+(,121/,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 of the

United States Postal Service for Partial

Waiver or Suspension of Commission

Rules Specifying Materials to be filed in

Support of its Request for Changes 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 in the

Federal Register.

Steven W. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 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 of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is withdrawing its Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking to redesignate the

City of Weirton 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 on November 9,

2004 (69 FR 64860).

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

as of May 11, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by email at miller.linda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere

in today's Federal Register, a separate

proposed rulemaking entitiled

"Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; West

Virginia; Redesignation of the City of

Weirton PM-I 0 Nonattainment Area to

Attainment and Approval of the Limited

Maintenance Plan," 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 of West Virginia

request to redesignate the Weirton area

to attainment and approve the

associated maintenance plan is also

found in the NPR in today's Federal

Register.

Separate dockets have been prepared

for the new proposal and this notice to

withdraw the October 27, 2004 Weirton

notice of proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National Parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 28, 2006.

Judith Katz,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IlL

[FR Doc. 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 Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; West

Virginia; Redesignation of the City of

Weirton PM-10 Nonattainment Area to

Attainment and Approval of the

Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On May 24, 2004, the State of

West Virginia submitted a request that

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 less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PM-10), and

concurrently requested approval of a

limited maintenance plan (LMP) as a

revision to the West Virginia 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 met the criteria for

redesignation for attainment specified in

the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also

proposing to determine that, because the

Weirton Area has continued to attain

the PM-10 NAAQS, certain attainment

demonstration requirements, along with

other related requirements of the CAA,

are not applicable to the Weirton Area.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,

identified by Docket ID Number EPAR03-OAR-2005-0480 by one of the

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 previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such

deliveries are only accepted during the

Docket's normal hours of operation, and

special arrangements should be made

for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to

Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2005-

0480. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included 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.gov or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know your identity

or contact information unless you

provide it in the body of your comment.

If you send an e-mail comment directly

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment

that is placed in the public docket and

made available on the Internet. If you

submit an electronic comment, EPA

recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in

the body of your comment and with any

disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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.

Electronic files should avoid the use of

special characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any 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.gov or in hard copy

during normal business hours at the Air

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103. Copies of the 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:

Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by email at miller.linda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

"we", "us", or "our" are used, we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What NAAQS Are Considered in

Today's Rulemaking?

B. What is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP?

C. What are the Requirements for

Redesignating a Nonattainment Area to

Attainment?

D. What is the Background of the SIP for

the Weirton Area?

E. What are the Air Quality Characteristics

of the Weirton Area?

II. Review of the West Virginia State

Submittal Addressing the Requirements

for Redesignation

A. Does the Submittal Meet the 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) of the

Act that meets all requirements

applicable under Section 110 and Part D

of the Act for Purposes of Redesignation?

3. Clean Data Policy

4. Has the State Demonstrated that the Air

Quality Improvement is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions?

HI. Review of the Limited 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 the Weirton Area Qualify for the

LMP Option?

D. Does the LMP submitted meet all the

requirements for a Fully Approved

Maintenance Plan?

E. Has the State met conformity

requirements?

IV. Proposed Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What NAAQS Are Considered in

Today's Rulemaking?

Particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less 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 lby penetrating

deep in the 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 diameter less 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 with no

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. What Is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

The Act requires states to attain and

maintain ambient air quality equal to or

better than the NAAQS. Section

107(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act defines

nonattainment area as any area that does

not meet (or that contributes to ambient

air quality in a nearby 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 of the 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 of emission

sources; (2) statutes and regulations

adopted by the State Legislature and

executive agencies; (3) air quality

analyses that include demonstrations

that adequate controls are in place 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

by the required date.

A state must make the SIP and

subsequent revisions available for

public review and comment through a

public hearing, it must be 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 in the Act.

C. What are the Requirements for

Redesignating a Nonattainment Area to

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) of the Act provides

the criteria for redesignation. These

criteria are further clarified in the

"General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments 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 of Air Quality

Planning and Standards dated

September 4, 1992, "Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment, (Calcagni memo)."

The criteria for redesignation are:

(1) A determination that the area has

attained the applicable NAAQS;

(2) Full approval of the applicable SIP

for the area under section 110(k) of the

Act;

(3) The state containing the area has

met all requirements applicable to the

area under section 110 and part D of the

Act;

(4) A'determination that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan, applicable

Federal air pollution control

regulations, and other permanent and

enforceable reductions; and

(5) Full approval of a maintenance

plan for the area as meeting the

requirements of section 175A of the Act.

D. What is the Background of the SIP for

the Weirton Area?

The Weirton Area, consisting of

Hancock County and part of Brooke

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 a moderate PM-10

nonattainment area on December 21,

1993 (58 FR 67334).

On May 16, 2001 (66 FR 27034), EPA

promulgated a final rule entitled,

"Determination of Attainment of the

NAAQS for PM-10 in the 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

a letter dated October 14, 2003. West

Virginia submitted a request to

redesignate the Weirton Area to

attainment for PM-10 and a SIP

submittal for the related maintenance

plan on May 24, 2004.

EPA published a direct final rule

(DFR) and notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) in which we

determined that certain attainment

demonstration requirements, along with

other related requirements of the Act,

are not applicable to the Weirton Area.

In the same October 27, 2004 DFR and

NPR, EPA also approved the request

from the State of West Virginia to

redesignate the Weirton Area from

nonattainment to attainment of the

NAAQS for PM-tO, and to approve the

10-year maintenance plan-for the area

submitted by the WVDEP as a revision

to the West Virginia SIP. (October 27,

2004, 69 FR 62591 and 69 FR 62637).

EPA published a correcting

amendment to the DFR and NPR on

November 9, 2004 (69 FR 64860) to

include additional explanation of why

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 on December 20, 2004 (69 FR

75847). The withdrawal of the DFR

converted EPA's action to a proposal

based on the October 27, 2004 NPR. In

a separate rulemaking in today'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 will not respond to the

comments received on the withdrawn

DFR and NPR. Any person wishing to

comment on this current proposal must

submit comments pursuant to the

instructions given in this notice of

proposed rulemaking.

E. What are the Air Quality

Characteristics of the Weirton Area?

The primary years used by EPA for

the purposes of establishing 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 of 150 jg/

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 meet the NAAQS. Based on

the certified ambient air quality data

through the close of calendar year 2005,

EPA proposes to determine that the area

continues to attain the PM-10 NAAQS.

Furthermore, there have been no

recorded exceedances of the 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 the years 2003-2005 is 29 jag/m 3. See

also the discussion in Section II.A.1.

and the technical support document

(TSD) accompanying this rulemaking.

II. Review of the West Virginia

Submittal Addressing the Requirements

for Redesignation

A. Does the Submittal Meet the Criteria

for Redesignation?

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 of ambient air quality data from

an ambient air monitoring network

representing peak PM-10

concentrations. The data should be

stored in the EPA Air Quality System

(AQS) database. The 24-hour PM-10

NAAQS is 150 jg/m3. An area has

attained the 24-hour standard when the

average number of expected

exceedences per year is less than or

'equal to one, when averaged over a

three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To

make this determination, three

consecutive years of complete ambient

air quality data must be 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 of the

weighted annual mean for three

consecutive years. More detailed

monitoring data is available in the TSD.

EPA previously determined in "A

Determination of Attainment of the

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, EPA proposes

to determine that the Weirton Area has

satisfied the criterion of section

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 all requirements

applicable under section 110 and Part D

for Purposes of Redesignation?

In order to 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

of the requirements applicable for

purposes of redesignation under section

110 and part D before EPA may approve

a redesignation request. Thus in order to

qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the

area must be fully approved under

section 110(k) with respect to all

requirements that apply to the area for

purposes of redesignation.

As we explain more fully in later

sections of this action, EPA has

determined that West Virginia has met

all SIP requirements applicable for

purposes of redesignation under section

110 of the CAA and has also determined

that the West Virginia SIP meets

requirements applicable for purposes of

redesignation under Part D, Title I of the

CAA. EPA has analyzed the SIP codified

at 40 CFR part 52, subpart XX, and

determined that it is consistent with the

reqkiirements of section 110 applicable

for purposes of redesignation.

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas under part D of Title I of the CAA

are set out in subparts I and 4. Subpart

1 of part D, found in sections 172-176

of the CAA, sets forth the basic

requirements applicable to all

nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 of part

D, found in section 189 of the CAA,

establishes additional specific

requirements for PM-10 areas

depending upon the area's

nonattainmnent classification. For

purposes of evaluating the redesignation

request, EPA is proposing to determine

that these applicable requirements have

been met for the reasons discussed in

later sections of this 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 or NSR), Reasonably Available

Control Measure (RACM) requirements

contained in sections 172 and 189 of the

Act), a demonstration of reasonable

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 of this notice (Clean

Data Policy).

With respect to the emissions

inventory requirement, the Calcagni

memo notes that the requirements for an

emission inventory will be satisfied by

the inventory requirements of the

maintenance plan. An attainment year

emissions inventory for the 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) of the CAA

requires states to establish criteria and

procedures to ensure the Federally

supported or funded projects "conform"

to the air quality planning goals in the

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 must be 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 of evaluating a redesignation

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 Wall v.

EPA, 265F 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),

upholding this interpretation. See, also,

60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

With respect 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 for Air and

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,

entitled "Part D New Source Review

Requirements of Areas Requesting

Redesignation to Attainment." The State

has demonstrated that the area will be

able to maintain the standard without

Part D NSR in effect, and therefore the

State need not have a fully approved

Part D NSR program prior to approval of

the redesignation request. The State's

Prevention of Significant 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 Data Policy

In some designated nonattainment

areas, monitored data demonstrates that

the NAAQS has already been achieved.

Based on its interpretation of the Act,

EPA has determined that certain

requirements of part D, subpart I and 2

of the Act do not apply and therefore do

not require certain submissions for an

area that has attained the NAAQS.

These include reasonable further

progress (RFP) requirements, attainment

demonstrations ahd contingency

measures, because these provisions have

the purpose of helping achieve

attainment df the NAAQS.

The so-called Clean Data Polioy is the

subject of two EPA memoranda setting

forth our interpretation of the provisions

of the Act as they apply'to areas that

have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA

also finalized the statutory

interpretation set forth in the policy in

a final rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of

its Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).

See discussion in the preamble to the

rule at 70 FR 71645-71646 (November

29, 2005). EPA believes that-the legal

bases set forth in 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 Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard" (Seitz

memo), and our December 14, 2004

memorandum from Stephen D. Page

entitled "Clean Data Policy 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 of how 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 the type of pollutant.

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 of the CAA, pertains whether the

standard is PM-10, ozone or PM-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, EPA believes it is

realonable to interpret provisions

regarding RFP and attainment

demonstrations, along with related

requirements, so as not to fequire SIP

submissions if an area subject to those

requirements is already attaining the

NAAQS (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS

is demonstrated with three consecutive

years of complete, quality-assuied air

quality monitoring data). Three U.S.

Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld

EPA rulemakings applying its

interpretation of subparts 1 and 2 with

respect to ozone. Sierra Club v. EPA,

99F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra

Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir.

2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation

v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,

2005) (memorandum opinion). It has

been EPA's longstanding interpretation

that the general provisions of part D,

subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 and

172) do not require the submission of

SIP revisions concerning RFP for areas

already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In

the General Preamble, we stated:

[Rlequirements for RFP will not apply in

evaluating a request for redesignation to

attainment, since, at a minimum, the air

quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. A showing that the

State will make RFP toward attainment will,

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57

FR at 13564.

EPA believes the same reasoning

applies to the PM-10 provisions of part

D, subpart 4.

With respect to RFP, section 171(1)

-states that, for.purposes of part D of title

I, RFP "means such annual incremental

reductions in emissions of the relevant

air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus,

whether dealing with the general RFP

requiremeft of section 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), or the specific

RFP requirements for PM-10 areas of

part D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure

attainment by the applicable attainment

date. Section 189(c)(1) states that:

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment

submitted to the Administrator for approval

under this subpart shall contain quantitative

milestones which are to be achieved every 3

years until the area is redesignated

attainment and which demonstrate

reasonable further progress, as defined in

section 7501(1) of this 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 by the applicable date", as

defined by section 171. Thus it is clear

that once the area has attained the

standard, no further milestones are

necessary or meaningful. This

interpretation is supported by language

in section 189(c)(3), which mandates

that a state that fails to achieve a

milestone must submit a plan that

assures that the state achieve the next

milestone or attain the NAAQS if there

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..

If an area has in fact attained the

standard, the'stated purpose of the RFP

requirement will have already been

fulfilled.' EPA took this position with

respect to the general RFP requirement

of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992

General Preamble and also in the May

10, 1995 memorandum with respect to

the requirements of sections 182(a)(b)

and (c). We are extending that

interpretation to the specific provisions

of part D, subpart 4. In the General

1 Thus we believe that it is a distinction without

a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP

requirement as one to be achieved until an area is

"redesignated as attainment", as opposed to section

172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the

requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment

area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or

182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as

applying until the "attainment date", since, section

189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1)

of the Act. Reference to 171(1) clarifies that, as with

the general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2)

and the ozone-specific requirements of section

182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific

requirements may only be required "for the purpose

of ensuring attainment of the applicable national

ambient air quality standard by the applicable

date." 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in

the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP

requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in

section 171(1), and incorporated in section

i89(c)(i, to be a requirement that no longer applies

once the standard has been attained.

Preamble, we stated, in the context of a

discussion of the requirements

applicable to the evaluation of requests

to redesignate nonattainment areas to

attainment, that the "requirements for

RFP will not apply in evaluating a

request for redesignation 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." (57 FR at 13564). See also

Calcagni memo, p.6.

With respect to the attainment

demonstration requirements of section

189(a)(1)(B) an analogous rationale leads

to the same result. 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, if an area is already

monitoring attainment of the standard,

EPA believes there is no need for an

area to make a further submission

containing additional measures to

achieve attainment. This is also

consistent with the interpretation of the

section 172(c) requirements provided by

EPA in the General Preamble, the Page

memo and of the 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." (57 FR at 13564).

Other SIP submission requirements

are linked with these 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 of sections

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer

applying when an area has attained the

standard because those "contingency

measures are directed at ensuring RFP

and attainment by the applicable date."

(57 FR at 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" of an

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 this provision to require

only implementation of potential 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 for the Weirton Area in

order for EPA to redesignate that area as

attainment for the PM-l0 NAAQS.

Here, as in both our Phase 2 final rule

and ozone and PM-2.5 clean data

memoranda, we emphasize that the

suspension of a 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 of the

standard. If such an area experiences a

violation of the 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 of the SIP submittals

amounts to no more than a suspension

of the 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 for the 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 of the 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) of the

Act, as well as the aforementioned

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP

and contingency measure provisions of

2 The EPA's interpretation that the statute only

requires implementaion of RACM measures that

would advance attainment was upheld by the

Unite d States Court of Appeals for the 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 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F3d

155,162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

I

27444

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

part D, subpart 1 contained in section

172 of the Act.3

Should EPA at some future time

determine that an area that had clean

data, but which has not yet been

redesignated as attainment for a 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 as provisions 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 of an 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 of redesignation have been

approved into the 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 are the result of actual

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 in the 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 of 1345.5 tons per year

of all6wable PM-10 emissions and a

reduction of 886 tons per year of actual

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 Cle4n Data

Policy and PM-10, EPA has applied criteria in

addition to that of attainment of the 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 of the policy

for PM-1-areas, and does not employ them in *

applying the policy to ozone and PM2.

5 areas. EPA

intends to make its application of the 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 of the Limited Maintenance

Plan

A. What is a Maintenance Plan?

As discussed in section II of this

action, to be redesignated to attainment,

the Weirton Area is required to have a

fully approved maintenance plan under

section 175A of the 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 of contingency

measures to be implemented should the

NAAQS be violated. The requirements

for the contingency measures is found

in paragraph (d) of CAA section 175A.

B. What is the LMP Option for PM-10

Nonattainment Areas Seeking

Redesignation to Attainment

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 a high degree of probability,

maintain compliance with th" standard

10 years into the future. Thus, EPA has

already provided the maintenance

demonstration for areas 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 not require air quality

modeling estimates that clean air can be

maintained, a projection of emissions

into the future, or some of the standard

analys6s to determine conformity with

the air quality standards. The Wegman

memo identifies core provisions that

must be included in the LMP. These

provisions include an attainment year

emission inventory, assurance of

continued operatibn of an EPAapproved air quality monitoring

network, and contingency provisions.

C. Does the Weirton Area qualify for the

LMP option?

To qualify for the LMP option, the

area must have attained the PM-la

NAAQS, and the average annual PM-10

design value.for the area, based upon

the most recent 5 years of air quality

data at all monitors in the area, should

be at or below 40 gg/m3, and the 24

hour design value should be at or below

98 gg/m3. If an area cannot meet this

test; it inay still be able to qualify for the

LMP Option if the average design value

(ADV) for the 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 of the 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 of exceeding the NAAQS

in the future.

When applied specifically to the

Weirton Area 24-hour data for the 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 of 98 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 in the Weirton Area. The impact

of vehicle emissions in the Weirton

Area has been determined to be an

insignificant contributor to PM-10

nonattainment in the area. Details can

be found in the TSD.

Based on our foregoing analysis, we

have determined that the Weirton Area

qualifies for use of the LMP option.

D. Does the LMP Submitted Meet all the

Requirements for a Fully Approved

Maintenance Plan?

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 of continued operation

of an EPA-approved air quality

monitoring network

3. Contingency provisions.

The LMP for the 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 of allowable 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 area was

included in the maintenance plan. This

inventory will be approved into the SIP

as part of the LMP. The ihventory is

presented in the TSD.

2. Continued Operation of Air Quality

Monitoring Network

The LMP includes a commitment to

continue to monitor PM-10 in the

Weirton Area throughout the 10-year

term of the maintenance plan to verify

continued attainment of the NAAQS.

The monitoring procedures will be

determined in accordance with 40 CFR

parts 53 and 58.

3. Contingency Measures

Pursuant to section 175A of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 7505A, a maintenance plan

must include such contingency

measures, as EPA deems necessary, to

promptly correct any violation of the

NAAQS which may occur after

redesignation of the area to attainment.

As explained in the Wegman and

Calcagni memos, these contingency

measures do not have to be fully

adopted at the time of redesignation.

The State will rely on monitored

ambient air data to determine the need

to implement contingency measures. In

the event of an exceedance of the PM10 standard, the State will review the

monitored data, the local meteorological

data, and the compliance of certain local

facilities identified in the maintenance

plan. If all such facilities are in

compliance with applicable SIP and

permit emission limits, the State will

then determine the additional control

measures the state will need Ao impose

on the area's stationary sources in order

* to continue to maintain the NAAQS.

In the event of three exceedances of

the 24-hour PM-10 standard within a

three-year period, the State will notify

the stationary sources in the Weirton

Area that the 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 of action to WVDEP to

implement the identified additional

control measures within 18 months after

the state notifies the source of an actual

violation of the NAAQS. The sources'

additional control measure plans will he

submitted to EPA for approval and

incorporation into the SIP.

E. Has the State met Conformity

Requirements?

As we stated previously in this notice,

EPA believes the conformity SIP

requirements do not apply for purposes

of evaluating a redesignation request,

because conformity rules are still

required after redesignation and Federal

conformity rules apply where state rules

have not been 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 of demonstrating that a Federal

action conforms to the applicable SIP is

to demonstrate that expected emissions

from the planned action are consistent

with the 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 not constraining for the

length of the maintenance period

because it is unreasonable to expect that

the qualifying areas would experience

so much growth in that period that a

violation of the PM-10 NAAQS would

result. For transportation conformity

purposes, EPA concludes that mobile

source emissions in these- areas need not

be cpped at any level for the

maintenance period, and therefore the

requirement for a regional emissions

analysis would be 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

same reasons that the budgets are

essentially considered to be unlimited.

For Federal actions which are

required to address the specific

requirements of the general conformity

rule, one set of requirements applies

particularly to ensuring that emissions

from the action will not cause or .

contribute to new violations of the

NAAQS, exacerbate current violations,

or delay timely attainment. One way

that this requirem6nt 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 of emissions

which, together with all other emissions

in the fionattainment area, would not

exceed the emissions budgets specified

in the applicable SIP." 40 CFR

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).

The decision about whether to

include specific allocations of allowable

emissions increases to sources is one

made by the State and local air quality

agencies. These emissions budgets are

not the same as those used in

transportation conformity. Emissions

budgets in transportation conformity are

required to limit and restrain emissions.

Emissions budgets in general 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 of 40 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 of SIP 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 of 40 CFR 93.105; (d)

conformity of transportation plans is

determined no less frequently than

every four years, and conformity of plan

amendments and transportation projects

is demonstrated in accordance with the

timing requirements specified in 40 CFR

93.104; (e) the latest planning

assumptions and emissions model are

used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and

40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do not cause

or contribute to any new localized

carbon monoxide or particulate matter

'violations, in accordance 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 of the Act, and the

Weirton Area fulfills the criteria for

redesignation to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS based on the 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 of part D title

I of the 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 the West

Virginia SIP revision for the 10-year

maintenance plan for the Weirton Area,

submitted on May 24, 2004. EPA is

soliciting public comments on the

issues discussed in this document.

These comments will be 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 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 proposes

to approve state law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Redesignation of an area to

attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of

the Glean Air Act does not impose any

new requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects

the status of a geographical area and

does not impose any new regulatory

requirements on sources. Accordingly,

the Administrator certifies that this

proposed 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 proposes to

approve 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

governm6nts, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104-:4). This proposed rule also

does 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), nor will

it 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), because it merely

proposes to affect the status of a

geographical area, does not impose any

-new requirements on sources, or allow

the state to avoid adopting or

implementing other requirements, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the 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.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's

role is to approve stqte 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. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any new requirements on sources. 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. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

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 the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

"Attorney General's Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

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 SIP revision does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

. Environmental protection, Air

Pollution Control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: May 3, 2006.

Donald S. Welsh,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 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: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Tennessee has applied to EPA

for final authorization of the changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final

authorization to Tennessee. In the

"Rules and Regulations" section of this

Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the

changes by an immediate final rule. EPA

did not make a proposal prior to the

immediate final rule because we believe

this action is not controversial and do

not expect comments that oppose it. We

have explained the reasons for this

authorization in the preamble of the

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 not take further

action on this proposal.

If we receive comments that oppose

this action, we will withdraw the

immediate final rule and it will not take"

effect. We will respond to public

comments in a later final rule based on

this proposal. You may not have another

opportunity for comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,

identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-

RCRA-2006-0429 by one of the

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 (prior to

faxing, please notify the EPA contact

listed below)

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