18602 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket 

No. FAA–2007–27708; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–027–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by May 14, 

2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model DA 42 

airplanes; serial numbers 42.015, 42.028, 

42.036, 42.044, 42.055, 42.059, 42.062, 

42.067, 42.069, 42.075 through 42.100, 

42.105, 42.106, 42.108, 42.114, 42.115, 

42.117 through 42.122, and 42.124; 

certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 28: Fuel. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

From airplanes that have installed the 

Auxiliary Fuel Tank Optional Design Change 

(OA ̈ M) No. 42–056, three in-service failures 

of the auxiliary fuel tank venting system have 

been reported. These failures have led to the 

inability to supply the complete auxiliary 

fuel quantity to the main tanks and the 

collapse of the auxiliary tank. It is suspected 

that the vent lines were obstructed either by 

ice accretion under certain climatic 

conditions or by blockage of the vent valves 

because of fuel contaminants. 

Undetected malfunctions of the venting 

system and damaged auxiliary fuel tanks may 

lead to a lower usable fuel quantity, 

subsequent fuel starvation and/or fuel 

spillage into the nacelle. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions within the next 30 days after the 

effective date of this AD: 

(1) Inspect and modify the auxiliary fuel 

tank system following Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. MSB–42–032/1, dated January 24, 2007. 

(2) Incorporate Doc. No. 7.02.01, Section 

05–20–00, page 68a of Diamond Aircraft DA 

42 AMM Temporary Revision AMM–TR–

OA ̈ M–42–056f, dated January 23, 2007, into 

the Airworthiness Limitations documents of 

the FAA-approved maintenance program 

(e.g., maintenance manual). The owner/ 

operator holding at least a private pilot 

certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

43.7) may insert the information specified in 

paragraph (f)(2) of this AD into the 

maintenance program (e.g., maintenance 

manual). Make an entry into the aircraft 

records showing compliance with this 

portion of the AD in accordance with section 

43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR 43.9). 

Note 1: Doc. No. 7.02.01, Section 05–20–

00, page 68a of Diamond Aircraft DA 42 

AMM Temporary Revision AMM–TR–OA ̈ M–

42–056f, dated January 23, 2007, specifies 

additional repetitive inspections for the 

auxiliary tank vent system. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Staff, 

FAA, ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4145; fax: (816) 

329–4090, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2007–0047, 

dated February 23, 2007; Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. MSB–42–032/1, dated January 24, 2007; 

and Diamond Aircraft DA 42 AMM 

Temporary Revision AMM–TR–OA ̈ M–42–

056f, dated January 23, 2007 for related 

information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 

6, 2007. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7049 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0919; FRL–8298–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Redesignation of the Hampton Roads 

8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment and Approval of the 

Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002 

Base-Year Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a redesignation request and State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. The Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is 

requesting that the Hampton Roads 

ozone nonattainment area (‘‘Hampton 

Roads Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) be redesignated 

as attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). The Area is comprised of the 

Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, 

Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, 

Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, 

and Williamsburg, and the Counties of 

Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, 

and York, Virginia. EPA is proposing to 

approve the ozone redesignation request 

for the Hampton Roads Area. In 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request, the Commonwealth submitted a 

SIP revision consisting of a maintenance 

plan for the Hampton Roads Area that 

provides for continued attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 

years after redesignation. EPA is 

proposing to make a determination that 

the Hampton Roads Area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

2003–2005. EPA’s proposed approval of 

the 8-hour ozone redesignation request 

is based on its determination that the 

Hampton Roads Area has met the 

criteria for redesignation to attainment 

specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 

addition, the Commonwealth of Virginia 

has also submitted a 2002 base-year 

inventory for the Hampton Roads Area, 

and EPA is proposing to approve that 

inventory for the Hampton Roads Area 

as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing 

information on the status of its 

adequacy determination for the motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that 

are identified in the maintenance plan 

for the Hampton Roads Area for 

purposes of transportation conformity, 

and is also proposing to approve those 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18603 

MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of 

the redesignation request and of the 

maintenance plan and 2002 base-year 

inventory SIP revisions in accordance 

with the requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2006–0919 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0919, 

Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006–

0919. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

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 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to 

Take? 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Proposed Actions? 

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation 

to Attainment? 

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Commonwealth’s Request? 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in the 

Maintenance Plan for the Hampton 

Roads Area Adequate and Approvable? 

VIII. Proposed Actions 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is 

Proposing to Take? 

On October 16, 2006 the VADEQ 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Hampton Roads Area 

from nonattainment to attainment of the 

8-hour NAAQS for ozone. On October 

18, 2006 Virginia submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Hampton 

Roads Area as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment in the Area over 

the next 11 years. VADEQ also 

submitted a 2002 base-year inventory 

for the Hampton Roads Area as a SIP 

revision on October 12, 2006 and 

supplements to the base-year inventory 

were submitted on November 20, 2006 

and February 13, 2007. The Hampton 

Roads Area is comprised of the Cities of 

Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, 

Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, 

Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and 

the Counties of Gloucester, Isle of 

Wight, James City, and York, Virginia. It 

is currently designated a marginal 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Hampton Roads Area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met 

the requirements for redesignation 

pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to 

approve the redesignation request to 

change the designation of the Hampton 

Roads Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the Hampton Roads 

maintenance plan as a SIP revision for 

the Area (such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status). The maintenance 

plan is designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Hampton Roads Area 

for the next 11 years. Concurrently, the 

Commonwealth is requesting that this 8- 

hour maintenance plan supersede the 

previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 2002 

base-year inventory for the Hampton 

Roads Area as a SIP revision. 

Additionally, EPA is announcing its 

action on the adequacy process for the 

MVEBs identified in the Hampton 

Roads maintenance plan, and proposing 

to approve the MVEBs identified for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the Hampton 

Roads Area for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Proposed Actions? 

A. General 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

NOX and VOC react in the presence of 

sunlight to form ground-level ozone. 

The air pollutants NOX and VOC are 

referred to as precursors of ozone. The 

CAA establishes a process for air quality 

management through the attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). This new 

standard is more stringent than the 

previous 1-hour standard. EPA 

designated, as nonattainment, any area 

violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the air quality data for the 

three years of 2001–2003. These were 

the most recent three years of data at the 

time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The 

Hampton Roads Area was designated a 

marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area in a Federal Register notice signed 

on April 15, 2004 and published on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on 

its exceedance of the 8-hour healthbased standard for ozone during the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18604 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS the Hampton 

Roads Area consisted of the Cities of Chesapeake, 

Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, 

Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and 

Williamsburg, and the Counties of James City and 

York. See November 6, 1991 (58 FR 56694). 

years 2001–2003. On April 30, 2004, 

EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 

23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Hampton Roads Area (as 

well as most other areas of the country) 

effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 

50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 

and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). 

However, on December 22, 2006, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule for the 8-hour 

Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 

2004). South Coast Air Quality 

Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 

(D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter ‘‘South 

Coast.’’). The Court held that certain 

provisions of EPA’s Phase I Rule were 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected 

EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8- 

hour standard in nonattainment areas 

under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of 

Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also 

held that EPA improperly failed to 

retain four measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) Section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the 

certain conformity requirements for 

certain types of federal. The Court 

upheld EPA’s authority to revoke the 1- 

hour standard provided there were 

adequate anti-backsliding provisions. 

Elsewhere in this document, mainly in 

section VI. B. ‘‘The Hampton Roads 

Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA,’’ EPA discusses its rationale 

why the decision in South Coast is not 

an impediment to redesignating the 

Hampton Roads Area to attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The CAA, title I, part D, contains two 

sets of provisions—subpart 1 and 

subpart 2—that address planning and 

control requirements for nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as 

‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains 

general, less prescriptive requirements 

for nonattainment areas for any 

pollutant—including ozone—governed 

by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA 

refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment) 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. In 2004, the 

Hampton Roads Area was classified a 

marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area based on air quality monitoring 

data from 2001–2003. Therefore, the 

Hampton Roads Area is subject to the 

requirements of subpart 2 of part D. 

Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 3- 

year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). See 69 FR 

23857 (April 30, 2004) for further 

information. Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet data completeness 

requirements. The data completeness 

requirements are met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR 

part 50. The ozone monitoring data 

indicates that the Hampton Roads Area 

has a design value of 0.078 ppm for the 

3-year period of 2003–2005, using 

complete, quality-assured data. 

Therefore, the ambient ozone data for 

the Hampton Roads Area indicates no 

violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. The Hampton Roads Area 

Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

Hampton Roads Area consists of the 

Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, 

Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, 

Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, 

and Williamsburg, and the Counties of 

James City, and York, Virginia. Under 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Hampton 

Roads Area was expanded to also 

include Gloucester County and Isle of 

Wight County. Prior to the Area’s 

designation as an 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the Hampton Roads 

Area was a maintenance area for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS.1 See June 26, 1997 

(62 FR 34408). 

On October 16, 2006 the VADEQ 

requested that the Hampton Roads Area 

be redesignated to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The redesignation 

request included three years of 

complete, quality-assured data for the 

period of 2003–2005, indicating that the 

8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been 

achieved in the Hampton Roads Area. 

The data satisfies the CAA requirements 

that the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration (commonly 

referred to as the area’s design value), 

must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm 

(i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is 

considered). Under the CAA, a 

nonattainment area may be redesignated 

if sufficient complete, quality-assured 

data is available to determine that the 

area has attained the standard and the 

area meets the other CAA redesignation 

requirements set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

III. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation to Attainment? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for 

redesignation, providing that: 

(1) EPA determines that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS; 

(2) EPA has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); 

(3) EPA 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) EPA 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 

redesignations in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

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 the following documents: 

• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Design Value Calculations,’’

Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June, 

18, 1990; 

• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

• ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18605 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992; 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

• ‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual 

Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November 

30, 1993; 

• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? 

On October 16, 2006, the VADEQ 

requested redesignation of the Hampton 

Roads Area to attainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. On October 18, 2006, 

VADEQ submitted a maintenance plan 

for the Hampton Roads Area as a SIP 

revision, to ensure continued attainment 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the 

next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, 

Virginia is requesting that 8-hour 

maintenance plan submittal supersede 

the 1-hour maintenance plan 

requirements already in place and that 

the 8-hour maintenance plan meet the 

requirement of CAA section 175A(b) 

with respect to the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan update. EPA is 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan to fulfill the requirement of section 

175A(b) for submission of a 

maintenance plan update eight years 

after the area was redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA believes that such an update must 

ensure that the maintenance plan in the 

SIP provides maintenance of the 

NAAQS for a period of 20 years after the 

area is initially redesignated to 

attainment. EPA can propose approval 

because the maintenance plan, which 

demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through 2018, also 

demonstrates maintenance of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS through 2018. 

VADEQ also submitted a 2002 baseyear inventory with its maintenance 

plan as a SIP revision on October 12, 

2006 and supplemental to that submittal 

on November 20, 2006 and February 13, 

2007, which is an applicable 

requirement for the Hampton Roads 

Area for purposes of redesignation. EPA 

has determined that the Hampton Roads 

Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard and has met the requirements 

for redesignation set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

the Hampton Roads Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR 

part 81. It would also incorporate into 

the Virginia SIP a 2002 base-year 

inventory and a maintenance plan 

ensuring continued attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the Hampton 

Roads Area for the next 11 years, until 

2018. The maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS 

(should they occur), and identifies the 

NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation 

conformity purposes for the years 2011 

and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed 

in the following table: 

TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year VOC NOX

2011 .................. 37.846 50.387 

2018 .................. 27.574 31.890 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Commonwealth’s Request? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Hampton Roads Area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone standard and that all 

other redesignation criteria have been 

met. The following is a description of 

how the VADEQ’s October 16, 2006 

(redesignation request), October 18, 

2006 (maintenance plan and MVEBs), 

October 12, 2006 (base-year emissions 

inventory), November 20, 2006 

(supplement to base-year inventory), 

and February 13, 2007 (second 

supplement to base-year inventory) 

submittals satisfy the requirements of 

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

A. The Hampton Roads Area Has 

Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Hampton Roads 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 Appendix I of 

Part 50, based on three complete, 

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To 

attain this standard, the 3-year average 

of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations 

measured at each monitor, within the 

area, over each year must not exceed the 

ozone standard of 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 Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

There are three ozone monitors in the 

Hampton Roads Area. As part of its 

redesignation request, Virginia 

referenced ozone monitoring data for 

the years 2003–2005 for the Hampton 

Roads Area. This data has been quality 

assured and is recorded in the AQS. The 

fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, along with the threeyear averages are summarized in Table 

2. The Hampton and Suffolk—TCC 

monitoring sites had the highest 3-year 

average of the fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average and are 

therefore used to make air quality 

determinations. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18606 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2.—HAMPTON ROADS AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES, HAMPTON ROADS MONITORS, PARTS

PER MILLION (PPM) 

Monitor AQS ID No. 2003 2004 2005 3-year 

average 

Hampton ............................................................................... 516500004 0.083 0.074 0.078 0.078 

Suffolk—TCC ....................................................................... 518000004 0.083 0.074 0.077 0.078 

Suffolk—Holland .................................................................. 518000005 0.079 0.075 0.078 0.077 

The average for the 3-year period 2003–2005 is 0.078 ppm. 

The air quality data for 2003–2005 

show that the Hampton Roads Area has 

attained the standard with a design 

value of 0.078 ppm. The data collected 

at the Hampton Roads Area monitors 

satisfy the CAA requirement that the 3- 

year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm. The VADEQ’s 

request for redesignation for the 

Hampton Roads Area indicates that the 

data is complete and was quality 

assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58. The VADEQ uses the AQS as the 

permanent database to maintain its data 

and quality assures the data transfers 

and content for accuracy. In addition, as 

discussed below with respect to the 

maintenance plan, VADEQ has 

committed to continue monitoring in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In 

summary, EPA has determined that the 

data submitted by Virginia indicates 

that the Hampton Roads Area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

B. The Hampton Roads Area Has Met 

All Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and 

Has a Fully Approved SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has determined that the 

Hampton Roads Area has met all SIP 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

this redesignation under section 110 of 

the CAA (General SIP Requirements) 

and that it meets all applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has 

determined that the SIP is fully 

approved with respect to all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

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

proposed determinations, EPA 

ascertained which requirements are 

applicable to the Hampton Roads Area 

and determined that the applicable 

portions of the SIP meeting these 

requirements are fully approved under 

section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that 

SIPs must be fully approved only with 

respect to applicable requirements. The 

September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum (‘‘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) 

with respect to the timing of applicable 

requirements. Under this interpretation, 

to qualify for redesignation, States 

requesting redesignation to attainment 

must meet only the relevant CAA 

requirements that came due prior to the 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See also Michael Shapiro 

memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 

60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 

Applicable requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the area’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the 

CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR at 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

St. Louis). 

This section also sets forth EPA’s 

views on the potential effect of the 

Court’s ruling in South Coast on this 

redesignation action. For the reasons set 

forth below, EPA does not believe that 

the Court’s ruling alters any 

requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation, and does not prevent 

EPA from finalizing this redesignation. 

EPA believes that the Court’s decision, 

as it currently stands or as it may be 

modified based upon any petition for 

rehearing that has been filed, imposes 

no impediment to moving forward with 

redesignation of this area to attainment, 

because in either circumstance 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

Act and longstanding policies regarding 

redesignation requests. 

1. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to 

the following: 

• Submittal of a SIP that has been 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

public notice and hearing; 

• Provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

• Implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of part D requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain 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 in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX

SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) 

and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

May 12, 2005 (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 in that State. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classifications are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the State. 

Thus, we do not believe that these 

requirements are applicable 

requirements for purposes of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18607 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Hampton Roads Area 

will still be subject to these 

requirements after it is redesignated. 

The section 110 and part D 

requirements, which are linked with a 

particular area’s designation and 

classification, are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. This policy is consistent with 

EPA’s existing policy on applicability of 

conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and 

oxygenated fuels requirement. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, 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 redesignation (65 FR at 

37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 

53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, 

with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, 

EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, 

that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an’’

‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of 

section 110(1) because the NOX rules 

apply regardless of an area’s attainment 

or nonattainment status for the 8-hour 

(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951, 

23983 (April 30, 2004). 

EPA believes that section 110 

elements not linked to the Area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. As 

explained later in this notice, two part 

D requirements applicable for purposes 

of redesignation under the 8-hour 

standard became due prior to the 

submission of the redesignation request. 

Because the Virginia SIP satisfies all 

of the applicable general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2), EPA concludes that Virginia 

has satisfied the criterion of section 

107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the 

Act. 

2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements 

Under the 8-Hour Standard 

The Hampton Roads Area was 

classified a Subpart 2, marginal 

nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Sections 172–176 of the CAA, 

found in subpart 1 of part D, set 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. 

The Hampton Roads Area is classified 

as a Subpart 2, marginal nonattainment 

area. We do not believe that any part of 

the Court’s opinion would require that 

this subpart 2 classification be changed 

upon remand to EPA. However, even 

assuming for present purposes that the 

Hampton Roads Area would become 

subject to a different classification 

under a classification scheme created in 

a future rule in response to the court’s 

decision, that would not prevent EPA 

from finalizing a redesignation for this 

area. For the reasons set forth below, we 

believe that any additional requirements 

that might apply based on that different 

classification would not be applicable 

for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

redesignation requests in accordance 

with only the requirements due at the 

time the request was submitted; and (2) 

consideration of the inequity of 

applying retroactively any requirements 

that might be applied in the future. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the area was 

classified under Subpart 2 and was 

required to meet the Subpart 2 

requirements. Under EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to 

qualify for redesignation, states 

requesting redesignation to attainment 

must meet only the relevant SIP 

requirements that came due prior to the 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum (‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’, Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division) See also 

Michael Shapiro Memorandum, 

September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); 

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

Cir. 2004), which upheld this 

interpretation. See, e.g, also 68 FR 

25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis). At the time 

the redesignation request was 

submitted, the Hampton Roads Area 

was classified as a marginal area under 

Subpart 2 and thus only Subpart 2 

marginal area requirements are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted, but 

which might later become applicable. 

The D.C. Circuit has recognized the 

inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. 

See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 

(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. 

Circuit upheld a District Court’s ruling 

refusing to make retroactive an EPA 

determination of nonattainment that 

was past the statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The Court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly, here it would be unfair to 

penalize the area by applying to it for 

purposes of redesignation any 

additional requirements that were not in 

effect at the time it submitted its 

redesignation request, but that might 

apply in the future. 

Two Subpart 2 requirements became 

due for the Hampton Roads Area under 

section 182(a) of the CAA prior to 

redesignation—a 2002 base-year 

inventory, and the emissions statement 

requirement pursuant to section 

182(a)(3)(B). Virginia has in its 

approved SIP an approved emissions 

statement rule for the 1-hour standard 

covering those portions of the 8-hour 

nonattainment area that were part of the 

previous 1-hour attainment area, which 

satisfies the emissions statement 

requirement for the 8-hour standard. See 

65 FR 21315 (April 21, 2000). Virginia 

recently submitted a rulemaking to 

expand the VOC and NOX Hampton 

Roads Emissions Control Area to 

include Gloucester County and Isle of 

Wight County. EPA approved this 

rulemaking on March 2, 2007 (72 FR 

9441) and will become effective on 

April 2, 2007. Today, EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2002 base-year inventory 

for the Hampton Roads Area, which was 

submitted on October 12, 2006, and 

supplemented on November 20, 2006 

and February 13, 2007, concurrently 

with its maintenance plan, into the 

Virginia SIP. A detailed evaluation of 

Virginia’s 2002 base-year inventory for 

the Hampton Roads Area can be found 

in a Technical Support Document (TSD) 

prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. 

EPA has determined that the emission 

inventory and emissions statement 

requirements for the Hampton Roads 

Area have been satisfied. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the general conformity and 

NSR requirements of part D as not 

requiring approval prior to 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently 

requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to 

reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for 

determining transportation conformity. 

Transportation conformity SIPs are different from 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are 

established in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

redesignation. With respect to section 

176, Conformity Requirements, section 

176(c) of the CAA requires states to 

establish criteria and procedures to 

ensure that Federally-supported or 

funded projects conform to the air 

quality planning goals in the applicable 

SIP. The requirement to determine 

conformity applies to transportation 

plans, programs, and projects 

developed, funded or approved under 

Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit 

Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as 

well as to all other Federally supported 

or funded projects (‘‘general 

conformity’’). State conformity revisions 

must be consistent with Federal 

conformity regulations relating to 

consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability that the CAA required the 

EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) since state 

conformity rules are still required after 

redesignation and federal conformity 

rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 

3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding 

this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). 

EPA has also determined that areas 

being redesignated need not comply 

with the requirement that a NSR 

program be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without part D NSR in effect, 

because PSD requirements will apply 

after redesignation. The rationale for 

this position is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ Virginia has demonstrated 

that the Area will be able to maintain 

the standard without Part D NSR in 

effect in the Hampton Roads Area, and 

therefore, Virginia need not have a fully 

approved Part D NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

Virginia’s SIP-approved PSD program 

will become effective in Hampton Roads 

upon redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR at 12467–68); Cleveland-AkronLorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469–

70); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

53669 October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834–37, 

June 21, 1996). 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1-hour standard 

requirements, the Gloucester County 

and Isle of Wight County portions of the 

Hampton Roads Area were designated 

Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1- 

hour standard and were never 

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour 

standard. Therefore, there are no 

outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area 

requirements these portions of the 

Hampton Roads Area would be required 

to meet. Thus, we find that the Court’s 

ruling does not result in any additional 

1-hour requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

The portion of the Hampton Roads 

Area consisting of the Cities of 

Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, 

Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, 

Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and 

the Counties of James City, and York, 

Virginia was an Attainment area subject 

to a Clean Air Act section 175A 

maintenance plan under the 1-hour 

standard. The Court’s ruling does not 

impact redesignation requests for these 

types of areas. 

First, there are no conformity 

requirements that are relevant for 

redesignation requests for any standard, 

including the requirement to submit a 

transportation conformity SIP.2 Under 

longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes 

that it is reasonable to interpret the 

conformity SIP requirement as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request under section 

107(d) because state conformity rules 

are still required after redesignation and 

federal conformity rules apply where 

state rules have not been approved. 40 

CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 

(Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL 

redesignation). 

Second, with respect to the three 

other anti-backsliding provisions for the 

1-hour standard that the Court found 

were not properly retained, this portion 

of the Hampton Roads Area is an 

attainment area subject to a 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the NSR, contingency 

measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) 

or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision 

requirements no longer apply to an area 

that has been redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus the decision in South Coast 

should not alter requirements that 

would preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of this area. 

4. Hampton Roads Has a Fully 

Approved SIP for Purposes of 

Redesignation 

EPA has fully approved the Virginia 

SIP for the purposes of this 

redesignation. EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, 

p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–

90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 

3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action. 

See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations therein. The Hampton Roads 

Area was a 1-hour ozone maintenance 

area at the time of its designation as a 

marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area on April 30, 2004. As stated 

previously, two subpart 2 part D 

requirements became due for the 

Hampton Roads Area prior to 

redesignation—a 2002 base-year 

inventory, and the emissions statement 

requirement. VADEQ has submitted 

concurrently with its maintenance plan, 

a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP 

revision. In this action, EPA is 

proposing approval of this inventory. 

The emissions statement requirement 

for the entire Hampton Roads Area was 

recently fulfilled on March 2, 2007 (72 

FR 9441). Because there are no 

outstanding SIP submission 

requirements applicable for the 

purposes of the redesignation of the 

Hampton Roads Area, the applicable 

implementation plan satisfies all 

pertinent SIP requirements. 

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the 

Hampton Roads Area is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

EPA believes that the Commonwealth 

has demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the Hampton 

Roads Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions 

attributable to these rules are shown in 

Table 3. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18609 

TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2005 IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year Point Area * Nonroad Mobile Total 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

2002 ..................................................................................... 18.758 87.402 46.543 67.293 219.996 

2005 ..................................................................................... 20.091 91.980 42.320 50.591 204.982 

Diff (02–05) .......................................................................... +1.333 +4.578 ¥4.223 ¥16.702 ¥15.014 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

2002 ..................................................................................... 91.403 57.961 31.002 93.844 274.210 

2005 ..................................................................................... 62.536 55.207 30.208 78.169 226.120 

Diff (02–05) .......................................................................... ¥28.867 ¥2.754 ¥0.794 ¥15.675 ¥48.090 

* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling. 

Between 2002 and 2005, VOC 

emissions decreased by 15.014 tpd and 

NOX emissions decreased by 48.090 tpd 

because of permanent and enforceable 

measures implemented by the 

Commonwealth and the federal 

government. These reductions, and 

anticipated future reductions, are due to 

the following permanent and 

enforceable measures. 

Programs Currently in Effect 

(a) Tier 1; 

(b) Tier 2; 

(c) National Low Emission Vehicle 

(NLEV) Program; and 

(d) NOX SIP Call. 

EPA believes that permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions are the 

cause of the long-term improvement in 

ozone levels and are the cause of the 

Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

D. The Hampton Roads Area Has a 

Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan 

Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Hampton Roads Area to 

attainment status, Virginia submitted a 

SIP revision to provide for maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area 

for at least 11 years after redesignation. 

The Commonwealth is requesting that 

EPA approve this SIP revision as 

meeting the requirement of CAA 175A 

and 175A(b). Section 175A(a) was met 

with the October 18, 2006 submission of 

the maintenance plan, because it states 

that Hampton Roads will maintain the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 

years after redesignation. Section 

175A(b) was met with the October 18, 

2006 submission of the maintenance 

plan, because it will replace the 1-hour 

maintenance plan update requirement 

that was due 8 years after redesingation 

of Hampton Roads to attainment. Once 

approved, the maintenance plan for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that 

the SIP for Hampton Roads meets the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the applicable 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

What Is Required in a Maintenance 

Plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A(a), the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after approval of a redesignation of 

an area to attainment. Section 175A(b) 

states that eight years after redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment, the 

State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan demonstrating that 

attainment will continue to be 

maintained for the next 10-year period 

following the initial 10-year period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain such contingency measures, 

with a schedule for implementation, as 

EPA deems necessary to assure prompt 

correction of any future 8-hour ozone 

violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets 

forth the elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. The 

Calcagni memorandum dated September 

4, 1992, provides additional guidance 

on the content of a maintenance plan. 

An ozone maintenance plan should 

address the following provisions: 

(a) An attainment emissions 

inventory; 

(b) A maintenance demonstration; 

(c) A monitoring network; 

(d) Verification of continued 

attainment; and 

(e) A contingency plan. 

Analysis of the Hampton Roads Area 

Maintenance Plan 

(a) Attainment inventory—An 

attainment inventory includes the 

emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. VADEQ 

determined that the appropriate 

attainment inventory year is 2005. That 

year establishes a reasonable year 

within the three-year block of 2003–

2005 as a baseline and accounts for 

reductions attributable to 

implementation of the CAA 

requirements to date. The 2005 

inventory is consistent with EPA 

guidance and is based on actual ‘‘typical 

summer day’’ emissions of VOC and 

NOX during 2005 and consists of a list 

of sources and their associated 

emissions. 

To develop the NOX and VOC base 

year emissions inventories, VADEQ 

used the following approaches: 

(i) Point source emissions were 

developed using the latest version of 

EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis 

System (EGAS 5.0). 

(ii) Area source emissions were also 

developed using growth factors from 

EGAS 5.0 and then applied to the 2002 

Area source inventory. 

(iii) Mobile nonroad emissions were 

developed using EPA’s NONROAD 2005 

model. The NONROAD 2005 model 

estimates fuel consumption and 

emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

oxides, and particulate matter for all 

nonroad mobile source categories except 

for aircraft, locomotives, and 

commercial marine vessels (CMV). 

(iv) Mobile on-road source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 

mobile source inventory model. The 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

(VDOT) provided daily vehicle miles 

traveled (DVMT), average speed data for 

each road type by jurisdiction, and 

annual growth rates that were used to 

forecast DVMT into the future. Also, the 

Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles 

provided registration data that was 

specific to each jurisdiction. Mobile 

source emission projections include the 

National Low Emission Vehicle Program 

(NLEV), the 2004 Tier 2 and Low Sulfur 

Gasoline Rule, the 2004 and 2007 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Rules, and 

the 2006 Low Sulfur Diesel Rule. In 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18610 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

addition, James City, York, Chesapeake, 

Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, 

Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia 

Beach, and Williamsburg were modeled 

with Phase II Reformulated Gasoline 

(RFG) while Gloucester and Isle of 

Wight were modeled with conventional 

gasoline fuel. 

More detailed information on the 

compilation of the 2002, 2005, 2011, 

and 2018 inventories can found in the 

Technical Appendices, which are part 

of VADEQ’s October 18, 2006 submittal. 

(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On 

October 18, 2006, the VADEQ submitted 

a maintenance plan as required by 

section 175A of the CAA. The Hampton 

Roads maintenance plan shows 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by demonstrating that future 

emissions of VOC and NOX will not 

exceed the attainment year 2005 

emissions levels throughout the 

Hampton Roads Area through the year 

2018. A maintenance demonstration 

need not be based on modeling. See 

Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, 

supra. See also 66 FR at 53099–53100; 

68 FR at 25430–32. 

Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Hampton Roads 

Area for 2005, 2011, and 2018. The 

VADEQ chose 2011 as an interim year 

in the maintenance demonstration 

period to demonstrate that the VOC and 

NOX emissions are not projected to 

increase above the 2005 attainment level 

during the time of the maintenance 

period. 

TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2005–2018 (TPD) 

Source category 2005 VOC 

emissions 

2011 VOC 

emissions 

2018 VOC 

emissions 

Point ............................................................................................................................................. 20.091 23.280 26.700 

Area 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 91.980 100.960 112.790 

Mobile 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 50.591 37.846 27.574 

Nonroad ....................................................................................................................................... 42.320 33.912 31.315 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 204.982 195.998 198.379 

1 Includes vehicle refueling emissions and the benefits of selected local controls (Stage I, CTG RACT, and open burning). Also includes site/ 

project specific emissions estimates and projections. 2 Includes transportation provisions. 

TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2005–2018 (TPD) 

Source category 2005 NOX

emissions 

2011 NOX

emissions 

2018 NOX

emissions 

Point ............................................................................................................................................. 62.536 69.333 75.241 

Area 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 55.207 56.974 60.105 

Mobile 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 78.169 50.387 31.890 

Non-road ...................................................................................................................................... 30.208 29.116 23.093 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 226.120 205.810 190.329 

1 Includes selected local controls (open burning). Also includes site/project specific emissions estimates and projections. 

2 Includes transportation provisions. 

Additionally, the following programs 

are either effective or due to become 

effective and will further contribute to 

the maintenance demonstration of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS: 

Currently in Effect: 

• The National Low Emission Vehicle 

(NLEV) program; 

• Open burning restrictions for James 

City, York, Chesapeake, Hampton, 

Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, 

Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, 

and Williamsburg; 

• Control Technology Guideline 

(CTG) Reasonable Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirements for 

James City, York, Chesapeake, Hampton, 

Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, 

Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, 

and Williamsburg; 

• Stage I gasoline vapor recovery 

requirements for James City, York, 

Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, 

Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, 

Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg; 

• Motor vehicle fleet turnover with 

new vehicles meeting the Tier 2 

standards; and 

• Low sulfur gasoline. 

Additionally, the following programs 

are in place and either effective or are 

due to become effective: 

• Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/ 

2007) and low sulfur on-road (2006); 66 

FR 5002, (January 18, 2001) 

• Non-road emission standards (2008) 

and off-road diesel fuel 2007/2010); 69 

FR 38958 (June 29, 2004). 

Lastly, to further improve air quality 

and to provide room for industrial and 

population growth while maintaining 

emissions in the area to less than 2005 

levels, the Commonwealth of Virginia 

has initiated rulemaking to implement 

the following programs: 

• Implement the Stage I requirements 

of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 37 in Isle 

of Wight and Gloucester; 

• Implement open burning restriction 

requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, 

Article 40 in Isle of Wight and 

Gloucester; and 

• Implement existing source CTG 

RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 

40, Articles 5–6, 24–36, and 39 in Isle 

of Wight and Gloucester. 

Based on the comparison of the 

projected emissions and the attainment 

year emissions along with the additional 

measures, EPA concludes that VADEQ 

has successfully demonstrated that the 

8-hour ozone standard should be 

maintained in the Hampton Roads Area. 

(c) Monitoring Network—There are 

three monitors measuring ozone in the 

Hampton Roads Area. VADEQ will 

continue to operate its current air 

quality monitors (located in the 

Hampton Roads Area), in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58. 

(d) Verification of Continued 

Attainment—In addition to maintaining 

the key elements of its regulatory 

program, the Commonwealth will 

acquire ambient and source emission 

data to track attainment and 

maintenance. The Commonwealth will 

track the progress of the maintenance 

demonstration by periodically updating 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18611 

3 In the event of implementation of the RACT 

contingency measure, Virginia would amend its 

current RACT regulations to apply them to nonCTG sources in the Hampton Roads Area within 6 

months after (a) notification received from EPA that 

the contingency measure must be implemented, or 

(b) three months after a recorded violation. The 

newly subject non-CTG RACT sources would need 

to develop source-specific RACT plans and comply 

with their plans no later than 12 months from the 

date of Virginia’s adoption of the amended 

regulations. 

the emissions inventory. This tracking 

will consist of annual and periodic 

evaluations. The annual evaluation will 

consist of checks on key emissions trend 

indicators as they actually emission 

update of stationary sources, the 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) vehicle miles traveled 

data reported to the Federal Highway 

Administration, and other growth 

indicators. These indicators will be 

compared to the growth assumptions 

used in the plan to determine if the 

predicted versus the observed growth 

remains relatively constant. The 

Commonwealth will also develop and 

submit periodic (every three years) 

emission inventories prepared under 

EPA’s Consolidated Emission Reporting 

Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A), 

beginning in 2005. 

(e) The Maintenance Plan’s 

Contingency Measures—The 

contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to ensure that the 

Commonwealth will promptly correct a 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the events that would 

‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and 

implementation of a contingency 

measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 

that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

measure(s). 

The ability of the Hampton Roads 

Area to stay in compliance with the 8- 

hour ozone standard after redesignation 

depends upon VOC and NOX emissions 

in the Area remaining at or below 2005 

levels. The Commonwealth’s 

maintenance plan projects VOC and 

NOX emissions to decrease and stay 

below 2005 levels through the year 

2018. The Commonwealth’s 

maintenance plan outlines the 

procedures for the adoption and 

implementation of contingency 

measures to further reduce emissions 

should a violation occur. 

The Commonwealth’s maintenance 

plan lays out situations where the need 

to adopt and implement a contingency 

measure to further reduce emissions 

would be triggered. Those situations are 

as follows: 

(i) An actual increase of the VOC or 

NOX emissions exceed the regional 

emissions budgets, which would be 

identified or predicted through the 

development of the comprehensive 

periodic tracking inventories—The 

maintenance plan states that the 

VADEQ will monitor the observed 

growth rates for VMT, population, and 

point source VOC and NOX emissions 

on a yearly basis which will serve as an 

early warning indicator of the potential 

for a violation. The plan also states that 

comprehensive tracking inventories will 

also be developed every 3 years using 

current EPA-approved methods to 

estimate emissions, concentrating on 

areas identified in the less rigorous 

yearly evaluations as being potential 

problems. If the regional emissions 

budget for VOC or NOX is exceeded, the 

following control strategies will be 

implemented as follows: 

• Preparation of a complete VOC and 

NOX emission inventory; and 

• The expanded implementation of 

one or more of the following control 

strategies, listed in Table 6, that are not 

currently in place in the Hampton 

Roads Area. 

TABLE 6.—MAINTENANCE PLAN CONTINGENCY MEASURE OPTIONS

Control strategy Description 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 42 ............................................................... Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage. 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 47 ............................................................... Emissions Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations. 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 48 ............................................................... Emissions Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Operations. 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 49 ............................................................... Emissions Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings. 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 50 ............................................................... Emission Standards for Consumer Products. 

9 VAC 5–40–300 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 4 ................................ General Process Operations—Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds (non-CTG RACT for major sources). 

9 VAC 5–40–310 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 4 ................................ General Process Operations—Standards for Nitrogen Oxides (nonCTG RACT for major sources). 

(ii) A violation (any 3-year average of 

each annual fourth highest 8-hour 

average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 

0.08 ppm occurs—The maintenance 

plan states that if a violation (any 3-year 

average of each annual fourth highest 8- 

hour average) of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs at a monitor 

located in the Hampton Roads 

monitoring network, the VADEQ will 

implement two of the following control 

strategies as follows: 

• The expanded implementation of 

one or more of the control strategies, 

listed in Table 6 that is not currently in 

place in the Hampton Roads Area. 

(iii) A violation (any 3-year average of 

each annual fourth highest 8-hour 

average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 

0.08 ppm in any subsequent ozone 

season—The maintenance plan states 

that if a violation (any 3-year average of 

each annual fourth highest 8-hour 

average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 

0.08 ppm occurs in the Hampton Roads 

monitoring network following the 

implementation of the requirements 

listed in the previous section (section 

e(ii)) and in any subsequent ozone 

season, two additional control strategies 

from Table 6 will be implemented. 

The following schedule for adoption, 

implementation and compliance applies 

to the contingency measures concerning 

non-CTG RACT requirements. It would 

also apply to the imposition of the area 

source VOC regulations if those 

regulations had not already been 

implemented due to other triggers or 

provisions of the maintenance plan. 

• Notification received from EPA that 

a contingency measure must be 

implemented, or three months after a 

recorded violation; 

• Applicable regulation to be adopted 

6 months after this date; 

• Applicable regulation to be 

implemented 6 months after adoption;3


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18612 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

• Compliance with regulation to be 

achieved within 12 months of adoption. 

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. EPA believes that the 

maintenance plan SIP revision 

submitted by Virginia for the Hampton 

Roads area meets the requirements of 

section 175A of the Act. 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in 

the Hampton Roads Maintenance Plan 

Adequate and Approvable? 

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets? 

Under the CAA, States are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone 

areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e., 

RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration 

SIPs) and maintenance plans identify 

and establish MVEBs for certain criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors to 

address pollution from on-road mobile 

sources. In the maintenance plan, the 

MVEBs are termed ‘‘on-road mobile 

source emission budgets.’’ Pursuant to 

40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must 

be established in an ozone maintenance 

plan. An MVEB is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. An 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 and revise the MVEBs 

in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

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 State’s air quality plan 

that addresses pollution from cars and 

trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of or reasonable progress 

towards the NAAQS. If a transportation 

plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new 

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 ensuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity. 

After EPA affirmatively finds the 

submitted MVEB is adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, that 

MVEB can be 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 

‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are set out in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps: 

Public notification of a SIP submission, 

a public comment period, and EPA’s 

adequacy finding. This process for 

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 finalized in the 

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’’

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA 

consults this guidance and follows this 

rulemaking in making its adequacy 

determinations. 

The MVEBS for the Hampton Roads 

Area are listed in Table 1 of this 

document for 2011 and 2018, and are 

the projected emissions for the on-road 

mobile sources plus any portion of the 

safety margin allocated to the MVEBs 

(safety margin allocation for 2011 and 

2018 only). These emission budgets, 

when approved by EPA, must be used 

for transportation conformity 

determinations. 

B. 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. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The following example is for the 2018 

safety margin: Hampton Roads first 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

during the 2003 to 2005 time period. 

The Commonwealth used 2005 as the 

year to determine attainment levels of 

emissions for Hampton Roads. The total 

emissions from point, area, mobile onroad, and mobile non-road sources in 

2005 equaled 204.982 tpd of VOC and 

226.120 tpd of NOX. The VADEQ 

projected emissions out to the year 2018 

and projected a total of 198.379 tpd of 

VOC and 190.329 tpd of NOX from all 

sources in Hampton Roads. The safety 

margin for 2018 would be the difference 

between these amounts, or 6.603 tpd of 

VOC and 35.791 tpd of NOX. The 

emissions up to the level of the 

attainment year including the safety 

margins are projected to maintain the 

Area’s air quality consistent with the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin 

is the extra emissions reduction below 

the attainment levels that can be 

allocated for emissions by various 

sources as long as the total emission 

levels are maintained at or below the 

attainment levels. Table 7 shows the 

safety margins for the 2011 and 2018 

years. 

TABLE 7.—2011 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR HAMPTON ROADS

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2005 Attainment ................................................................................................................................................... 204.982 226.120 

2011 Interim ......................................................................................................................................................... 195.998 205.810 

2011 Safety Margin ............................................................................................................................................. 8.984 20.310 

2005 Attainment ................................................................................................................................................... 204.982 226.120 

2018 Final ............................................................................................................................................................ 198.379 190.329 

2018 Safety Margin ............................................................................................................................................. 6.603 35.791 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18613 

The VADEQ allocated 1.000 tpd VOC 

and 3.000 tpd NOX to the 2011 interim 

VOC projected on-road mobile source 

emissions projection and the 2011 

interim NOX projected on-road mobile 

source emissions projection to arrive at 

the 2011 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs 

the VADEQ allocated 1.000 tpd VOC 

and 3.000 tpd NOX from the 2018 safety 

margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. 

Once allocated to the mobile source 

budgets these portions of the safety 

margins are no longer available, and 

may no longer be allocated to any other 

source category. Table 8 shows the final 

2009 and 2018 MVEBS for the Hampton 

Roads Area. 

TABLE 8.—2011 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR HAMPTON ROADS

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2011 Projected on-road mobile source projected emissions .............................................................................. 36.846 47.387 

2011 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ............................................................................................................ 1.000 3.000 

2011 MVEBs ........................................................................................................................................................ 37.846 50.387 

2018 Projected on-road mobile source projected emissions .............................................................................. 26.574 28.890 

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ............................................................................................................ 1.000 3.000 

2018 MVEBs ........................................................................................................................................................ 27.574 31.890 

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? 

The 2011 and 2018 MVEBs for the 

Hampton Roads Area are approvable 

because the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 

continue to maintain the total emissions 

at or below the attainment year 

inventory levels as required by the 

transportation conformity regulations. 

D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval 

Process for the MVEBs in the Hampton 

Roads Maintenance Plan? 

The MVEBs for the Hampton Roads 

Area maintenance plan are being posted 

to EPA’s conformity Web site 

concurrently with this proposal. The 

public comment period will end at the 

same time as the public comment period 

for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA 

is concurrently processing the action on 

the maintenance plan and the adequacy 

process for the MVEBs contained 

therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to find the MVEBs adequate 

and also proposing to approve the 

MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. 

The MVEBs cannot be used for 

transportation conformity until the 

maintenance plan and associated 

MVEBs are approved in a final Federal 

Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds 

the budgets adequate in a separate 

action following the comment period. 

If EPA receives adverse written 

comments with respect to the proposed 

approval of the Hampton Roads MVEBs, 

or any other aspect of our proposed 

approval of this updated maintenance 

plan, we will respond to the comments 

on the MVEBs in our final action or 

proceed with the adequacy process as a 

separate action. Our action on the 

Hampton Roads Area MVEBs will also 

be announced on EPA’s conformity Web 

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

stateresources/transconf/index.htm 

(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review 

of SIP Submissions’’). 

VIII. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Hampton Roads Area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the redesignation 

of the Hampton Roads Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated 

Virginia’s redesignation request and 

determined that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes 

that the redesignation request and 

monitoring data demonstrate that the 

Hampton Roads Area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The final approval 

of this redesignation request would 

change the designation of the Hampton 

Roads Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the associated maintenance 

plan for the Hampton Roads Area, 

submitted on October 18, 2006, as a 

revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan for the Hampton Roads Area 

because it meets the requirements of 

section 175A as described previously in 

this notice. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 2002 base-year inventory 

for the Hampton Roads Area, and the 

MVEBs submitted by Virginia for the 

Hampton Roads Area in conjunction 

with its redesignation request. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). This action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

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

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4). This proposed rule 

also does not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will 

it have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18614 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an 

action that affects the status of a 

geographical area and does not impose 

any new requirements on sources. Thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 

This rule, proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Hampton Roads 

Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the associated maintenance 

plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and 

the MVEBS identified in the 

maintenance plan, does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: April 5, 2007. 

Judith Katz, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E7–7017 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

49 CFR Part 39 

[Docket OST 2007–26829] 

RIN 2105–AB87 

Transportation for Individuals With 

Disabilities: Passenger Vessels 

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, 

Office of the Secretary. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Department is extending 

through June 22, 2007, the period for 

interested persons to submit comments 

to its proposed rule to amend its 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

regulations concerning passenger 

vessels. 

COMMENT CLOSING DATE: Comments 

should be submitted by June 22, 2007. 

Late-filed comments will be considered 

to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number OST 

2007–26829 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To the Docket 

Management System; Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number OST–

2007–26829 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://dms.dot.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: You may view the public 

docket through the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management System office at the above 

address. 

The Department of Transportation is 

in the process of moving to a new 

building. It is anticipated that the 

Docket Office will move to its new 

location before the end of the extended 

comment period. We do not yet have the 

complete address for the Docket Office 

in the Department’s new building. The 

Department will publish a Federal 

Register notice when this information 

becomes available. The address change 

will not affect electronic submissions, 

and mail submissions will be forwarded 

to the new address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel for Regulation and 

Enforcement, Department of 

Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., 

Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. (202) 366–9306 (voice); (202) 755–

7687 (TDD); bob.ashby@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 23, 2007, the Department of 

Transportation issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (72 FR 

2833) to amend its Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) rules to add 

requirements concerning passenger 

vessels. The comment period for this 

NPRM was scheduled to end on April 

23, 2007. A 90-day comment period is 

commonly provided for significant 

proposed rules. 

On January 31, 2007, the Cruise Lines 

International Association (CLIA) 

requested a 120-day extension of the 

comment period. CLIA cited as reasons 

for its request the need for potential 

commenters to consider the questions 

the Department asked in the preamble to 

the NPRM and the relationship between 

the NPRM and ongoing work of the 

Access Board concerning accessibility 

guidelines for passenger vessels. 

The Department believes that some 

extension of the comment period can be 

justified and that the Department can 

extend the comment period for a 

reasonable time without unduly 

delaying work toward a final rule. 

However, we do not believe that a 120- 

day extension, which would more the 

double the length of the original 

comment period, is necessary to allow 

interested persons to provide informed 

comments to the Department, and we 

are concerned that such a lengthy 

extension could create unnecessary 

delay. 

Consequently, the Department will 

extend the comment period for 60 days, 

through June 22, 2007. The Department 

does not anticipate the need for any 

further extensions. Given the additional 

time provided for comments, we urge 

interested persons to make every effort 

to provide detailed information 

concerning the issues they raise. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS