

[Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 71776-71789]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30no05-10]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 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).
    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

[[Page 71778]]

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.


[[Page 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 lower-emitting 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

[[Page 71780]]

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, 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 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               627       400       302       244
 Emission Inventory (tons per
 day)...........................
Projected Design Value for All         9.1       5.8       4.4       3.5
 Sources in the Inventory (in
 ppm)...........................
On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of       450       236       141        77
 the CO Emission Inventory (tons
 per day).......................
Projected Design Value for On-         9.1       4.8       2.9       1.6
 Road Motor Vehicle Portion of
 the Inventory (in ppm).........
Vehicle Miles Traveled (in          15,987    20,624    24,895   29,487
 thousands).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 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); on-board 
diagnostics systems testing requirements in I/M programs (Statewide); 
California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline regulations (Statewide); Off-
Highway 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-Anaheim-Riverside and San Francisco-Oakland-San 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

[[Page 71782]]

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Emission budget
              CO maintenance area                     Area included in inventory      --------------------------
                                                                                         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

[[Page 71783]]


Sacramento....................................  Sacramento County, Yolo County,            420      420      420
                                                 Western Placer County.
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,        857      410      244       96
                                            Western Placer County.
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 emissions\1\..............................                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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based 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

[[Page 71784]]

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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 71786]]

    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

[[Page 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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(341) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                           California--Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                             Classification
       Designated area        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Date\1\                  Type                 Date              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield Area:
    Kern County (part)         June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
    Bakersfield Metropolitan
     Area (Urbanized part).
Chico Area:
    Butte County (part)        June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
    Chico Urbanized Area
     (Census Bureau Urbanized
     part).
Fresno Area:
    Fresno County (part)       June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
    Fresno Urbanized Area....

[[Page 71788]]


Lake Tahoe North Shore Area:
    Placer County (part)       June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
    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.
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area:
    El Dorado County (part)    June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
    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.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Modesto Area:
    Stanislaus County (part)   June 1, 1998.........  Attainment             .................  ................
    Modesto Urbanized Area
     (Census Bureau Urbanized
     Area).
Sacramento Area:
    Census Bureau Urbanized    June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
     Area)
    Placer County (part).....
    Sacramento County (part).
    Yolo County (part).......
San Diego Area:
    San Diego County (part)    June 1, 1998.........  Attainment
    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:.
        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

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


[[Page 71789]]

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
