1956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

III. 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 proposed 

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 proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule 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 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. As a result, it 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 3, 2007. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E7–531 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0892; FRL–8269–3] 

Redesignation of Washington County, 

OH To Attainment for the 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) 

submitted a request on September 22, 

2006, and supplemented it on 

November 17, 2006, for redesignation of 

Washington County, Ohio (the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area) to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA is proposing to approve 

the several elements of this request. 

First, EPA is making a determination 

that complete, quality-assured ambient 

air quality data indicate that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore, 

preliminary monitoring data for the 

2006 ozone season show that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area continues to 

attain the NAAQS. Second, EPA is 

proposing to approve, as revisions to the 

Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

the State’s plans for maintaining the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. 

Third, EPA is proposing to redesignate 

Washington County to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard, based on a 

finding that the requirements for this 

redesignation have been satisfied. 

Fourth, EPA finds adequate and is 

proposing to approve the State’s 2018 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for Washington County. 

Region 3 will address the West Virginia 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

(Wood County) in a separate rulemaking 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05- 

OAR–2006–0892, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR–2006–

0892. 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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1957 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email 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. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steve 

Marquardt, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–3214 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Marquardt, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–3214, 

marquardt.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take? 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These 

Actions? 

VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Requests? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of Ohio’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) 

VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To 

Take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Parkersburg-Marietta 

nonattainment area has attained the 

8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 

maintenance plan SIP revision for 

Washington County. The maintenance 

plan is designed to keep the 

Parkersburg-Marietta nonattainment 

area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS 

through 2018. EPA is proposing the 

Ohio portion of this area (Washington 

County) has met the requirements for 

redesignation under Section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is thus 

proposing to approve Ohio’s request to 

change the legal determination of 

Washington County from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). Finally, EPA is announcing 

its action on the Adequacy Process for 

the newly established 2018 MVEBs for 

the area. The adequacy comment period 

for the 2018 MVEBs began on November 

20, 2006, with EPA’s posting of the 

availability of these submittals on EPA’s 

Adequacy Web site (at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs ended 

on December 20, 2006. EPA did not 

receive any requests for these submittals 

or adverse comments on these 

submittals during the adequacy 

comment period. Therefore, we find 

adequate and are proposing to approve 

the State’s 2018 MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

On September 22, 2006, and with 

supplemental information on November 

17, 2006, Ohio requested that EPA 

redesignate Washington County to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The redesignation request 

included three years of complete, 

quality-assured data for the periods of 

2002 through 2004 and 2003 through 

2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS 

for ozone had been attained for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area. Furthermore, 

preliminary monitoring data for the 

2006 ozone season show that the area 

continues to attain the NAAQS. Under 

the CAA, nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient 

complete, quality-assured data are 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard, and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

IV. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 

allows for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment provided 

that: (1) The Administrator determines 

that the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k); (3) the Administrator 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP and applicable federal air 

pollutant control regulations and other 

permanent and enforceable reductions; 

(4) the Administrator has fully approved 

a maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

1958 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in several guidance documents. 

A listing of pertinent documents is 

provided in other redesignation actions 

including a September 9, 2005 notice; 

70 FR 53606. 

V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take 

These Actions? 

On September 22, 2006, and with 

supplemental information provided on 

November 17, 2006, Ohio requested 

redesignation of Washington County to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA believes that the area has 

attained the standard and has met the 

requirements for redesignation set forth 

in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation 

requests would change the official 

designation of Washington County for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 

CFR part 81. It would also incorporate 

into the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. 

The maintenance plans include 

contingency measures to remedy future 

violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. They 

also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 

of 1.67 tons per day (tpd) volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and 1.76 tpd 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Washington 

County. 

These proposed actions pertain to the 

designation of Washington County for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to the 

emission controls in the County related 

to the attainment and maintenance of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or 

operate a VOC or NOX emissions source 

in this County or live in this County, 

this proposed rule may impact or apply 

to you. It may also impact you if you are 

involved in transportation planning or 

implementation of emission controls in 

this area. 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Requests? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone standard and that Washington 

County has met all other applicable 

section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation 

criteria. The basis for EPA’s 

determinations is as follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

EPA is proposing to make the 

determination that the ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may 

be considered to be attaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.10 and part 50, appendix I, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. For each 

monitor in the area, EPA computes the 

3-year average of each year’s fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations. The area is 

attaining the standard if all monitors 

have average concentrations at or below 

0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding 

convention described in 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix I, the standard is attained if 

the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. 

The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58, and recorded in the Aerometric 

Information Retrieval System (AIRS). 

The monitors generally should have 

remained at the same location for the 

duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

Ohio submitted ozone monitoring 

data for the 2002–2004 and the 2003–

2005 ozone seasons. This submittal 

included data from both the Ohio and 

West Virginia portions of ParkersburgMarietta. The Ohio EPA and the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection quality assured the ambient 

monitoring data in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58.10, and recorded it in the 

AIRS database, thus making the data 

publicly available. The data meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50, 

Appendix I, which requires a minimum 

completeness of 75 percent annually 

and 90 percent over each three year 

period. A summary of the monitoring 

data is presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1.—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND 3-YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH HIGH

DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

Area Monitor 

2002 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2003 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2004 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2005 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2002–2004 

average 

(ppm) 

2003–2005 

average 

(ppm) 

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna .. Washington .............................

39–167–0004 ..........................

.095 .080 .077 .088 .084 .081 

Wood (WV) .............................

54–107–1002 ..........................

.095 .083 .069 .084 .082 .078 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plans, Ohio 

has committed to continue operating an 

EPA-approved monitoring network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In 

summary, EPA finds that the data 

submitted by Ohio provide an adequate 

demonstration that the ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We have determined that Ohio has 

met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for Washington County 

under Section 110 of the CAA (general 

SIP requirements). We have also 

determined that the Ohio SIP meets all 

SIP requirements currently applicable 

for purposes of redesignation under Part 

D of Title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to Subpart 1 nonattainment 

areas), in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have 

determined that the SIP is fully 

approved with respect to all applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, we have ascertained 

what SIP requirements are applicable to 

the area for purposes of redesignation, 

and have determined that the portions 

of the SIP meeting these requirements 

are fully approved under section 110(k) 

of the CAA. As discussed more fully 

below, SIPs must be fully approved only 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1959 

with respect to currently applicable 

requirements of the CAA. 

a. Washington County has met all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA. Under this interpretation, a 

state and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are due prior to the 

state’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request for the area. See 

also the September 17, 1993 Michael 

Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete request remain applicable 

until a redesignation to attainment is 

approved, but are not required as a 

prerequisite to redesignation. See 

section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

General SIP requirements. Section 

110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the 

general requirements for a SIP. Section 

110(a)(2) provides that the 

implementation plan submitted by a 

state must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provides 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provides for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; includes provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; includes criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; 

includes provisions for air quality 

modeling; and provides for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants (NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356), 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 

25162)). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification. 

EPA believes that the requirements 

linked with a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. 

When the transport SIP submittal 

requirements are applicable to a state, 

they will continue to apply to the state 

regardless of the attainment designation 

of any one particular area in the state. 

Therefore, we believe that these 

requirements should not be construed to 

be applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation. Further, we believe 

that the other section 110 elements 

described above that are not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

As discussed above, we believe that 

section 110 elements which are not 

linked to the area’s nonattainment status 

are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Because there are no 

section 110 requirements linked to the 

part D requirements for 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas that have become 

due, as explained below, there are no 

Part D requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under the 8- 

hour standard. 

Part D Requirements. EPA has 

determined that the Ohio SIP meets 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of the CAA, since no requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

became due for the 8-hour ozone 

standard prior to Ohio’s submission of 

the redesignation request for 

Washington County. Under part D, an 

area’s classification determines the 

requirements to which it will be subject. 

Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 

172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 

of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part 

D, establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. 

Parkersburg-Marietta, which includes 

Washington County, Ohio, was 

classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment 

area, and, therefore, subpart 2 

requirements do not apply. 

Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP 

requirements. For purposes of 

evaluating these redesignation requests, 

the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP 

requirements for Washington County are 

contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). 

No 8-hour ozone planning 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under part D became due 

prior to submission of the redesignation 

request, and, therefore, none are 

applicable to the area for purposes of 

redesignation. Since Ohio has submitted 

complete ozone redesignation requests 

for Washington County prior to the 

deadline for any submissions required 

for purposes of redesignation, we have 

determined that these requirements do 

not apply to Washington County for 

purposes of redesignation. 

Section 176 conformity requirements. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the 

Federal Transit Act (transportation 

conformity) as well as to all other 

federally-supported or funded projects 

(general conformity). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

1960 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA approved Ohio’s general and 

transportation conformity SIPs on 

March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 

30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. In 

summary, Washington County has 

satisfied all applicable requirements 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

b. Washington County has a fully 

approved applicable SIP under section 

110(k) of the CAA. 

EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP 

for Washington County under section 

110(k) of the CAA for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. In approving a 

redesignation request, EPA may rely on 

prior SIP approvals plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action (See the 

September 4, 1992 John Calcagni 

memorandum, page 3, Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)). Since the passage of the 

CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and 

submitted, and EPA has fully approved, 

provisions addressing the various 

required SIP elements applicable to 

Washington County under the 1-hour 

ozone standard. No Washington County 

SIP provisions are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved, or 

partially approved. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated 

that the observed air quality 

improvement in the ParkersburgMarietta area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, federal measures, and other stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

State has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2002 and 2004, one 

of the years the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area monitored attainment. The 

reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality over this time period can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that Ohio has 

implemented. 

a. Permanent and enforceable 

controls implemented. 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the area: 

NOX rules. In compliance with EPA’s 

NOX SIP call, Ohio developed rules to 

control NOX emissions from Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs), major nonEGU industrial boilers, and major 

cement kilns. These rules required 

sources to begin reducing NOX

emissions in 2004. However, statewide 

NOX emissions actually had begun to 

decline before 2004, as sources phased 

in emission controls needed to comply 

with the State’s NOX emission control 

regulations. From 2004 on, NOX

emissions from EGUs in the Eastern 

United States have been capped at a 

level well below pre-2002 levels, such 

that EGU emissions in the ParkersburgMarietta area and elsewhere in Ohio and 

West Virginia can be expected to remain 

well below 2002 levels. Ohio expects 

that NOX emissions will further decline 

as the State meets the requirements of 

EPA’s Phase II NOX SIP call (69 FR 

21604 (April 21, 2004)). 

Federal Emission Control Measures. 

Reductions in VOC and NOX emissions 

have occurred statewide as a result of 

federal emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future as the State 

implements additional emission 

controls. Federal emission control 

measures include: Tier 2 emission 

standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur 

limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, 

and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. 

In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the 

Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 

38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this 

rule to reduce off-road diesel emissions 

through 2010, with emission reductions 

starting in 2008. 

b. Emission reductions. 

Ohio is using 2002 for the inventory 

and included area, mobile and point 

source emissions. Area sources were 

taken from the Ohio 2002 periodic 

inventory submitted to EPA. These 

projections were made from the United 

States Department of Commerce Bureau 

of Economic Analysis growth factors, 

with some updated local information. 

Mobile source emissions were 

calculated from MOBILE6.2 produced 

emission factors. Non-road emissions 

were generated using the EPA’s National 

Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 2002 

application. Point source information 

was compiled from Ohio’s 2002 annual 

emission inventory database and the 

2002 EPA Clean Air Markets Acid Rain 

database. 

Based on the inventories described 

above, Ohio’s submittal documents 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

from 2002 to 2004. Summaries of 

emissions data are shown in Tables 2 

through 4. 

TABLE 2.—WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO AND WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR

NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPD) 

Washington Wood Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ................................................................................. 2.08 94.58 1.80 2.60 3.88 97.18 

Area .................................................................................. 2.97 0.21 7.60 0.70 10.57 0.91 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 1.25 5.33 2.80 4.90 4.05 10.23 

Onroad ............................................................................. 4.40 5.66 4.70 6.10 9.10 11.76 

Total .......................................................................... 10.70 105.78 16.90 14.30 27.60 120.08 

TABLE 3.—WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO AND WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR

ATTAINMENT YEAR 2004 (TPD) 

Washington Wood Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ................................................................................. 2.06 71.87 2.10 2.60 4.16 74.47 

Area .................................................................................. 2.92 0.22 7.80 0.70 10.72 0.92 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 1.17 5.00 2.80 6.20 3.97 11.20 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1961 

TABLE 3.—WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO AND WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR

ATTAINMENT YEAR 2004 (TPD)—Continued 

Washington Wood Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Onroad ............................................................................. 3.40 4.85 4.00 5.70 7.40 10.55 

Total .......................................................................... 9.55 81.94 16.70 15.20 26.25 97.14 

TALBE 4.—WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO AND WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2004 VOC 

AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) 

Sector 

VOC NOX

2002 2004 Net change 

(2002–2004) 2002 2004 Net change (2002–2004) 

Point ......................................................... 3.88 4.16 +0.28 97.18 74.47 ¥22.71 

Area .......................................................... 10.57 10.72 +0.15 0.91 0.92 +0.01 

Nonroad ................................................... 4.05 3.97 ¥0.08 10.23 11.20 +0.97 

Onroad ..................................................... 9.10 7.40 ¥1.70 11.76 10.55 ¥1.21 

Total .................................................. 27.60 26.25 ¥1.35 120.08 97.14 ¥22.94 

Table 4 shows that the area reduced 

VOC emissions by 1.35 tpd, and NOX

emissions by 22.94 tpd, between 2002 

and 2004. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175a of the CAA (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate Washington County to 

attainment status, Ohio submitted SIP 

revisions to provide for the maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area 

through 2018. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following items: The 

attainment VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

the ten years of the maintenance period, 

a commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network, factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the NAAQS, 

and a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

Ohio developed a baseline emissions 

inventory for 2004, one of the years 

used to demonstrate monitored 

attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The 

attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 5, below. 

TABLE 5.—WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO AND WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR

ATTAINMENT YEAR 2004 (TPD) 

Washington Wood Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ................................................................................. 2.06 71.87 2.10 2.60 4.16 74.47 

Area .................................................................................. 2.92 0.22 7.80 0.70 10.72 0.92 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 1.17 5.00 2.80 6.20 3.97 11.20 

Onroad ............................................................................. 3.40 4.85 4.00 5.70 7.40 10.55 

Total .......................................................................... 9.55 81.94 16.70 15.20 26.25 97.14 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Ohio submitted revisions to the 8- 

hour ozone SIP to include 12-year 

maintenance plans for Washington 

County, in compliance with section 

175A of the CAA. Information was also 

provided regarding the West Virginia 

maintenance plan SIP revision. This 

demonstration shows maintenance of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

1962 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring 

that current and future emissions of 

VOC and NOX area remain at or below 

attainment year emission levels. A 

maintenance demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

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

v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 

(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–

25432 (May 12, 2003). 

Ohio is using projected inventories for 

the years 2009 and 2018. These 

emission estimates are presented in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6.—WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO AND WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA: COMPARISON OF 2004–2018 VOC AND

NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) 

Sector 

VOC NOX

2004 2009 2018 Net Change 

2004–2018 2004 2009 2018 Net Change 2004–2018 

Point ................................................................................. 4.16 3.68 4.40 +0.24 74.47 17.67 24.76 ¥49.71 

Area .................................................................................. 10.72 10.01 10.90 +0.18 0.92 0.94 1.05 +0.13 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 3.97 3.36 2.77 ¥1.20 11.20 8.57 7.39 ¥3.81 

Onroad ............................................................................. 7.40 5.59 3.57 ¥3.83 10.55 7.68 3.76 ¥6.79 

Total .......................................................................... 26.25 22.64 21.64 ¥4.61 97.14 34.86 36.96 ¥60.18 

The emission projections show that 

Ohio does not expect emissions in the 

area to exceed the level of the 2004 

attainment year inventory during the 

maintenance period. In the area, Ohio 

projects that VOC and NOX emissions 

will decrease by 4.61 tpd and 60.18 tpd, 

respectively. 

As part of its maintenance plan, the 

State elected to include a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ for the area. A ‘‘safety margin’’

is the difference between the attainment 

level of emissions (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from 

all sources) in the maintenance plan 

which continues to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

Ohio used 2004 as the attainment level 

of emissions for the area. In the 

maintenance plan, Ohio projected 

emission levels for 2018. The emissions 

from point, area, non-road, and mobile 

sources in 2004 equaled 26.25 tpd of 

VOC. Ohio projected VOC emissions for 

the year 2018 to be 21.64 tpd of VOC. 

The SIP submission demonstrates that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

standard. The safety margin for VOC is 

calculated to be the difference between 

these amounts or, in this case, 4.61 tpd 

of VOC for 2018. The safety margin, or 

a portion thereof, can be allocated to 

any of the source categories, as long as 

the total attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Ohio currently operates one ozone 

monitor in Washington County. Ohio 

has committed to continue operating 

and maintaining an approved ozone 

monitor network in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58. West Virginia has also 

made a similar commitment with 

respect to its monitor. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in the area depends, in part, on 

the State’s efforts toward tracking 

indicators of continued attainment 

during the maintenance period. The 

State’s plan for verifying continued 

attainment of the 8-hour standard in the 

area consists of plans to continue 

ambient ozone monitoring in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58 and to consider monitoring 

data that West Virginia will be 

collecting. In addition, Ohio will 

periodically review and revise the VOC 

and NOX emissions inventories for the 

area, as required by the Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 

51), to track levels of emissions in the 

future. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions of 

the CAA are designed to result in 

prompt correction or prevention of 

violations of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment of the NAAQS. Section 175A 

of the CAA requires that a maintenance 

plan include such contingency 

measures as EPA deems necessary to 

assure that the State will promptly 

correct a violation of the NAAQS that 

might occur after redesignation. The 

maintenance plan must identify the 

contingency measures to be considered 

for possible adoption, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the selected 

contingency measures, and a time limit 

for action by the State. The State should 

also identify specific indicators to be 

used to determine when the 

contingency measures need to be 

adopted and implemented. The 

maintenance plan must include a 

requirement that the State will 

implement all measures with respect to 

control of the pollutant(s) that were 

included in the SIP before the 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency 

plan to address possible future ozone air 

quality issues. The contingency plan has 

two levels of actions/responses 

depending on whether a violation of the 

8-hour ozone standard is only 

threatened (Warning Level Response) or 

has actually occurred or appears to be 

very imminent (Action Level Response). 

A Warning Level Response will be 

triggered whenever an annual (1-year) 

fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone 

concentration of 88 ppb occurs within 

the ozone maintenance area 

(Parkersburg-Marietta area). A Warning 

Level Response will consist of a study 

to determine whether the ozone value 

indicates a trend toward higher ozone 

concentrations or whether emissions 

appear to be increasing. The study will 

evaluate whether the trend, if any, is 

likely to continue and, if so, the control 

measures necessary to reverse the trend, 

taking into consideration ease and 

timing for implementation, as well as 

economic and social consideration. 

Implementation of necessary controls in 

response to a Warning Level Response 

triggering will take place as 

expeditiously as possible, but in no 

event later than 12 months from the 

conclusion of the most recent ozone 

season. 

An Action Level Response will be 

triggered whenever a two-year average 

annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour 

ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater 

occurs within the maintenance area 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1963 

(Parkersburg-Marietta area). A violation 

of the 8-hour ozone standard (three-year 

average fourth-high value of 85 ppb or 

greater) will also prompt an Action 

Level Response. In the event that an 

Action Level Response is triggered and 

is not due to an exceptional event, 

malfunction, or noncompliance with a 

source permit condition or rule 

requirement, Ohio will determine the 

additional emission control measures 

needed to assure future attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS. Emission control 

measures that can be implemented in a 

short time will be selected in order to 

be in place within 18 months from the 

close of the ozone season that prompted 

the Action Level Response. Any new 

emission control measure that is 

selected for implementation will be 

given a public review. If a new emission 

control measure is already promulgated 

and scheduled to be implemented at the 

Federal or State level and that emission 

control measure is determined to be 

sufficient to address the increase in 

peak ozone concentrations, additional 

local measures may be unnecessary. 

Ohio will submit to the EPA an analysis 

to assess whether the proposed emission 

control measures are adequate to reverse 

the increase in peak ozone 

concentrations and to maintain the 8- 

hour ozone standard in the area. The 

selection of emission control measures 

will be based on cost-effectiveness, 

emission reduction potential, economic 

and social considerations, or other 

factors that Ohio deems to be 

appropriate. Selected emission control 

measures will be subject to public 

review and the State will seek public 

input prior to selecting new emission 

control measures. 

The State’s ozone redesignation 

request lists the following possible 

emission control measures as 

contingency measures in the ozone 

maintenance portion of the State’s 

submittal: 

i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline 

requirements; 

ii. Tighten RACT on existing source 

covered by USEPA Control Techniques 

Guidelines issued in response to the 

1990 Clean Air Act; 

iii. Apply RACT to smaller existing 

sources; 

iv. One or more transportation control 

measures sufficient to achieve at least 

half a percent reduction in actual area 

wide VOC emissions. Transportation 

measures will be selected from the 

following, based upon the factors listed 

above after consultation with affected 

local governments; 

a. Trip reduction programs, including, 

but not limited to, employer-based 

transportation management plans, area 

wide rideshare programs, work schedule 

changes, and telecommuting; 

b. Traffic flow and transit 

improvements; and 

c. Other new or innovative 

transportation measures not yet in 

widespread use that affects state and 

local governments deemed appropriate. 

v. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations. 

vi. Controls on consumer products 

consistent with those adopted elsewhere 

in the United States. 

vii. Require VOC and NOX emissions 

offsets for new and modified major 

sources. 

viii. Require VOC or NOX emission 

offsets for new or modified minor 

sources. 

ix. Increase the ratio of emission 

offsets required for new sources. 

x. Require VOC or NOX controls on 

new minor sources (less than 100 tons). 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the 

EPA updated ozone maintenance plans 

eight years after redesignation to cover 

an additional 10-year period beyond the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. 

Ohio has committed to retain the 

control measures for VOC and NOX

emissions that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the area to 

attainment, as required by section 

175(A) of the CAA. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision has met the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

B. Adequacy of Ohio’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) 

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and 

What Are the MVEBs for the Area? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for ozone nonattainment areas and 

for areas seeking redesignation to 

attainment of the ozone standard. These 

emission control strategy SIP revisions 

(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP 

and attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions) and ozone maintenance plans 

create MVEBs based on onroad mobile 

source emissions for criteria pollutants 

and/or their precursors to address 

pollution from cars and trucks. The 

MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use that, 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment or maintenance. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB if needed. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the SIP that addresses 

emissions from cars and trucks. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new transportation projects that 

would expand the capacity of roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted 

MVEBs to be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, the MVEBs are 

used by state and federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and (3) EPA’s finding 

of adequacy. The process of determining 

the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs 

was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 

1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance 

on Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ This 

guidance was codified in the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

1964 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 

Revisions for Existing Areas; 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’

published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 

40004). EPA follows this guidance and 

rulemaking in making its adequacy 

determinations. 

Conformity in the ParkersburgMarietta area is managed by establishing 

and adhering to separate budgets for 

Washington County, Ohio and Wood 

County, West Virginia. This rulemaking 

is addressing a budget that Ohio 

requested for its portion of the area. A 

separate rulemaking will address the 

adequacy of West Virginia’s requested 

budget for the West Virginia portion of 

the area. The Washington County 

maintenance plan contains new VOC 

and NOX MVEBs for the year 2018. The 

availability of the SIP submissions with 

these 2018 MVEBs was announced for 

public comment on EPA’s Adequacy 

Web page on November 20, 2006, at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 2018 MVEBs closed on 

December 20, 2006. No requests for 

these submittals or adverse comments 

on these submittals were received 

during the adequacy comment period. 

In a letter dated, December 28 2006, 

EPA informed Ohio that we had found 

the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use 

in transportation conformity analyses. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for use 

in determining transportation 

conformity in Washington County 

because the EPA has determined that 

the area can maintain attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant 

maintenance period with mobile source 

emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. 

Ohio has determined the 2009 MVEBs 

for Washington County to be 2.59 tpd 

VOC and 3.58 tpd of NOX and the 2018 

MVEBs for Washington County to be 

1.67 tpd for VOC and 1.76 tpd for NOX. 

Ohio decided to include 15 percent 

safety margins in the MVEBs to provide 

for mobile source growth not 

anticipated in the projected 2018 

emissions. 

2. What Is a Safety Margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

noted in Table 6, the ParkersburgMarietta area VOC and NOX emissions 

are projected to have safety margins of 

4.61 tpd for VOC and 60.18 tpd for NOX

in 2018 (the difference between the 

attainment year, 2004, emissions and 

the projected 2018 emissions for all 

sources in the Parkersburg-Marietta 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area 

(Washington County, Ohio and Wood 

County, West Virginia). Even if 

emissions reach the full level of the 

safety margin, the counties would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make 

determinations that the ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and EPA is proposing to 

approve Ohio’s maintenance plan for 

assuring that the area will continue to 

attain this standard. EPA is also 

proposing to find that Washington 

County meets the redesignation criteria 

set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA, and on this basis, EPA is 

proposing to approve the redesignation 

of Washington County from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

Finally, EPA is finding adequate and 

proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and 

NOX MVEBs submitted by Ohio in 

conjunction with the redesignation 

request. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed 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 Clean 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 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.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). Redesignation is an 

action that merely affects the status of 

a geographical area, does not impose 

any new requirements on sources, or 

allows a 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. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule also 

does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

because redesignation is an action that 

affects the status of a geographical area 

and does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this rule, EPA met with 

interested tribes in Michigan to discuss 

the redesignation process and the 

impact of a change in designation status 

of these areas on the tribes. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1965 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ 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). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise 

impracticable. In reviewing program 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent 

a prior existing requirement for the state 

to use voluntary consensus standards, 

EPA has no authority to disapprove a 

program submission for failure to use 

such standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Act. Redesignation is 

an action that affects the status of a 

geographical area but 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. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air Pollution Control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: January 4, 2007. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–520 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 262 

[Docket No. FRA 2005–23774, Notice 

No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AB74 

Implementation of Program for Capital 

Grants for Rail Line Relocation and 

Improvement Projects 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: Section 9002 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59, 

August 10, 2005) amends chapter 201 of 

Title 49 of the United States Code by 

adding section 20154. Section 20154 

authorizes—but does not appropriate—

$350,000,000 per year for each of the 

fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2009 for 

the purpose of funding a grant program 

to provide financial assistance for local 

rail line relocation and improvement 

projects. Section 20154 directs the 

Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 

to issue regulations implementing this 

grant program, and the Secretary has 

delegated this responsibility to FRA. 

This NPRM proposes a regulation 

intended to carry out that statutory 

mandate. As of the publication of this 

NPRM, Congress had not appropriated 

any funding for the program for FY 2006 

or FY 2007. 

DATES: (1) Written Comments: Written 

comments must be received on or before 

March 5, 2007. Comments received after 

that date will be considered to the 

extent possible without incurring 

additional expense or delay. 

(2) Public Hearing: Requests for a 

public hearing must be in writing and 

must be submitted to the Department of 

Transportation Docket Management 

System at the address below on or 

before March 5, 2007. If a public hearing 

is requested and scheduled, FRA will 

announce the date, location, and 

additional details concerning the 

hearing by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 

FRA 2005–23774 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information provided. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 

pm, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

A. Winkle, Transportation Industry 

Analyst, Office of Railroad 

Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Mail Stop 13, Washington, DC 

20590 (John.Winkle@fra.dot.gov or 202–

493–6320); or Elizabeth A. Sorrells, 

Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 

20590 (Betty.Sorrells@fra.dot.gov or 

202–493–6057). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Much of the economic growth of the 

United States can be linked directly to 

the expansion of rail service. As the 

nation moved westward, railroads 

expanded to provide transportation 

services to growing communities. No 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS