Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 1990 and 2007 using MOBILE6, 53941-53944 [05-18094]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53941
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 14,
2005. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 30, 2005.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Q—Iowa
2. In § 52.820(c) the table for Chapter
22 is amended by adding a new entry in
numerical order for 567–22.9 to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.820
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS
Iowa citation
State effective date
Title
Explanation
EPA approval date
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Commission [567]
*
*
*
*
*
567–22.9 .............................................
*
*
*
*
*
Special Requirements for Visibility Protection ..
*
*
*
*
Chapter 22—Controlling Pollution
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–18012 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
*
*
*
04/20/05
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region II Docket No. NY69–280, FRL–7968–
1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New York;
Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets for 1990 and 2007 using
MOBILE6
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to
the New York State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the attainment and
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:39 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
09/13/05 [insert FR page
number where document begins]
*
*
*
*
maintenance of the 1-hour national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. Specifically, EPA is
approving New York’s revised 1990 and
2007 motor vehicle emission budgets
recalculated using MOBILE6 and
modified date for submittal of the
State’s mid-course review. The intended
effect of this action is to approve a SIP
revision that will help the State
continue to plan for attainment of the 1hour NAAQS for ozone in its portion of
the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island nonattainment area (New
York Metropolitan NAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be
effective October 13, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the state
submittals are available at the following
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
53942
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
addresses for inspection during normal
business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Office of
Air and Waste Management, 14th
Floor, 625 Broadway, Albany, New
York 12233–1010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Risley, Air Programs Branch, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY
10007–1866, (212) 637–3741.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Comments
III. What Are the Details of EPA’s Specific
Actions?
A. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Revised with MOBILE6
B. Are New York’s motor vehicle emissions
budgets approvable?
C. Modified Date for Submittal of the Midcourse Review
III. Conclusions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 28, 2003 EPA published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR
61379) regarding a SIP revision
submitted by the State of New York for
the attainment and maintenance of the
1-hour NAAQS for ozone. That notice
proposed to approve: Revised 1990 and
2007 motor vehicle emission budgets
recalculated using MOBILE6; and a
modified date for submittal of the
State’s mid-course review. The intended
effect was to propose to approve a SIP
revision that will help the State
continue to plan for attainment of the 1hour NAAQS for ozone in its portion of
the New York Metropolitan NAA.
The proposed SIP revision was
initially submitted to EPA on January
29, 2003 and later supplemented by a
June 2, 2003 submission. A detailed
description of New York’s submittal and
EPA’s rationale for the proposed action
were presented in the October 28, 2003
notice of proposed rulemaking and will
not be restated here.
II. Comments
EPA received only one set of
comments on the proposed approval,
from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, in a letter
dated January 18, 2005. The comments
contained revised 2007 motor vehicle
emissions budgets resulting from
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:30 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
updated planning assumptions
including changes to vehicle registration
data and diesel fraction data. The data
revisions decrease estimated volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions by
2.7 tons per year in 2007, a decrease of
nearly 2 percent of the total on-road
VOC emission inventory. Additionally,
the data revisions increase estimated
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions by
3.4 tons per year in 2007, an increase of
nearly 1.4 percent of the total on-road
NOX emission inventory. These
revisions to the 2007 VOC and NOX
motor vehicle emissions budgets are
relatively small and do not change the
results of the State’s conclusion that the
budgets as revised using MOBILE6
continue to be consistent with the
State’s 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. The method used to
demonstrate this consistency is
described further below, and in more
detail in the October 28, 2003 notice of
proposed rulemaking.
III. What Are the Details of EPA’s
Specific Actions?
A Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Revised With MOBILE6
New York’s revised budgets contained
in the January 29, 2003 submittal and
subsequently updated by New York’s
June 29, 2003 addendum and the State’s
January 28, 2005 comment letter, are
summarized in Table 1 below. EPA has
found that New York’s revised
MOBILE6 budgets are consistent with
its 1-hour ozone Attainment
Demonstration. EPA has articulated its
policy regarding the use of MOBILE6 for
SIP development in its ‘‘Policy
Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for
SIP Development and Transportation
Conformity’’ 1 and ‘‘Clarification of
Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 in Midcourse Review Areas.’’ 2 New York
included in the January 29, 2003
submittal a relative reduction
comparison to show that its 1-Hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP
continues to demonstrate attainment
using revised MOBILE6 budgets for the
New York Metropolitan NAA. This
relative reduction comparison was
subsequently updated in New York’s
June 29, 2003 addendum and again in
its comments of January 18, 2005, see
Table 2. New York’s attainment
1 Memorandum, ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOBILE6 for SIP development and Transportation
Conformity,’’ issued January 18, 2002. A copy of
this memorandum can be found on EPA’s Web site
at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.
2 Memorandum, ‘‘Clarification of Policy Guidance
for MOBILE6 SIPs in Mid-course Review Areas,’’
issued February 12, 2003. A copy of this
memorandum can be found on EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
demonstration used photochemical grid
modeling supplemented with a weight
of evidence analysis. Consistent with
EPA policy, as detailed in the
aforementioned guidance documents,
the State’s methodology for the relative
reduction comparison consisted of
comparing the new MOBILE6 budgets
with the previously approved, (67 FR
5170, February 4, 2002) MOBILE5
budgets for the New York Metropolitan
NAA to determine if attainment will
still be predicted by the 2007 attainment
year. Specifically, the State calculated
the percent reduction from the 1990
base year to the 2007 attainment year for
NOX and VOC MOBILE5-based budgets.
These percent reductions were then
compared to the percent reductions
between the revised MOBILE6-based
1990 base year and 2007 attainment year
budgets.
TABLE 1.—NEW YORK METROPOLITAN
NAA MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
BUDGETS, REVISED WITH MOBILE6
NOX
1990 ..........................
2007 ..........................
512
233.4
VOC
596
179.3
TABLE 2.—RELATIVE REDUCTION COMPARISON
BETWEEN
MOBILE5BASED BUDGETS AND MOBILE6BASED BUDGETS FROM BASE YEAR
TO ATTAINMENT YEAR
NOX
(percent)
MOBILE5 ..................
MOBILE6 ..................
VOC
(percent)
44.8
54.4
66.7
69.9
As shown in Table 2, New York’s
relative reduction comparison shows
that for the New York Metropolitan
NAA the percent reductions in VOC and
NOX budgets obtained through the use
of MOBILE6 are greater than the percent
reductions calculated with MOBILE5based budgets. As such, New York’s
MOBILE6 SIP revision satisfies the
conditions outlined in EPA’s MOBILE6
Policy guidance, and demonstrates that
the new levels of motor vehicle
emissions calculated using MOBILE6
continue to support achievement of the
projected attainment of the 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of
2007 for the New York Metropolitan
NAA, i.e. the SIP continues to
demonstrate its purpose.
B. Are New York’s Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets Approvable?
EPA’s October 28, 2003 notice of
proposed rulemaking (68 FR 61379)
determined that New York’s revised
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
motor vehicle emission budgets,
developed using appropriate
methodology and supporting the SIP in
demonstrating its purpose, were
approvable. EPA posted the notice on
EPA’s conformity Web site on July 1,
2003 beginning the required 30-day
comment period. EPA received no
comments. Table 1 summarizes New
York’s revised budgets contained in the
January 29, 2003 submittal and
subsequently updated by New York’s
June 29, 2003 addendum and the State’s
January 28, 2005 comment letter. EPA is
taking action to find these budgets
adequate and concurrently approve
these budgets. The revised 2007
attainment budget will apply for the
New York Metropolitan Transportation
Council’s transportation conformity
purposes.
C. Modified Date for Submittal of the
Mid-Course Review
As described in EPA’s October 28,
2003 proposal, New York requested to
revise the date by which it would
submit a required mid-course review of
the SIP’s ability to meet attainment ontime. In order to be consistent with
surrounding states and to include the
benefit of the regional NOX program in
its mid-course review, New York
revised its commitment to perform a
mid-course review to December 31,
2004 which is consistent with EPA
guidance. New York has performed the
mid-course review and has submitted it
to EPA for review.
III. Conclusions
EPA is taking final action to approve
New York’s January 29, 2003 SIP
revision. This submittal revises New
York’s 1990 and 2007 motor vehicle
emission budgets using MOBILE6 and
modifies the planned date to complete
the State’s mid-course review to
December 31, 2004. In accordance with
the parallel processing procedures, EPA
has evaluated New York’s final SIP
revision submitted on January 29, 2003
and supplemental information
submitted on June 29, 2003 and New
York’s January 18, 2005 comment letter
and finds that no substantial changes
were made from the proposed SIP
revision submitted on January 29, 2003.
New York has demonstrated that its
revised 1-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP for the New York
Metropolitan NAA continues to
demonstrate attainment with the revised
MOBILE6 inventories.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:30 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53943
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 14,
2005. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2))
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 11, 2005.
Kathleen C. Callahan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
53944
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart HH—New York
2. Section 52.1683 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(h)(3) and (i)(4), removing paragraphs
(i)(6)(v) and (i)(6)(vi) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
I
§ 52.1683
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(j)(1) The 1990 and 2007 conformity
emission budgets for the New York
portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area
contained in New York’s January 29,
2003 SIP revision, amended by New
York’s June 29, 2003 submittal and
January 18, 2005 comment letter.
(2) The revised commitment to
perform a mid-course review and
submit the results by December 31, 2004
included in the January 29, 2003 SIP
revision is approved.
[FR Doc. 05–18094 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2005–0205; FRL–7725–7]
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0205.All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number
is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga
Odiott, Registration Division (7505C),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9369; e-mail address:
odiott.olga@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of cyfluthrin in
or on almond hulls, cucurbit vegetable
crop group 9, fruiting vegetable group 8;
grass forage; grass hay; grape; grape,
raisin; leafy Brassica greens, subgroup
5B; leafy vegetable group, except
Brassica, group 4; pistachio; pome fruit
group 11; stone fruit group 12; tuberous
and corm vegetable subgroup 1C;
peanut; peanut, hay; pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C; tree nuts, Crop Group 14; turnip
greens; wheat forage; wheat hay; and
wheat straw. Bayer CropScience and the
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR–4) requested the tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
September 13, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before November 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:30 Sep 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the
OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines
referenced in this document, go directly
to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/
opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of January 28,
2004 (69 FR 4143) (FRL–7339–6), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petitions (PP 1F6290, 2F6445,
and 2F6479) by Bayer CropScience, 2
T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709; and (PP
1E6318, 3E6776, and 3E6583) by the
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4), Technology Centre and Rutgers
State University of New Jersey, 681 U.S.
Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ
08902–390. The petitions requested that
40 CFR 180.436 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the insecticide cyfluthrin, cyano (4fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl-3-(2,2dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on
almond hulls at 1.0 parts per million
(ppm); pistachio at 0.01 ppm; and tree
nuts, crop group 14 at 0.01 ppm (PP
1F6290); cucurbit vegetable crop group
at 0.10 ppm; fruiting vegetable group at
0.5 ppm; leafy Brassica greens subgroup
at 7.0 ppm; leafy vegetable group at 6.0
ppm; pome fruit group at 0.10 ppm;
pome fruit wet pomace at 0.30 ppm;
stone fruit group at 0.30 ppm; wheat
forage, wheat hay and wheat straw at 5.0
ppm; and wheat shorts at 3.5 ppm (PP
2F6445); grape at 0.8 ppm; grape, raisin
at 3.5 ppm; peanut at 0.01 ppm; and
peanut, hay at 6.0 ppm (PP 2F6479);
tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup
at 0.01 ppm (PP 1E6318); turnip greens
at 7 ppm (PP 3E6583); and grass forage
at 6 ppm; grass hay at 8 ppm; and pea
and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C at 0.15 ppm (PP 3E6776).
That notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by Bayer Crop
Science, the registrant. The registrant
has submitted a request to voluntarily
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53941-53944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18094]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region II Docket No. NY69-280, FRL-7968-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York;
Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 1990 and 2007 using MOBILE6
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the New York State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment and maintenance of the 1-
hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
Specifically, EPA is approving New York's revised 1990 and 2007 motor
vehicle emission budgets recalculated using MOBILE6 and modified date
for submittal of the State's mid-course review. The intended effect of
this action is to approve a SIP revision that will help the State
continue to plan for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone in its
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment
area (New York Metropolitan NAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective October 13, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittals are available at the
following
[[Page 53942]]
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Air
and Waste Management, 14th Floor, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-
1010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Risley, Air Programs Branch, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3741.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Comments
III. What Are the Details of EPA's Specific Actions?
A. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Revised with MOBILE6
B. Are New York's motor vehicle emissions budgets approvable?
C. Modified Date for Submittal of the Mid-course Review
III. Conclusions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 28, 2003 EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(68 FR 61379) regarding a SIP revision submitted by the State of New
York for the attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.
That notice proposed to approve: Revised 1990 and 2007 motor vehicle
emission budgets recalculated using MOBILE6; and a modified date for
submittal of the State's mid-course review. The intended effect was to
propose to approve a SIP revision that will help the State continue to
plan for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone in its portion of the
New York Metropolitan NAA.
The proposed SIP revision was initially submitted to EPA on January
29, 2003 and later supplemented by a June 2, 2003 submission. A
detailed description of New York's submittal and EPA's rationale for
the proposed action were presented in the October 28, 2003 notice of
proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here.
II. Comments
EPA received only one set of comments on the proposed approval,
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in a
letter dated January 18, 2005. The comments contained revised 2007
motor vehicle emissions budgets resulting from updated planning
assumptions including changes to vehicle registration data and diesel
fraction data. The data revisions decrease estimated volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions by 2.7 tons per year in 2007, a decrease of
nearly 2 percent of the total on-road VOC emission inventory.
Additionally, the data revisions increase estimated oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emissions by 3.4 tons per year in 2007, an increase of
nearly 1.4 percent of the total on-road NOX emission
inventory. These revisions to the 2007 VOC and NOX motor
vehicle emissions budgets are relatively small and do not change the
results of the State's conclusion that the budgets as revised using
MOBILE6 continue to be consistent with the State's 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration. The method used to demonstrate this
consistency is described further below, and in more detail in the
October 28, 2003 notice of proposed rulemaking.
III. What Are the Details of EPA's Specific Actions?
A Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Revised With MOBILE6
New York's revised budgets contained in the January 29, 2003
submittal and subsequently updated by New York's June 29, 2003 addendum
and the State's January 28, 2005 comment letter, are summarized in
Table 1 below. EPA has found that New York's revised MOBILE6 budgets
are consistent with its 1-hour ozone Attainment Demonstration. EPA has
articulated its policy regarding the use of MOBILE6 for SIP development
in its ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and
Transportation Conformity'' \1\ and ``Clarification of Policy Guidance
for MOBILE6 in Mid-course Review Areas.'' \2\ New York included in the
January 29, 2003 submittal a relative reduction comparison to show that
its 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP continues to demonstrate
attainment using revised MOBILE6 budgets for the New York Metropolitan
NAA. This relative reduction comparison was subsequently updated in New
York's June 29, 2003 addendum and again in its comments of January 18,
2005, see Table 2. New York's attainment demonstration used
photochemical grid modeling supplemented with a weight of evidence
analysis. Consistent with EPA policy, as detailed in the aforementioned
guidance documents, the State's methodology for the relative reduction
comparison consisted of comparing the new MOBILE6 budgets with the
previously approved, (67 FR 5170, February 4, 2002) MOBILE5 budgets for
the New York Metropolitan NAA to determine if attainment will still be
predicted by the 2007 attainment year. Specifically, the State
calculated the percent reduction from the 1990 base year to the 2007
attainment year for NOX and VOC MOBILE5-based budgets. These
percent reductions were then compared to the percent reductions between
the revised MOBILE6-based 1990 base year and 2007 attainment year
budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum, ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP
development and Transportation Conformity,'' issued January 18,
2002. A copy of this memorandum can be found on EPA's Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.
\2\ Memorandum, ``Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6
SIPs in Mid-course Review Areas,'' issued February 12, 2003. A copy
of this memorandum can be found on EPA's Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.
Table 1.--New York Metropolitan NAA Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,
Revised With MOBILE6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990.............................................. 512 596
2007.............................................. 233.4 179.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Relative Reduction Comparison Between MOBILE5-Based Budgets
and MOBILE6-Based Budgets From Base Year to Attainment Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE5........................................... 44.8 66.7
MOBILE6........................................... 54.4 69.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2, New York's relative reduction comparison shows
that for the New York Metropolitan NAA the percent reductions in VOC
and NOX budgets obtained through the use of MOBILE6 are
greater than the percent reductions calculated with MOBILE5-based
budgets. As such, New York's MOBILE6 SIP revision satisfies the
conditions outlined in EPA's MOBILE6 Policy guidance, and demonstrates
that the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6
continue to support achievement of the projected attainment of the 1-
Hour Ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of 2007 for the New York
Metropolitan NAA, i.e. the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose.
B. Are New York's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Approvable?
EPA's October 28, 2003 notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 61379)
determined that New York's revised
[[Page 53943]]
motor vehicle emission budgets, developed using appropriate methodology
and supporting the SIP in demonstrating its purpose, were approvable.
EPA posted the notice on EPA's conformity Web site on July 1, 2003
beginning the required 30-day comment period. EPA received no comments.
Table 1 summarizes New York's revised budgets contained in the January
29, 2003 submittal and subsequently updated by New York's June 29, 2003
addendum and the State's January 28, 2005 comment letter. EPA is taking
action to find these budgets adequate and concurrently approve these
budgets. The revised 2007 attainment budget will apply for the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Council's transportation conformity
purposes.
C. Modified Date for Submittal of the Mid-Course Review
As described in EPA's October 28, 2003 proposal, New York requested
to revise the date by which it would submit a required mid-course
review of the SIP's ability to meet attainment on-time. In order to be
consistent with surrounding states and to include the benefit of the
regional NOX program in its mid-course review, New York
revised its commitment to perform a mid-course review to December 31,
2004 which is consistent with EPA guidance. New York has performed the
mid-course review and has submitted it to EPA for review.
III. Conclusions
EPA is taking final action to approve New York's January 29, 2003
SIP revision. This submittal revises New York's 1990 and 2007 motor
vehicle emission budgets using MOBILE6 and modifies the planned date to
complete the State's mid-course review to December 31, 2004. In
accordance with the parallel processing procedures, EPA has evaluated
New York's final SIP revision submitted on January 29, 2003 and
supplemental information submitted on June 29, 2003 and New York's
January 18, 2005 comment letter and finds that no substantial changes
were made from the proposed SIP revision submitted on January 29, 2003.
New York has demonstrated that its revised 1-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP for the New York Metropolitan NAA continues to
demonstrate attainment with the revised MOBILE6 inventories.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2005. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2))
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 11, 2005.
Kathleen C. Callahan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
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.
[[Page 53944]]
Subpart HH--New York
0
2. Section 52.1683 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(h)(3) and (i)(4), removing paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and (i)(6)(vi) and
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(j)(1) The 1990 and 2007 conformity emission budgets for the New
York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area contained in New York's January 29, 2003 SIP
revision, amended by New York's June 29, 2003 submittal and January 18,
2005 comment letter.
(2) The revised commitment to perform a mid-course review and
submit the results by December 31, 2004 included in the January 29,
2003 SIP revision is approved.
[FR Doc. 05-18094 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
