[Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71776-71789]
[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

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

    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

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....

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.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE  (7/1/2006)

EPA Registration Division contact: Tony Kish, PM 22<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]

TEMPLATE:

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

PP No. (to be assigned)

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP No. to be assigned) from the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South,
North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902-3390, proposing, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR Part 180.503 by establishing a tolerance for
residues of the fungicide cymoxanil;
2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide, in or on the
raw agricultural commodity Caneberries at 4.0 parts per million (ppm).
EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.

The plant metabolism of cymoxanil is adequately understood in three
diverse crops: potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce. The results of these
plant metabolism studies indicate that cymoxanil degrades extensively to
primarily the amino acid glycine, with subsequent re-incorporation into
other naturally-occurring products, such as glucose.

	2. Analytical method.

An analytical enforcement method is available for determining these
plant residues by high performance level chromatography (HPLC) with
ultraviolet (UV) detection. The limit of quantitation allows monitoring
of crops with cymoxanil residues at or above the levels proposed in
these tolerances.

	3. Magnitude of residues.

Caneberries

Magnitude of residue data were collected from field trials conducted in
Washington (region 12), Oregon (region 12), California (region 10), and
Canada (regions 5 and 12).  Residues of cymoxanil ranged from 0.24 to
2.2 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.

A battery of acute toxicity tests on technical cymoxanil places it in
the following Toxicity Categories:

Oral LD50		Rat			960 mg/kg		Category III

Dermal LD50		Rabbit			>2000 mg/kg		Category III

Inhalation LC50	Rat			>5.06 mg/L		Category IV

Eye irritation		Rabbit			Very slight irritant	Category IV

Dermal irritation	Rabbit			Slight irritant		Category IV

Dermal sensitization	Guinea Pig		Not a sensitizer

An acute neurotoxicity study was not required with cymoxanil.  No acute
neurotoxicity has been observed in short-term or subchronic studies
(including repeated dose neurotoxicity studies).

	2. Genotoxicty.

Cymoxanil was tested in a battery of assays to evaluate genotoxicity and
chromosome aberrations with the following results.  Based on the
weight-of-evidence, cymoxanil is not considered to be genotoxic or
clastogenic.

Bacterial gene mutation           			Salmonella typhimurium    	Negative

Mammalian gene mutation in vitro  		CHO/HGPRT           		Negative

Mammalian chromosome aberrations in vitro		CHO
Positive

Mammalian chromosome aberrations in vivo 		Mouse micronucleus
Negative

Unscheduled DNA synthesis in vitro     		Primary rat hepatocytes
Positive

Unscheduled DNA synthesis in vivo     		Primary rat hepatocytes
Negative

                             				and Spermatocytes

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

In a 2-generation cymoxanil rat reproduction study, the NOAEL for both
parents and offspring was approximately 7 mg/kg/day, based on decreased
body weight, weight gain and food consumption in adults and decreased
offspring neonatal viability or weight at 32 mg/kg/day or greater.
There were no reproductive or fertility effects at any dietary level.

In developmental studies, EPA has selected a maternal NOAEL of 25
mg/kg/day in rats and a developmental NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day.  In
rabbits, EPA has selected a maternal NOAEL of 32 mg/kg/day and a
developmental NOAEL of 4 mg/kg/day.  In both species the developmental
effects included delayed ossifications or skeletal variations.

In a developmental neurotoxicity study, the maternal and offspring
NOAELs were both 50 mg/kg/day based on body weight effects at 100
mg/kg/day.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.

Subchronic (90-day) feeding studies were conducted with rats, mice, and
dogs.  In addition, the following subchronic feeding studies were
conducted: A 90-day in rats to evaluate neurotoxicity and 28-day feeding
studies in rats and mice to evaluate immunotoxicity.   A 28-day dermal
study was also conducted in rats.

In a subchronic toxicity/neurotoxicity study in rats with cymoxanil, the
NOAEL was 47.6 mg/kg/day in males and 59.9 mg/kg/day in females  based
on the following changes at higher concentrations: decreased body
weights in both sexes,  decreased food efficiency in females, and
minimal to mild testicular and epididymal changes in males.  In a
concurrent 90-day rat neurotoxicity study, there was no evidence of
neurotoxicity at any level.  The neurotoxicity NOAEL was 3000 ppm (224
mg/kg/day), the highest dose tested.

The subchronic NOAEL for male mice administered cymoxanil was 8.25
mg/kg/day based on body weight and weight gain effects at 82.4 mg/kg/day
and above.  The NOAEL for females was 121 mg/kg/day based on increases
in spleen and liver weights at 433 mg/kg/day and above.

In a subchronic study in dogs, the LOEL was 3 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight and food consumption in females.  Although, a NOEL
was not established in the dog subchronic study, 3 mg/kg/day was found
to be a NOAEL in a subsequent chronic study in dogs.

Subchronic 28-day studies were conducted in rats and mice to evaluate
the immunotoxicity potential of cymoxanil.   Cymoxanil was not
immunotoxic up to and including the highest dose tested which was 1,600
ppm in rats (108 and 117 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively),
1,200 ppm (218 mg/kg/day) in male mice, and 2,400 ppm (552 mg/kg/day) in
female mice.

In a 28-day dermal study in rats there were no effects at any dose
tested. The 28-day dermal NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose
tested.

	5. Chronic toxicity.

Chronic studies with cymoxanil were conducted on rats, mice, and dogs to
determine oncogenic potential and/or chronic toxicity of the compound.
Effects generally similar to those observed in the 90-day studies were
seen in the chronic studies.

Cymoxanil was not oncogenic in lifetime feeding studies in rats and
mice.  The chronic NOAEL for cymoxanil in rats was 4.1 mg/kg/day in
males and 5.4 mg/kg/day in females based on body weight and nutritional
changes and non-neoplastic lesions in several organs (lungs, liver,
tested, eye, sciatic nerve) at higher dietary concentrations.   In mice,
the chronic NOAELs for cymoxanil were 4.2 and 5.8 mg/kg/day for males
and females, respectively, based on changes in organ weights,
gastrointestinal effects in females and liver, testes, and epididymal
effects in males at the LOAEL.  There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity.

The chronic NOAEL for dogs was 3.0 mg/kg/day in males based on  body
weight gain and hematology changes at 5.7 mg/kg/day, and 3.1 mg/kg/day
in females, the highest dose tested.

	6. Animal metabolism.

When administered by gavage to rats, cymoxanil was readily absorbed and
eliminated. Absorption reached maximum concentrations in whole blood
within 4 hours post-dosing.  A rapid and almost complete elimination was
observed in the urine and feces. The majority of radioactivity was
recovered within 96 hours, mainly in urine but also in feces.
Radioactivity in the tissues and carcass was less than 1%.  In the urine
and feces, the majority of the radioactivity was free and/or conjugated
glycine. 2-Cyano-2-methoxyimino-acetic acid was also found in low levels
in the urine and trace levels in the feces. Intact cymoxanil was less
than 1% in feces and not detected in the urine. The metabolite profile
in urine and feces was similar between sexes, among dose groups, and
between dosing regimens (single vs. multiple).

	7. Metabolite toxicology.

There are no metabolites of toxicological significance to mammals.

	8. Endocrine disruption.

Chronic, lifespan, and multi-generational bioassays in mammals and acute
and subchronic studies on aquatic organisms and wildlife did not reveal
endocrine effects. Any endocrine-related effects would have been
detected in this definitive array of required tests. The probability of
any such effect due to agricultural uses of cymoxanil is negligible.

C. Aggregate Exposure

Cymoxanil is a fungicide currently registered in the United States for
use on cucurbits, head lettuce, hops, peppers, potatoes and tomatoes
with a proposed use on grapes submitted previously. In addition,
tolerances have been approved for cymoxanil on imported grapes. This
tolerance petition proposes the following new uses in the United States:
caneberries. There are no residential uses.

	1. Dietary exposure.

The chronic dietary RfD of 0.04 mg/kg/day is based on a NOAEL of 4.1
mg/kg/day from the two-year rat feeding study and an uncertainty factor
of 100.  EPA selected an acute dietary RfD of 0.04 mg/kg for females
13-50 based on a NOAEL of 4.0 mg/kg/day in a rabbit developmental study.

	i. Food.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Chronic dietary cymoxanil exposure risk resulting from the proposed use
of cymoxanil on cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, head lettuce, potatoes,
grapes, hops, and caneberries was estimated using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM,
Exponent, Inc., Version 2.14). The analysis employed overall-mean
field-trial values and employed crop treated percentages based on 5-year
annual averages for currently labeled crops and projections of the
5-year annual averages for proposed crops.  For the general U.S.
population and all subpopulations <1% of the chronic RfD was used.  This
chronic dietary risk estimate for cymoxanil shows that an adequate
margin of safety exists for all population subgroups and that no effects
would result from dietary exposure to cymoxanil.

Acute Dietary Exposure

The Tier 3 acute dietary exposure analysis resulting from the proposed
use of cymoxanil on cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, head lettuce,
potatoes, grapes, hops, and caneberries was conducted with the acute
module of the DEEM-FCIDTM software.  The acute dietary analysis used
field trial residue data in a probabilistic assessment, which also
employed processing factors and 5-year maximum annual percent crop
treated values.

The acute exposure analysis demonstrates that an adequate margin of
safety exists for the only population group of interest, adult females.
(An aRfD was not established for other populations since an effect
attributable to a single exposure was not observed in the oral toxicity
studies.) The results of the acute dietary exposure analysis for
cymoxanil indicate that the predicted exposure to the only relevant
population group, females 13-49 years, is 0.000605 mg/kg/day, 2% of the
aRfD at the 99.9th percentile.  Cymoxanil clearly meets the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

	ii. Drinking Food.

Surface water exposure was estimated using the EXPRESS v.<IP_ADDRESS>
(PRZM-EXAMS) model.  Ground water exposure was estimated using SCI-GROW
v 2.3.  These are screening level models used for determining upper
bound concentrations of pesticides in surface water and ground water.
Results indicate that a reasonable certainty exists that cymoxanil
residues in drinking water will not contribute significantly to the
acute and chronic human risk.

The predicted chronic concentration for cymoxanil under worst-case
conditions was 0.000877 parts per billion (ppb) in ground water and 0.04
ppb in surface water.  When the higher surface water concentration was
included in the dietary risk assessment, there was little change from
the food-only chronic risk assessment; for the general U.S. population
and all population subgroups <1% of the cRfD was used, indicating a
significant margin of safety.

The predicted acute concentration for cymoxanil under worst-case
conditions was 0.000877 parts per billion (ppb) in ground water and 3.5
ppb in surface water.  When the higher surface water concentration was
included in the dietary risk assessment, there was little change from
the food-only acute risk assessment; the predicted exposure at the
99.9th percentile for the only relevant population, females (13-49
years), was 0.000721 mg/kg/day, 2% of the aRfD.  Since the % aRfD for
the only relevant population group is well below 100%, the acute dietary
safety of cymoxanil, including the contribution of drinking water,
clearly meets the standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

	2. Non-dietary exposure.

Cymoxanil products are not labeled for residential non-food uses,
thereby eliminating the potential for residential exposure.
Non-occupational, non-dietary exposure for cymoxanil has not been
estimated because the proposed products are limited to commercial crop
production. Therefore, the potential for non-occupational exposure is
insignificant.

D. Cumulative Effects

 EPA's consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not necessary
at this time because there is no indication that toxic effects of
cymoxanil should be cumulative with those of any other chemical
compounds or with each other. Cymoxanil is a unique cyanoacetamide and
is chemically unrelated to any other commercial plant disease control
agent. Its biochemical mode of action on fungi appears to be unique; it
is theorized to act through inhibition of multiple cellular processes,
but a definitive mechanism has not been completely elucidated.
Similarly, the mechanism of action underlying observed toxicological
effects in mammals is not fully characterized and there is no reliable
information to suggest that cymoxanil has a mechanism of toxicity in
common with any other compound.

Given the distinct chemical and toxicological profile of cymoxanil, its
low acute toxicity, absence of genotoxic, oncogenic, developmental, or
reproductive effects, and low exposure potential, the expression of
cumulative human health effects with any other natural or synthetic
pesticide is not anticipated.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.

Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the
conservative exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from the aggregate exposure of residues of cymoxanil.
No additional safety factors are warranted.

	2. Infants and children.

Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data base, the
lack of toxicological endpoints of special concern, the lack of any
indication that children are more sensitive than adults to cymoxanil,
and the conservative exposure assessment, there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the
aggregate exposure of residues of cymoxanil, including all anticipated
dietary exposure and all other non-occupational exposures. Accordingly,
there is no need to apply an additional safety factor for infants and
children.

F. International Tolerances

 To date, no international tolerances exist for cymoxanil.

Pesticide Petition for Tolerance
                   	AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

for Cymoxanil
        Caneberries

Copyright by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Wilmington, DE 19880-0038 (July 2006)