[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1956-1965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-520]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b8bababbb0acfbbfbabdbb95b0a5b4fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf6f4f4f5fee2b5f1f4f3f5dbfeebfab5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: (312) 886-5824.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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 
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. 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e38e8291929682918797cd9097869586a3869382cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="402d21323135213224346e3334253625002530216e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 1958]]

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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Parkersburg-
Marietta 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 Parkersburg-
Marietta 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 fourth-highest 
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 quality-assured 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 Parkersburg-Marietta. 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2002  4th   2003  4th   2004  4th   2005  4th   2002-2004   2003-2005
                     Area                                    Monitor                 high        high        high        high       average     average
                                                                                     (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna...................  Washington......................        .095        .080        .077        .088        .084        .081
                                                39-167-0004.....................
                                                Wood (WV).......................        .095        .083        .069        .084        .082        .078
                                                54-107-1002.....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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

[[Page 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 (NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
federally-supported 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

[[Page 1960]]

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 Parkersburg-Marietta area is due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of 
the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted 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:
    NO<INF>X</INF> rules. In compliance with EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> SIP 
call, Ohio developed rules to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and 
major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2004. However, statewide NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions actually had begun to decline before 2004, as sources phased 
in emission controls needed to comply with the State's NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission control regulations. From 2004 on, NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Parkersburg-
Marietta area and elsewhere in Ohio and West Virginia can be expected 
to remain well below 2002 levels. Ohio expects that NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions will further decline as the State meets the requirements of 
EPA's Phase II NO<INF>X</INF> SIP call (69 FR 21604 (April 21, 2004)).
    Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 1961]]

 
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2002            2004         (2002-2004)        2002            2004         (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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 1962]]

the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions 
of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC                                     NOX
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                                           Net Change                              Net Change
                                    2004     2009     2018    2004-2018     2004     2009     2018    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions offsets for new and 
modified major sources.
    viii. Require VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emission offsets for new or 
modified minor sources.
    ix. Increase the ratio of emission offsets required for new 
sources.
    x. Require VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 1964]]

Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> and the 2018 MVEBs for Washington County to be 1.67 tpd 
for VOC and 1.76 tpd for NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 
Parkersburg-Marietta area VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are 
projected to have safety margins of 4.61 tpd for VOC and 60.18 tpd for 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Parkersburg-
Marietta 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>