18434 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2.—CALCULATED ALLOWABLE AVERAGE QUARTERLY OPACITY LEVELS, FOR VARIOUS STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, LOAD

CHANGE, AND RATE CHANGE DURATIONS (T1), USING ALABAMA’S CURRENT SIP-APPROVED RULE AND THE PROPOSED SIP REVISION WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES SPECIFIED

Calculated allowable average quarterly opacity (percent) for various startup, shutdown, load change and rate change durations (T1) 

T1 = 0 T1 = 1,000 T1 = 10,000 T1 = 17,520 T1 = 19,710 T1 = 21,900 

Current SIP Approved Rule ............................................. 22.00 25.65 58.53 86.00 94.00 100.00 

2003 ADEM Submittal with Recommended Changes 

Specified ....................................................................... 21.60 25.18 57.40 84.32 92.16 100.00 

Therefore, by incorporating these 

recommended changes, Alabama would 

reduce uncertainties related to whether 

such a change could interfere with 

attainment, RFP or any other 

requirement of the Act. Accordingly, we 

conclude that the revision of Alabama’s 

SIP rule to incorporate the 2003 ADEM 

submittal with our recommended 

changes specified in this action would 

not interfere with requirements of the 

CAA and would be approvable. Further 

details of this analysis are contained in 

the technical support document. 

VII. What Happens Next? 

EPA anticipates Alabama will submit 

a revised rule revision reflecting the 

changes discussed in section IV above. 

If Alabama’s revised rule is submitted 

and considered approvable, after 

considering any comments received on 

today’s proposed approval, EPA will 

publish a final rule in the Federal 

Register approving the State’s requested 

rule revision and will also address in 

that rulemaking any comments received 

on this proposed approval. In addition, 

we plan to develop further criteria to aid 

EPA Regional Offices in evaluating 

future revisions to rules such as 

Alabama’s and, in this regard, we expect 

to publish in the near future a request 

for information that will assist us in that 

effort. 

VIII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Visible Emissions portion of a SIP 

revision submitted to EPA by Alabama 

on September 11, 2003, provided it is 

revised as described in section IV of this 

action and submitted as a SIP revision 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the CAA. 

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 proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements, and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, I hereby certify 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 action proposes to 

approve 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 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve State rule as 

consistent with Federal standards, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E7–6948 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0917; FRL–8298–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Redesignation of the RichmondPetersburg 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area To Attainment and 

Approval of the Associated 

Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year 

Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18435 

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 RichmondPetersburg ozone nonattainment area 

(‘‘Richmond 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 Petersburg, 

Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and 

Richmond, and the Counties of Prince 

George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, 

and Charles City. EPA is proposing to 

approve the ozone redesignation request 

for the Richmond Area. In conjunction 

with its redesignation request, the 

Commonwealth submitted a SIP 

revision consisting of a maintenance 

plan for the Richmond 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 Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 Richmond Area, and EPA is 

proposing to approve that inventory for 

the Richmond 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 Richmond 

Area for purposes of transportation 

conformity, and is also proposing to 

approve those 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–2006–0917 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–2006–0917, 

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–

0917. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

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 Richmond 

Area Adequate and Approvable? 

VIII. Proposed Actions 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is 

Proposing To Take? 

On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Richmond Area from 

nonattainment to attainment of the 8- 

hour NAAQS for ozone. On September 

25, 2006 Virginia submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 

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 Richmond Area as a SIP revision 

on September 18, 2006 and supplements 

to the base-year inventory submittal on 

November 17, 2006 and February 13, 

2007. The Richmond Area is comprised 

of the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial 

Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and 

the Counties of Prince George, 

Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and 

Charles City. It is currently designated 

a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Richmond 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 Richmond 

Area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the Richmond 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18436 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS the Richmond 

Area consisted of the Cities of Colonial Heights, 

Hopewell, and Richmond, the Counties of 

Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. 

See November 6, 1991 (58 FR 56694). 

attainment in the Richmond 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 Richmond 

Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, 

EPA is announcing its action on the 

adequacy process for the MVEBs 

identified in the Richmond maintenance 

plan, and proposing to approve the 

MVEBs identified for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) for the Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 

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 Richmond 

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 Richmond 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 Richmond Area to 

attainment of 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 

Richmond Area was classified a 

marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area based on air quality monitoring 

data from 2001–2003. Therefore, the 

Richmond 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 Richmond Area has a 

design value of 0.082 ppm for the 3-year 

period of 2003–2005, using complete, 

quality-assured data. Therefore, the 

ambient ozone data for the Richmond 

Area indicates no violations of the 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

B. The Richmond Area 

Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

Richmond Area consisted of the Cities 

of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and 

Richmond, and the Counties of 

Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and 

Charles City. Under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the Richmond Area was 

expanded to also include the City of 

Petersburg and Prince George County. 

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, the 

Richmond Area was a maintenance area 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 

November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61237). 

On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ 

requested that the Richmond 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 Richmond Area. The 

data satisfies the CAA requirements that 

the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest 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; 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18437 

(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 

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 September 20, 2006, the VADEQ 

requested redesignation of the 

Richmond Area to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. On September 25, 

2006, VADEQ submitted a maintenance 

plan for the Richmond 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 as a SIP revision on 

September 18, 2006 and supplements to 

that submittal on November 17, 2006 

and February 13, 2007, which is an 

applicable requirement for the 

Richmond Area for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has determined that 

the Richmond 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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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 .......................... 32.343 43.661 

2018 .......................... 23.845 26.827 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Commonwealth’s Request? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Richmond 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 September 20, 2006 

(redesignation request), September 25, 

2006 (maintenance plan and MVEBs), 

September 18, 2006 (base-year 

emissions inventory) and November 17, 

2006 and February 13, 2007 

(supplements to base-year inventory) 

submittals satisfy the requirements of 

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

A. The Richmond Area Has Attained the 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Richmond 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 four ozone monitors in the 

Richmond Area. As part of its 

redesignation request, Virginia 

referenced ozone monitoring data for 

the years 2003–2005 for the Richmond 

Area. This data has been quality assured 

and is recorded in the AQS. The fourthhigh 8-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, along with the threeyear averages are summarized in Table 

2. The Hanover County monitoring site 

had the highest 3-year average of the 

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average and are therefore used to make 

air quality determinations. 

TABLE 2.—RICHMOND AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES, RICHMOND MONITORS, PARTS PER MILLION

(PPM) 

Monitor AQS ID # 2003 2004 2005 3-Year 

average 

Chesterfield County ................................................................................................... 510410004 0.079 0.075 0.078 0.077 

Henrico County .......................................................................................................... 510870014 0.083 0.074 0.084 0.080 

Hanover County ......................................................................................................... 510850003 0.086 0.078 0.083 0.082 

Charles City County ................................................................................................... 510360002 0.079 0.077 0.083 0.079 

The average for the 3-year period 2003–2005 is 0.082 ppm. 

The air quality data for 2003–2005 

indicate that the Richmond Area has 

attained the standard with a design 

value of 0.082 ppm. The data collected 

at the Richmond Area monitors satisfy 

the CAA requirement that the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm. The VADEQ’s request for 

redesignation for the Richmond 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 Richmond 

Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

B. The Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 Richmond 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 includes 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18439 

• 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 

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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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). The Virginia SIP has an 

approved emissions statement rule for 

the 1-hour standard covering those 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 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. 

portions of the 8-hour nonattainment 

area that was 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

Richmond Emissions Control Area to 

include the City of Petersburg and 

Prince George County. EPA approved 

this rulemaking on March 2, 2007 (72 

FR 9441) and will be effective on April 

2, 2007. Today, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2002 base-year inventory 

for the Richmond Area, which was 

submitted on September 18, 2006, and 

supplemented on November 17, 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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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 

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 Richmond Area will be able to 

maintain the standard without Part D 

NSR in effect in the Richmond 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 

Richmond upon redesignation to 

attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, 

Michigan (60 FR at 12467–68); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 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 City of Petersburg and 

the Prince George County portions of 

the Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 Richmond Area 

consisting of the Cities Colonial Heights, 

Hopewell, and Richmond, and the 

Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, 

Henrico, and Charles City 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 Richmond 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. Richmond 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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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 Richmond 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 

Richmond Area, the applicable 

implementation plan satisfies all 

pertinent SIP requirements. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18441 

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the 

Richmond 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 Richmond 

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. 

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 ................................................................................................................... 31.228 51.364 23.278 50.200 156.070 

2005 ................................................................................................................... 32.705 54.760 20.438 43.518 151.421 

Diff (02–05) ........................................................................................................ +1.477 +3.396 ¥2.840 ¥6.682 ¥4.649 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

2002 ................................................................................................................... 119.750 27.067 17.792 74.130 238.739 

2005 ................................................................................................................... 77.281 26.501 16.862 67.155 187.799 

Diff (02–05) ........................................................................................................ ¥42.469 ¥0.566 ¥0.930 ¥6.975 ¥50.940 

* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling. 

Between 2002 and 2005, VOC 

emissions decreased by 4.649 tpd and 

NOX emissions decreased by 50.940 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) National Low Emission Vehicle 

(NLEV) Program; and 

(c) 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 Richmond Area Has a Fully 

Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Richmond 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 September 25, 2006 submission 

of the maintenance plan, because it 

states that Richmond will maintain the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 

years after redesignation. Section 

175A(b) was met with the September 25, 

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 the Richmond Area to attainment. 

Once approved, the maintenance plan 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will 

ensure that the SIP for the Richmond 

Area 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 Richmond 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18442 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

addition, Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial 

Heights, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, 

and Charles City were modeled with 

Phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) 

while Prince George and Petersburg 

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 September 25, 2006 

submittal. 

(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On 

September 25, 2006, the VADEQ 

submitted a maintenance plan as 

required by section 175A of the CAA. 

The Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 Richmond 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 ................................................................................................................................................... 32.705 36.074 39.900 

Area 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 54.760 60.315 68.331 

Mobile 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 43.518 32.343 23.845 

Nonroad ............................................................................................................................................. 20.438 15.898 15.515 

Total ............................................................................................................................................ 151.421 144.630 147.591 

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). 

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 

Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial Heights, 

Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and 

western Charles City; 

• Control Technology Guideline 

(CTG) Reasonable Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirements for 

Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial Heights, 

Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and 

western Charles City; 

• Non-CTG VOC RACT requirements 

for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial 

Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, 

and western Charles City; 

• Reformulated gasoline requirements 

for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial 

Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, 

and western Charles City; 

• 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: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18443 

• Implement the Stage I requirements 

of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 37 in 

Prince George, Petersburg, and eastern 

Charles City; 

• Implement open burning restriction 

requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, 

Article 40 in Prince George, Petersburg, 

and eastern Charles City; and 

• Implement existing source CTG 

RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 

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

George, Petersburg, and eastern Charles 

City. 

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 Richmond Area. 

(c) Monitoring Network—There are 

three monitors measuring ozone in the 

Richmond Area. VADEQ will continue 

to operate its current air quality 

monitors (located in the Richmond 

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 

the emissions inventory. This tracking 

will consist of annual and periodic 

evaluations. The annual evaluation will 

consist of checks on key emissions trend 

indicators such as the annual 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 timeframe by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

measure(s). 

The ability of the Richmond 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 control strategies, 

listed in Table 6, that have not already 

been implemented in the Richmond 

Area. 

TABLE 6.—MAINTENANCE PLAN CONTINGENCY MEASURE OPTIONS

Control strategy Description 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 42 .......................... Emissions 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 .......................... Emissions Standards for Consumer Products. 

9 VAC 5–40–310 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 4.General Process Operations—Standard for Nitrogen Oxides (non-CTG 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 Richmond monitoring 

network, the VADEQ will implement 

two of the following control strategies as 

follows: 

• The expanded implementation of 

one or more of the following control 

strategies, listed in Table 6, that have 

not already been implemented in the 

Richmond 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 Richmond 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18444 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 Richmond 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. 

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

• 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 Richmond 

area meets the requirements of section 

175A of the Act. 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in 

the Richmond 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 Richmond 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: Richmond 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 Richmond. The total 

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

2005 equaled 151.421 tpd of VOC and 

187.799 tpd of NOX. The VADEQ 

projected emissions out to the year 2018 

and projected a total of 147.591 tpd of 

VOC and 154.158 tpd of NOX from all 

sources in Richmond. The safety margin 

for 2018 would be the difference 

between these amounts, or 3.830 tpd of 

VOC and 33.641 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 RICHMOND

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2005 Attainment ........................................................................................................................................... 151.421 187.799 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18445 

TABLE 7.—2011 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR RICHMOND—Continued 

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2011 Interim ................................................................................................................................................. 144.630 168.492 

2011 Safety Margin ..................................................................................................................................... 6.791 19.307 

2005 Attainment ........................................................................................................................................... 151.421 187.799 

2018 Final .................................................................................................................................................... 147.591 154.158 

2018 Safety Margin ..................................................................................................................................... 3.830 33.641 

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 

Richmond Area. 

TABLE 8.—2011 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR RICHMOND

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2011 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ...................................................................... 31.343 40.661 

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

2011 MVEBs ................................................................................................................................................ 32.343 43.661 

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ...................................................................... 22.845 23.827 

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

2018 MVEBs ................................................................................................................................................ 23.845 26.827 

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? 

The 2011 and 2018 MVEBs for the 

Richmond 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 Richmond 

Maintenance Plan? 

The MVEBs for the Richmond 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 Richmond 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 

Richmond 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 Richmond Area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the redesignation 

of the Richmond 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 

Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone standard. The final approval of 

this redesignation request would change 

the designation of the Richmond Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the associated 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 

Area, submitted on September 25, 2006, 

as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan for the Richmond 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 

Richmond Area, and the MVEBs 

submitted by Virginia for the Richmond 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18446 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This 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 

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 Richmond 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. E7–7018 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 176, 

178, and 180 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM–

218E)] 

RIN: 2137–AE23 

Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous 

Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle and Cylinder 

Issues; Petitions for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to amend 

the Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180) to revise 

certain requirements applicable to the 

manufacture, maintenance, and use of 

DOT and MC specification cargo tank 

motor vehicles, DOT specification 

cylinders and UN pressure receptacles. 

The proposed revisions are based on 

petitions for rulemaking submitted by 

the regulated community and are 

intended to enhance the safe 

transportation of hazardous materials in 

commerce, clarify regulatory 

requirements, and reduce operating 

burdens on cargo tank and cylinder 

manufacturers, requalifiers, carriers, 

shippers, and users. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number 

PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM–218E) by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• 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 

PHMSA–2006–25910 (Docket No. HM–

218E) or the Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this notice of 

proposed rulemaking at the beginning of 

your comment. Please note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://dms.dot.gov 

including any personal information 

provided. See the Privacy Act section of 

this document. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cameron Satterthwaite or T. Glenn 

Foster, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001, telephone (202) 366–8553. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) requires Federal agencies to give 

interested persons the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA’s 

rulemaking procedure regulations, at 49 

CFR 106.95, provide for persons to ask 

PHMSA to add, amend or delete a 

regulation by filing a petition for 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS