240240240
Lake Tahoe North ShoreEastern Placer County111111
Lake Tahoe South ShoreEastern El Dorado County191919
ModestoStanislaus County130130130
SacramentoSacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer County420420420
San DiegoSan Diego County730730730
San Francisco-Oakland-San JoseSan Francisco Bay Area Air Basin185018501850
StocktonSan Joaquin County170170170
CO maintenance areaArea included in inventory1993200320102018
BakersfieldWestern Kern County34717711266
ChicoButte County138754623
FresnoFresno County45023614177
Lake Tahoe North Shore LakeEastern Placer County181074
Tahoe South ShoreEastern El Dorado County3218137
ModestoStanislaus County2461267442
SacramentoSacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer County85741024496
San DiegoSan Diego County1,472728457249
San Francisco-Oakland-San JoseSan Francisco Bay Area Air Basin3,3141,840979563
StocktonSan Joaquin County3261629755
Fresno urbanized area2018 emissions
Projected Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory77
Projected Emissions from Other Sources167
Total Projected Emissions244
Allowable emissions 1 627
Emissions available to allocate to MVEB383
Proposed MVEB (See Table 4, above)240
Difference b/w MVEB and Projected MV emissions163
Remaining Unallocated Safety Margin220
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 theeffective 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 BudgetsIn 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).
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 planningarea on pages 13 through 17 of the plan, thereby meeting the adequacy criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii).
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 CorrectionIn 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 ActionUnder 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.
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;
200320102018
Bakersfield180180180
Chico808080
Fresno240240240
Lake Tahoe North Shore111111
Lake Tahoe South Shore191919
Modesto130130130
Sacramento420420420
San Diego730730730
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose1,8501,8501,850
Stockton170170170
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 thisFederal Register, we are simultaneously proposing this same action. If we receive adverse comments by December 30, 2005, we will publish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerto 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 ReviewsUnder 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 fromEnvironmental 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:Part 52 Amended
(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
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:
Designated areaDesignationDate 1 TypeClassificationDateType
Bakersfield Area: Kern County (part)Bakersfield Metropolitan Area (Urbanized part)June 1, 1998Attainment
Chico Area: Butte County (part)Chico Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized part)June 1, 1998Attainment
Fresno Area: Fresno County (part)Fresno Urbanized AreaJune 1, 1998Attainment
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 beginningJune 1, 1998Attainment
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 81.275June 1, 1998Attainment
******* Modesto Area: Stanislaus County (part)Modesto Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized Area)June 1, 1998Attainment
Sacramento Area: Census Bureau Urbanized Area)June 1, 1998Attainment
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, 1998Attainment
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area: Urbanized AreasJune 1, 1998Attainment
Stockton Area: San Joaquin County (part)June 1, 1998Attainment
[FR Doc. 05-23502 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Attachments View All (0) View document: No documents available. Attachments View All (0) Comment Now! Comment Period Closed Dec 30 2005, at 11:59 PM ET ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0010-0001 Tracking Number: View original printed format: Document Information Date Posted: Nov 30, 2005RIN: Not AssignedCFR: 40 CFR 52,81Federal Register Number: 05-23502 Show More Details Submitter Information Comments0 Comments Received* Docket Information This document is contained in EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0010 Related Dockets: NoneRelated RINs: NoneRelated Documents: None Related Comments: View all * This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency’s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document. Document text and images courtesy of the Federal Register Home Search Advanced Search Browse By Category Learn About Us eRulemaking Program Media Toolkit Agencies Awards & Recognition Enhancements & Fixes Resources Site Data Regulatory Agenda Agency Reports Required by Statute API Overview Developers Help How to use Regulations.gov FAQs Glossary Connect With Contact Us Privacy and Security Notice User Notice Accessibility Statement Partner Sites We the People Federal Register Reginfo Congress.gov USA.gov E-Gov Opengov Participate Today!