# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 71 Fed. Reg. 27440 2006

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 16:33:48 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006 /Proposed Rules

9. Answers to the Motion ofthe United States Postal Service for Partial Waiver or Suspension ofCommission Rules Specifying Materials to be filed in Support of itsRequest forChanges in Postal Rates and Classificatibns, filed May 3,2006, are due no later than June 5, 2006.

10. The Secretary shall cause this Notice and Order to be published inthe Federal Register.

Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FRDoc.E6-7218 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 .[EPA R03-OAR-2004-WV-0001; FRL-8168- 

### 7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal ofproposed rule.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to redesignate the City ofWeirton PM-10 nonattainment

area to attainment and approval of the maintenance plan published on October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62637). EPA is also withdrawing the correcting amendment
to the NPR published onNovember 9, 2004 (69 FR 64860). DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

as ofMay 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by email atmiller.linda@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### Elsewhere intoday's Federal Register, a separate proposed rulemaking entitiled "ApprovalandPromulgationof Air QualityImplementationPlans;West Virginia;Redesignationofthe Cityof WeirtonPM-I0Nonattainment Area to Attainmentand ApprovaloftheLimited MaintenancePlan,"provides more detailed legal and factual basis for supporting our decision to withdraw the NPR and its related correcting amendment. Our proposed action to approve the State ofWest Virginia request to redesignate the Weirton area to attainment and approve the associated maintenance plan is also found inthe NPR intoday's Federal Register.

Separate dockets have been prepared for the new proposal and this notice to 

### withdraw the October 27, 2004 Weirton notice ofproposed rulemaking.
ListofSubjects

40 CFRPart 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart81



### Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 28, 2006. 

### JudithKatz, ActingRegionalAdministrator, RegionIlL [FRDoc. E6-7215 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-0480; FRL--8168--6] Approval and PromulgationofAir Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Redesignation oftheCityof Weirton PM-10 Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval ofthe Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

### ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On May 24, 2004, the State of West Virginia submitted a requestthat EPA redesignate the Weirton nonattainment area (Weirton Area) to attainment for the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

### particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter lessthan orequal to a nominal 10micrometers (PM-10),and concurrently requested approval ofa limited maintenance plan (LMP) as a 

### revision tothe WestVirginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, the EPA proposes to approve the LMP for the Weirton Area in West Virginia and grant the State's request to redesignate the area from nonattainment 

### to attainment. EPA's proposed approval is based on its determination that the

area has metthe criteria for 

### redesignation forattainment specified in the Clean AirAct (CAA). EPA is also proposing to determine that,because the Weirton Areahas continued to attain the PM-10 NAAQS, certain attainment demonstration requirements, along with other related requirements ofthe CAA,



### are not applicable tothe Weirton Area. DATES: Written comments mustbe received on orbefore June 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified byDocket ID Number EPAR03-OAR-2005-0480 by one ofthe following methods:

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.

B. E-mail: Morris.makeba@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA-RO3-OAR-2005-0480, Makeba Morris, Chief,Air Quality Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylistedEPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made fordeliveries ofboxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2005- 0480. EPA's policy is that all comments received will beincluded in the public docket without change, and may-be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.govor e-mail. The http://www.regulations.govWeb site is

an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know your identity

orcontact information unless you provide it inthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail addresswill be automatically captured andincluded aspart ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and made available onthe Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
cannot readyour comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be ableto consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free ofany defects or viruses.

Docket:All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

### 27440

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27440 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.govor inhard copy during normal business hours atthe Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies ofthe State submittal are available at West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LindaMiller, (215) 814-2068, orby email at miller.linda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever "we", "us",or "our" are used, we mean EPA.

Table ofContents

I.Background

A. What NAAQS Are Considered in

Today's Rulemaking? B.What is a StateImplementation Plan

(SIP? C.What are the Requirements for

Redesignating aNonattainment Area to Attainment? D. What isthe Background ofthe SIP for

the Weirton Area? E. What are the Air Quality Characteristics

oftheWeirton Area? II.

Review ofthe West Virginia State

Submittal Addressing the Requirements forRedesignation A. Does the Submittal Meetthe Criteria for

Redesignation? 1.Has the State Demonstrated that the

Weirton Area has attained the applicable NAAQS? 2.Does the Weirton Area have a fully

approved SIP under Section 110k) ofthe Act that meets allrequirements applicable under Section 110 andPart D ofthe Act for Purposes ofRedesignation? 3.Clean DataPolicy 4. Has the State Demonstrated that the Air

Quality Improvement isdue to permanent and enforceable reductions?
HI.Review oftheLimited Maintenance Plan

A.What is a Maintenance Plan? B.What is the LMP Option for PM-10

Nonattainment Areas seeking Redesignation to Attainment C.Does theWeirton Area Qualify forthe

LMP Option? D. Doesthe LMP submitted meet all the

requirements for a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan? E.Has the State met conformity

requirements?
IV. ProposedAction V.Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews I. Background

A. WhatNAAQS Are Consideredin Today'sRulemaking?

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameterless than or equal to a nominal ten microns (PM-10) is the pollutant subject to this action. The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air pollutants set to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the ambient air pollutants for which we have established such a health-based standard. PM-10 causes adverse health effects lbypenetrating deep inthe lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634) we revised the NAAQS for particulate matter with an indicator that includes those particles with an aerodynamic diameterless than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers. See 40 CFR 50.6. The annual primary PM-10 standard is.50 g/m 3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The 24-hour primary PM-10 standard is 150 gg/m 3 withno

more than one expected exceedance per year. The secondary PM-10 standards, promulgated to protect against adverse welfare effects, are identical to the primary standards.

B. WhatIs aStateImplementationPlan (SIP)?

The Actrequires states to attain and maintain ambient air quality equal to or betterthan the NAAQS. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(I) ofthe Act defines nonattainment area as any area that does
notmeet (orthat contributes to ambient air quality in anearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.

A state's strategy for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are outlined in the state implementation plan (SIP). The SIP is a planning document that, when implemented, is designed to ensure the achievement ofthe NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.The Act requires that states make SIP revisions periodically, as necessary, to provide continued compliance with the standards.

SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) A current, accurate and comprehensive inventory ofemission
sources; (2) statutes and regulations adopted by the State Legislature and executive agencies; (3) air quality analyses that include demonstrations that adequate controls are inplace to meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency

measures to be undertaken if an area fails to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment bythe required date.

A state must make the SIP and subsequent revisions available for public review and comment through a public hearing, it mustbe adopted by the State, and submitted to EPA by the Governor or the Governor's designee. EPA takes action to approve the SIP, thus rendering the rules and regulations federally enforceable. The approved SIP is the state's commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air quality problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through the formal SIP revision process specified inthe Act.

C. Whatare theRequirements for RedesignatingaNonattainment Areato Attainment?

Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS and when certain additional requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Act provides the criteria forredesignation. These criteria are further clarified in the "General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle I ofthe Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990" (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, as supplemented 57 FR 18070, April 28, 19.92) (the General Preamble), and in a guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment, (Calcagni memo)." The criteria forredesignation are:

(1) A determination thatthe areahas attained the applicable NAAQS;

(2) Full approval ofthe applicable SIP forthe area under section 110(k) ofthe Act;

(3) The state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the

area under section 110 and part D ofthe Act; (4)A'determination that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable implementation plan, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions; and

(5) Full approval ofamaintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements ofsection 175A ofthe Act.

D. WhatistheBackgroundoftheSIP for the WeirtonArea?

The Weirton Area, consisting of Hancock County and part ofBrooke County, West Virginia, was designated 

### 27441

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27441 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

by EPA as amoderate PM-10 nonattainment area on December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67334).

OnMay 16, 2001 (66 FR 27034), EPA promulgated afinal rule entitled, "Determination ofAttainment ofthe NAAQS forPM-10 inthe Weirton, West Virginia Nonattainment Area" finding that the Weirton PM-10 nonattainment had attained the NAAQS for PM-10 by its applicable December 31, 2000 attainment date.

In order to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment, West Virginia requested that EPA apply its clean data policy to the Weirtbn Area in

aletter dated October 14, 2003. West Virginia submitted a request to redesignate the Weirton Area to attainment for PM-10 and a SIP submittal forthe related maintenance plan onMay 24, 2004.

EPA published a direct final rule (DFR)and notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPR) in which we determined that certain attainment demonstration requirements, along with other related requirements ofthe Act,

are notapplicable to the Weirton Area. In the same October 27, 2004 DFR and NPR, EPA also approved the request from the State ofWest Virginia to redesignate theWeirton Area from nonattainment to attainment ofthe NAAQS for PM-tO, and to approve the 10-year maintenance plan-for the area submitted bythe WVDEP as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. (October 27, 2004, 69 FR 62591 and 69 FR 62637).

EPA published a correcting amendmentto theDFR and NPR on November 9, 2004 (69 FR 64860) to include additional explanation ofwhy
motor vehicle emissions do not contribute significantly to any nonattainment with the PM-l0 NAAQS in the Weirton Area.

EPA received adverse comments on the October 27, 2004 DFR/NPR from one commenter. Therefore, EPA withdrew the DFR onDecember 20, 2004 (69FR 75847). The withdrawal ofthe DFR converted EPA's action to a proposal based onthe October 27, 2004 NPR. In

aseparate rulemaking intoday's Federal Register, EPA is withdrawing the October, 27 2004 NPR and the November 9, 2004 amendment thereto, and issuing this current proposal: Because we are withdrawing the earlier action, we willnot respond to the
comments received on the withdrawn DFR and NPR. Any personwishing to comment on this current proposal must submit comments pursuant to the instructions given in this notice of proposed rulemaking. E. Whatare theAir Quality Characteristics ofthe WeirtonArea?

The primary years used byEPA for the purposes ofestablishing PM-10 designations and classifications were 1987 to 1989. For this base year period, the Weirton Area 24-hour average PM10 design value was 198 gg/m 3

.This #value exceeded the NAAQS of150jg/ M3

. The Weirton Area has never exceeded the annual average standard of 50 jag/m 3

.As provided in the WV SIP submittal, for the 2000 to 2002 period, the comparable 24-hour average design 

### value is 112 g/im 3 

### and the PM-10 annual average design value is 32 jg/m. Both values meetthe NAAQS. Based on the certified ambient air quality data through the close ofcalendar year 2005, EPA proposes to determine that the area continues to attain the PM-10 NAAQS. Furthermore, there have been no recorded exceedances ofthe 24-hour PM-,10 standard or the annual PM-10 standard from 1997 through the end of 2005 in the Weirton Area, and the highest annual value in the Weirton area for theyears 2003-2005 is 29jag/m 3

. See also the discussion in Section II.A.1. and the technical support document (TSD) accompanying this rulemaking.

II.Review ofthe West Virginia SubmittalAddressing the Requirements 

### forRedesignation

A. Doesthe SubmittalMeet the Criteria forRedesignation?

1.Has the State demonstrated that the Weirton Area has attained the applicable NAAQS?

States must demonstrate that an area has attained the PM-tO NAAQS through analysis ofambient air quality data from

an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM-10 concentrations. The data should be stored in theEPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150jg/m3

.An area has attainedthe 24-hour standard when the average number ofexpected exceedences per year is less than or 'equalto one, when averaged over a three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three consecutive years ofcomplete ambient air quality data mustbe collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR part 58, including appendices). The annual PM-l0 NAAQS is 50 4g/m 3

. To determine attainment, the standard is compared to the expected annual
mean, which is the average ofthe weighted annual mean for three consecutive years. More detailed monitoring data is available in the TSD. EPA previously determined in "A Determination ofAttainment ofthe NAAQS for PM-1O in the Weirton, West Virginia Nonattaimnent Area" on May 16, 2001 (66 FR 27034) that the area had attained the PM-1O NAAQS. As previously stated, the most recent air quality monitoring continues to support this determination. Thus, EPAproposes to determine that the Weirton Area has satisfied the criterion ofsection 107(d)(3)(E)(I) that the area has attained the PM-1O NAAQS.

2. Does the Weirton Area have a Fully Approved SIP under section 110(k) of the Act that meets allrequirements applicable under section 110 and Part D for Purposes ofRedesignation?

In orderto qualify for redesignation, the SIP must sitisfy all requirements that apply to the area for purposes of redesignation. EPA interprets the Act to require state adoption and EPA approval ofthe requirements applicable for purposes ofredesignation under section 110 and partD before EPA may approve

a redesignation request. Thus in order to qualify forredesignation, the SIP forthe

area mustbe fully approved under section 110(k)with respect to all requirements that apply to the area for purposes ofredesignation.

As we explain more fully in later sections ofthis action, EPAhas determined that WestVirginia has met all SIPrequirements applicable for purposes ofredesignation under section 110 ofthe CAA and has also determined that the West Virginia SIP meets requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under Part D, Title I ofthe CAA. EPA has analyzed the SIPcodified
at 40 CFRpart 52, subpart XX, and determined that it is consistent with the reqkiirements ofsection 110 applicable forpurposes ofredesignation.

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas under part Dof Title I ofthe CAA

are set out in subparts I and 4. Subpart 1 ofpart D, found in sections 172-176 ofthe CAA, sets forth the basic requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 ofpart D, found in section 189 ofthe CAA, establishes additional specific requirements for PM-10 areas depending upon the area's nonattainmnent classification. For purposes ofevaluating the redesignation request, EPA is proposing to determine that these applicable requirements have been met for the reasons discussed in later sections ofthis notice.

The Part D provisions that the Weirton Area must evaluate prior to redesignation as attainment include an emissions inventory, conformity, a 

### 27442

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27442 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

permit program for new and modified stationary sources (called new source review orNSR), Reasonably Available ControlMeasure (RACM) requirements contained in sections 172 and 189 ofthe Act), a demonstration ofreasonable further progress (RFP)toward attainment, an attainment demonstration, and contingency

measures. We address how the Weirton Area has met the RACM, RFP, attainment demonstration and contingency measure requirements in the next section ofthis notice (Clean Data Policy).

With respect to the emissions inventory requirement, the Calcagni

memo notes that the requirements for an emissioninventory will be satisfied by the inventory requirements ofthe maintenance plan. An attainment year emissions inventory forthe Weirton Area has been included in the maintenance plan, and thus this requirement has been satisfied.

With respect to the conformity requirement, section 176(c) ofthe CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure the Federally supported or funded projects "conform"
to the air quality planning goals inthe applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs,' and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C and the Federal Transit Act ("transportation conformity") as well as to other Federally supported or funded projects ("general conformity"). State conformity revisions mustbe consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

-

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes ofevaluating aredesignation request under section 107(d)because
state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wallv. EPA, 265F 3d 426 (6thCir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

Withrespect to the NSR program requirement, EPA has determined that

areas being redesignated need not have

an approved NSR program prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this view is described in a memorandum for Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator forAir and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled "Part D New Source Review Requirements ofAreas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment." The State has demonstrated that the area willbe able to maintain the standard without Part D NSR in effect, and therefore the State need nothave a fully approved Part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)program will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment. Detroit,MI (60 FR 12467- 12468, March 7, 1995); ClevelandAkron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

3.Clean DataPolicy

In some designated nonattainment
areas, monitored data demonstrates that the NAAQS has already been achieved. Based on its interpretation ofthe Act, EPA has determined that certain requirements ofpartD, subpart I and 2 ofthe Act do not apply and therefore do notrequire certain submissions foran

area that has attained the NAAQS. These include reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements, attainment demonstrations ahd contingency
measures, because these provisions have the purpose ofhelping achieve attainment dfthe NAAQS.

The so-called Clean Data Polioy is the subject oftwo EPA memoranda setting forth our interpretation ofthe provisions ofthe Act as they apply'to areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the statutory interpretation set forth inthe policy in

a finalrule, 40 CFR 51.918, aspart of its Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase2 Final Rule). See discussion inthe preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645-71646 (November 29, 2005). EPA believes that-the legal bases set forthin detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for OzoneNonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard" (Seitz memo), and our December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled "Clean DataPolicy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (Page memo), are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM-10. EPA's interpretation ofhow the provisions of the Act apply to areas with "clean data '
is not logically limited to ozone and "PM-2.5,because the rationale is not dependent upon thetype ofpollutant. Our interpretation that an area that is attaining the standard is relieved of obligations to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) and to provide an attainment demonstration had contingency measures pursuant to part D ofthe CAA, pertains whether the standard isPM-10, ozone orPM-2.5.

The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant standard of certain part D, subpart 1 and 2 (sections 171 and 172) obligations, applies equally as well to part D, subpart 4, which contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions for PM-10 nonattainment areas. As we have explained in the Phase 2 Final Rule and

our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, EPAbelieves it is realonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along withrelated requirements, so as notto fequire SIP submissions if an area subject to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment ofthe NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years ofcomplete, quality-assuied air quality monitoring data). Three U.S. Circuit Courts ofAppeals have upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation ofsubparts 1 and 2 with respect to ozone. SierraClubv. EPA, 99F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Clubv.EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); OurChildren's EarthFoundation

v. EPA,N. 04-73032 (9th Cir.June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion). It has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general provisions ofpartD, subpart 1of theAct (sections 171 and 172) do notrequire the submission of SIPrevisions concerning RFP forareas already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the General Preamble, we stated:

[Rlequirements for RFP willnot apply in evaluating arequest for redesignation to attainment, since,at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the

areahas already attained. A showing that the State willmake RFP toward attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.57 FR at 13564.

EPAbelieves the same reasoning applies to the PM-10 provisions ofpart D, subpart 4.

With respect to RFP, section 171(1)
-states that, for.purposes ofpart D oftitle I, RFP "means such annual incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requiremeft ofsection 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

### 27443

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27443 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

sections 182(b) and (c), orthe specific RFP requirements for PM-10 areas of part D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose ofRFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date. Section 189(c)(1) states that:

Planrevisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the Administrator for approval under this subpart shall containquantitative milestones which are tobe achieved every 3 yearsuntil the area isredesignated attainment andwhich demonstrate reasonable furtherprogress, as defined in section 7501(1) ofthis title,toward attainment by the applicable date.

Although this section states that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further progress "toward attainment bythe applicable date", as defined by section 171. Thus it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary ormeaningful. This interpretation is supportedby language in section 189(c)(3), whichmandates that a state that fails to achieve a milestone must submit aplan that

assures that the state achieve the next milestone or attain the NAAQS ifthere is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3)

assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the

. NAAQS.. Ifan area has in fact attained the standard, the'stated purpose ofthe RFP requirement will have alreadybeen fulfilled.' EPA took thisposition with respect to the general RFP requirement ofsection 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also inthe May 10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the requirements ofsections 182(a)(b) and (c). We are extending that interpretation to the specific provisions ofpart D, subpart 4. In the General

1Thus webelieve that it is a distinction without

a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks ofthe RFP requirement as one tobe achieved until an area is "redesignated as attainment", as opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent onthe period to which the requirement pertains, or theozone nonattainment

area RFPrequirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as applying untilthe "attainment date", since, section 189(c)(1) defines RFP byreference to section 171(1) ofthe Act. Reference to 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) andthe ozone-specific requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), thePM-specific requirements may only be required "for the purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date." 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in the text ofthis rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in light ofthe definition ofRFP in section 171(1), and incorporated in section i89(c)(i, tobe a requirement that no longer applies

once the standard has been attained. Preamble, we stated, in the context ofa discussion ofthe requirements applicable to the evaluation ofrequests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the "requirements for RFP will notapply in evaluating a request forredesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point." (57FR at 13564). See also Calcagni memo, p.6.

With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 189(a)(1)(B) an analogous rationale leads
to the sameresult. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for "a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date.* * *"AswiththeRFP requirements, ifan area is already monitoring attainment ofthe standard, EPA believes there is no need foran

area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment.This is also consistent with the interpretation ofthe section 172(c)requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, the Page

memo and ofthe lection 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the Seitz

memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since "attainment will have been reached." (57FR at 13564).

Other SIP submission requirements

are linked withthese attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency

measure requirements ofsections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer applying when an areahas attained the standard because those "contingency

measures are directed atensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date." (57 FRat 13564); Seitz memo, pp. 5-6.

Both sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(c) require "provisions to assure that reasonable available control measures" (i.e, RACM) are implemented in a nonattainment area. However, the Weirton Area was able to attain the PM10 NAAQS without any additional

measures being implemented. The General Preamble, 57 FR 13560 (April 16, 1992) states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a "component" ofan area's attainment demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its

own terms, the requirement for RACM

no longer applies. EPA has consistently interpreted thisprovision to require only implementation ofpotential RACM

measures that could contribute to reasonable further progress or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR at 13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required. 2 EPA is interpreting section 189(a)(1)(c) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1). Therefore, there is no requirement for the West Virginia SIP to contain RACM forthe Weirton Area in order for EPA to redesignate that area as attainment for the PM-l0 NAAQS.

Here, as inboth our Phase 2final rule and ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension ofa requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, and other related requirements exists only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment ofthe standard. Ifsuch an area experiences a violation ofthe NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist. Therefore, the

area would again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one ofthe SIP submittals
amounts to no more than a suspension ofthe requirement for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard. However; once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to attainment, the

area will be entirely relieved of these requirements to the extent the maintenance plan forthe area does not rely on them.

Therefore, we believe that, for the

reasons set forth here and established in

our prior "clean data" memoranda and rulemakings, a PM-10 nonattainment

area that has "clean data," should be relieved ofthe part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B) the RACM provisions of 189(a)(1)(c), and the RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1) ofthe Act, as well as the aforementioned attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions of

2The EPA's interpretation that the statute only requires implementaion ofRACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court ofAppeals forthe Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v.EPA, 314 F3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002)), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (SierraClub v. EPA, 294 F3d 155,162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). 

### I 27444

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27444 2006Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

part D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 ofthe Act.3

Should EPA at some future time determine that an area that had clean data, but which has notyet been redesignated as attainment fora NAAQS has violated the relevant standard, the

area would again be required to submit the pertinent requirements under the SIP for the area. Attainment determinations under the policy do not shield an area from other required actions, such asprovisions to address pollution transport.

As set forth, above, EPA proposes to find that because the Weirton Area has continued to.attain the NAAQS the requirement ofan attainment demonstration, reasonable further
progress, reasonably available control

measures and contingency measures no longer apply.

Thus, EPA has determined that all provisions of CAA section 110 and part D applicable to the Weirton Area for purposes ofredesignation have been approved intothe West Virginia SIP.

4. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?

The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality
to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making this showing, the State must demonstrate that air quality improvements arethe result ofactual enforceable emission reductions. The control measures for the area, which

were responsible for bringing the area into attainment, are contained in a Consent Order (CO)between the State of West Virginia and the Weirton Steel Corporation. The control measures and emission limits established inthe CO

were made permanent and enforceable when EPA approved them into the West Virginia SIP on May 5, 2004 (69 FR 24986). These control measures resulted in a reduction of1345.5 tons per year ofall6wable PM-10 emissions and a reduction of886 tons peryear ofactual PM-10 emissions. EPA approved these

measures as RACT in the West Virginia SIP on May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24986).

3 In prior rulemakings involving the Cle4nData Policy and PM-10, EPAhas applied criteria in addition to that ofattainment ofthe standard. See
e.g., 67 FR 43020 (June 26, 2002]. EPA does not believe that those additional criteria are required by statute or are necessary for application ofthepolicy forPM-1-areas, and does not employ them in * applying the policy to ozone and PM2. 5 areas. EPA intends to make its application ofthe policy consistent for ozone, PM-10, and PM2. 5 ,and does
not intend to require an area to meet additional criteria for PM-10. III.Review ofthe Limited Maintenance

Plan

A. Whatis aMaintenancePlan?

As discussed in section II ofthis action, to be redesignated to attainment, the Weirton Area is required to have a fully approved maintenance plan under section 175A ofthe CAA. A maintenance plan should identify the level of air emissions from cars, industry and other sources which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. The State must commit to re-evaluate the maintenance plan. The plan must also show that the area will maintain clean air for at least 10 years after redesignation. Additionally, the plan
must include a list ofcontingency

measures to be implemented should the NAAQS be violated. The requirements for the contingency measures is found in paragraph (d) ofCAA section 175A.

B. Whatis theLMP Option forPM-10 Nonattainment AreasSeeking RedesignationtoAttainment

On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled "Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM-10 Nbnattainment Areas", (Wegman memo). The Wegmah memo contains a statistical demonstration that

areas meeting certain air quality criteria will, with ahigh degree ofprobability, maintain compliance with th" standard 10 years into the future. Thus, EPA has already provided the maintenance demonstration forareas that meet the air quality criteria outlined in the Wegman

memo. The Wegmap memo streamlines the full maintenance plan requirements and establishes the LMP option. The LMP option does notrequire air quality modeling estimates that clean air can be maintained, a projection ofemissions into the future, or some ofthe standard analys6s to determine conformity with the air quality standards. TheWegman

memo identifies core provisions that
mustbe included inthe LMP. These provisions include an attainment year emission inventory, assurance of continued operatibn ofan EPAapproved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

C.Does the WeirtonAreaqualify forthe LMPoption?

To qualify for the LMP option, the

area musthave attained the PM-la NAAQS, and the average annual PM-10 design value.for the area, based upon the mostrecent 5 years ofair quality data at all monitors inthe area, should be at or below 40 gg/m3, and the 24 hour design value should be ator below 98 gg/m3. Ifan area cannot meet this test;it inay still be able to qualify for the LMP Option ifthe average design value (ADV) forthe site is less than the sitespecific critical design values (CDV) (as those terms are used in the Wegman memo). In addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-road
motor vehicle PM-10 emissions (including fugitive,dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test.

To show that future emissions will not exceed the level ofthe attainment inventory, the WVDEP determined the CDV. The CDV is a statistical technique based upon the average design value and its observed variability to estimate the probability ofexceeding the NAAQS in the future.

When applied specifically to the Weirton Area 24-hour data forthe years 2000 through 2004, the CDV is 137 

### gg/ M3

. The actual 5-year average design value for the Weirton Area is 96.8 tg/

m3 which is below the level of98 gg/

m3 established for the LMP option. Furthermore, the maximum site average design value of 105.2 tg/m 3 is less than the area-specific CDV of 137 [g/m3

.

There is no expected population growth inthe Weirton Area. The impact ofvehicle emissions in the Weirton Area hasbeen determined to be an insignificant contributor to PM-10 nonattainment inthe area. Details can be found in the TSD.

Based on our foregoing analysis, we have determined that the Weirton Area qualifies for use ofthe LMP option.

D.Does theLMPSubmittedMeetall the Requirements foraFullyApproved MaintenancePlan?

The Weirton Area meets the criteria for using a LMP for redesignation. The LMP does not require a modeling demonstration to show maintenjance of the NAAQS. A projected emissions inventory,is also not required. The LMP does require the following: 1.An attainment year emissions inventory

2. Assurance ofcontinued operation ofan EPA-approved air quality monitoring network 3.Contingency provisions. The LMP forthe Weirton Area, dated May 24, 2004 includes the necessary provisions for approval. Specifically, it contains the following:

1.Attainment Year Emission Inventory

In the May 24, 2004 submittal, an inventory ofallowable emissions of 

### 27445

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27445 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

sources in the nonattainment areawas included in the maintenance plan. This inventory will be approved into the SIP

aspart ofthe LMP. The ihventory is presented inthe TSD.

2. Continued Operation ofAir Quality Monitoring Network

The LMP includes a commitment to continue to monitor PM-10 in the Weirton Area throughout the 10-year
term ofthe maintenance plan to verify continued attainment ofthe NAAQS. The monitoring procedures willbe determined in accordance with 40 CFR parts 53 and 58.
3. Contingency Measures

Pursuant to section 175A ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. 7505A, a maintenance plan
must include such contingency
measures, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any violation ofthe NAAQS which may occur after redesignation ofthe area to attainment. As explained inthe Wegman and Calcagni memos, these contingency

measures do nothave to be fully adopted at the time ofredesignation.

The State will rely onmonitored ambient air data to determine the need to implement contingency measures. In the event ofan exceedance of the PM10 standard, the State will review the monitored data, the local meteorological data, and the compliance ofcertain local facilities identified inthe maintenance plan. Ifall such facilities are in compliance with applicable SIP and permit emission limits, the State will then determine the additional control

measures the state will needAo impose

on the area's stationary sources in order * to continue to maintain the NAAQS.

Inthe event ofthree exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10 standard within a three-year period, the State will notify the stationary sources in the Weirton Area thatthe potential exists'for a NAAQS violation, and that if a violation
occurs, these sources will need to implement the measures previously identified. Within six months of receiving notice from the State, the stationary sources must submit a detailed plan ofaction to WVDEP to implement the identified additional control measures within 18 months after the state notifies the source ofan actual violation ofthe NAAQS. The sources' additional control measure plans will he submitted to EPA for approval and incorporation into the SIP.

E.Has the Statemet Conformity Requirements?

As we statedpreviously inthis notice, EPA believes the conformity SIP requirements do not apply for purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request, because conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where staterules have notbeen approved. The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51*and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method ofdemonstrating that aFederal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent withthe emissions budget for the area.

While EPA's LMP policy does not exempt an area from the need to demonstrate conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated as essentially notconstraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would experience

so much growth inthat period that a violation ofthe PM-10 NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity
purposes, EPA concludes that mobile

source emissions inthese-areas need not be cpped at any level forthe maintenance period, and therefore the requirement for a regional emissions analysis wouldbe considered to be met. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the "budget test" specified in §93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the

samereasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

For Federal actions which are required to address the specific requirements ofthe general conformity rule, one set ofrequirements applies particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause or

. contribute to new violations ofthe NAAQS, exacerbate current violations,

ordelay timely attainment. One way that thisrequirem6nt can be met is to demonstrate that "the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof)is determined and documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level ofemissions which, together with all other emissions inthe fionattainment area, would not exceed the emissions budgets specified inthe applicable SIP." 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).

The decision about whether to include specific allocations ofallowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the State and local air quality agencies. These emissions budgets are notthe same as those used in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions budgets ingeneral conformity allow increases in emissions up to specified levels. West Virginia has chosen not to include specific emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the provisions of general conformity.

While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP option are thus essentially not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the State will still need to document and

ensure that: (a)Transportation plans and projects provide for timely implementation ofSIP transportation control measures in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108; (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable requirements of40 CFR 93.105; (d) conformity oftransportation plans is determined no less frequently than
every four years, and conformity ofplan amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated inaccordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do not cause

orcontribute to any new localized carbon monoxide orparticulate matter 'violations, inaccordance with procedures specified-in 40 CFR 93.123; and, (7)project sponsors and/or operators provide appropriate written commitnents as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.

IV. Proposed Action

Based on the foregoing analysis, we have determined that the Weirton Area fulfills the criteria for redesignation as attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS. EPA has determined that the submitted maintenance plan meets the requirements ofthe Act, and the Weirton Area fulfills the criteria for redesignation to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS based onthe State's May 24, 2004 submission. EPA is proposing to determine that the area has continued to attain the PM-10 NAAQS and to determine that certain attainment demonstration requirements, along with other related requirements ofpart D title I ofthe CAA as set forth above, are not applicable to the area. EPA is proposing
to redesignate the Weirton PM-10 

### 27446

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27446 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 2006/Proposed Rules

moderate nonattainment area to attainment and to approve theWest Virginia SIP revision for the 10-year maintenance plan for the Weirton Area, submitted onMay 24, 2004. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed inthis document. These comments willbe considered before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

### Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office ofManagement 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Redesignation of an areato attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Glean AirAct does not impose any

new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status ofa geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
etseq.). Because thisrule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable dutybeyond that required by statelaw, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governm6nts, as described inthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-:4). This proposed rule also doesnot have a substantial direct effect

on one ormore Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, oron the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or

onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities among-the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to affect the status ofa geographical area, does not impose any

-new requirements on sources, or allow the stateto avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship orthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

Inreviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve stqte choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, inthe absence ofa 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 itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status ofa geographical area and does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements ofsection .12(d)ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do notapply. As required by section 3 ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), inissuing this proposed rule,EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimizepotential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining thetakings implications of the rule in accordance withthe "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for theEvaluation ofRisk and Avoidance ofUnanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order.

This proposed rule to redesignate the Weirton Area to attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS and approve the LMP as

a SIPrevision does notimpose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).


### ListofSubjects

40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart 81

. Environmental protection, Air Pollution Control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: May 3, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, RegionIII. [FRDoc. E6-7216 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R04-RCRA-2006-0429; FRL-8168-3]

Tennessee: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposedrule.

SUMMARY: Tennessee has applied to EPA for final authorization ofthe changes to its hazardous waste programunder the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Tennessee. In the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule.EPA did notmake a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is notcontroversial and do
not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble ofthe immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will nottake further action on this proposal.

Ifwe receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will nottake" effect. We will respond to public
comments in alater final rulebased on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. DATES: Comments mustbe received on

or before June 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket IDNo. EPA-R04- RCRA-2006-0429 by one ofthe following methods:

a http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments. * E-mail: Gleaton.Gwen@epa.gov. * Fax: (404) 562-8439 (priorto faxing, please notify the EPA contact listedbelow)

o Mail: Send written comments to Gwen Gleaton, RCRA Services Section, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The 

### 27447

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 27447 2006