Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25967 

vessels on a portion of the Willamette 

River during the fleet week of the Rose 

Festival. This security zone provides for 

the regulation of vessel traffic in the 

vicinity of the moored vessels. Entry 

into this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designee. The Captain of the Port 

Portland will begin enforcing the Rose 

Festival Security Zone established by 33 

CFR 165.1312 on June 6, 2007. The 

Captain of the Port may be assisted by 

other Federal, State, or local agencies in 

enforcing this security zone. This 

security zone will be enforced until June 

11, 2007. 

Dated: April 20, 2007. 

Patrick G. Gerrity, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Portland. 

[FR Doc. E7–8725 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0817; FRL–8309–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Redesignation of the 

Parkersburg, WV, Portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment and Approval of the 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a 

redesignation request and a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia. 

The West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is 

requesting that the Parkersburg, West 

Virginia (Parkersburg) portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH area 

(herein referred to as the ‘‘Area’’) be 

redesignated as attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with 

its redesignation request, the State 

submitted a SIP revision consisting of a 

maintenance plan for Parkersburg that 

provides for continued attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 

years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is 

approving the maintenance plan as 

meeting the requirements of Clean Air 

Act (CAA) 175A(b) with respect to the 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan update. 

EPA is also approving the adequacy 

determination for the motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) that are 

identified in the Parkersburg 8-hour 

maintenance plan for purposes of 

transportation conformity, and is 

approving those MVEBs. EPA is 

approving the redesignation request and 

the maintenance plan revision to the 

West Virginia SIP in accordance with 

the requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on June 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0817. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection 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 West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1474), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West 

Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of 

West Virginia’s redesignation request 

and a SIP revision that establishes a 

maintenance plan for Parkersburg that 

sets forth how Parkersburg will 

maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the next 12 years. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

the WVDEP on September 8, 2006. 

Other specific requirements of West 

Virginia’s redesignation request SIP 

revision for the maintenance plan and 

the rationales for EPA’s proposed 

actions are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. 

On February 9, 2007, EPA received a 

comment, from the West Virginia 

Manufacturers Association, in support 

of its January 12, 2007 NPR. Also, on 

February 15, 2007, EPA received a 

comment, from the West Virginia 

Chamber of Commerce, in support of its 

January 12, 2007 NPR. EPA recognizes 

the support provided in these comments 

but does not believe any specific 

response to comments is necessary with 

respect to these comments. 

Additionally, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit recently vacated EPA’s April 30, 

2004 ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Standard’’ (the Phase 1 implementation 

rule). South Coast Air Quality 

Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a 

supplemental proposed rulemaking that 

set forth its views on the potential effect 

of the Court’s ruling on this and other 

proposed redesignation actions. 72 FR 

13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed 

to find that the Court’s ruling does not 

alter any requirements relevant to the 

proposed redesignations that would 

prevent EPA from finalizing these 

redesignations, for the reasons fully 

explained in the supplemental notice. 

EPA provided a 15-day review and 

comment period on this supplemental 

proposed rulemaking. The public 

comment period closed on April 6, 

2007. EPA received six comments, all 

supporting EPA’s supplemental 

proposed rulemaking, and supporting 

redesignation of the affected areas. EPA 

recognizes the support provided in 

these comments as well, but again, we 

do not believe any specific response to 

comments is necessary with respect to 

these comments. In addition, several of 

these comments included additional 

rationale for proceeding with these 

proposed redesignations. EPA had not 

requested comment on any additional 

rationale, does not believe any 

additional rationale is necessary, and 

similarly does not believe any specific 

response to these comments is 

necessary, and thus has not provided 

any. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is approving the State of West 

Virginia’s September 8, 2006 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan because the requirements for 

approval have been satisfied. EPA has 

evaluated West Virginia’s redesignation 

request, submitted on September 8, 

2006, 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 

Parkersburg has attained the 8-hour 

ozone standard. The final approval of 

this redesignation request will change 

the designation of the Parkersburg, West 

Virginia portion of the Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
25968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

hour ozone standard. EPA is approving 

the associated maintenance plan for 

Parkersburg, submitted on September 8, 

2006, as a revision to the West Virginia 

SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance 

plan for Parkersburg because it meets 

the requirements of section 175A and 

175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is 

also approving the MVEBs submitted by 

West Virginia in conjunction with its 

redesignation request. In this final 

rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public 

that we have found that the MVEBs for 

NOX and VOCs in the Parkersburg 

portion of the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan are adequate and 

approved for conformity purposes. As a 

result of our finding, Wood County must 

use the MVEBs from the submitted 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan for future 

conformity determinations. The 

adequate and approved MVEBs are 

provided in the following table: 

ADEQUATE AND APPROVED MOTOR

VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

(MVEBS) IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Budget year NOX VOC 

2009 ...................................... 4.1 3.0 

2018 ...................................... 2.0 1.9 

Parkersburg is subject to the CAA’s 

requirements for basic ozone 

nonattainment areas until and unless it 

is redesignated to attainment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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 approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

Redesignation of an area to attainment 

under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean 

Air Act does not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. 

Redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on sources. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this final 

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 approves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This final 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 affects the 

status of a geographical area, does not 

impose any new requirements on 

sources, or allow the state to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. In reviewing 

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve 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 final 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 9, 2007. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action, to approve the 

redesignation request, maintenance plan 

and adequacy determination for MVEBs 

for Parkersburg, may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: April 26, 2007. 

Judith Katz, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25969 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

for the Parkersburg-Marietta, 

WV-OH Area.

Wood County ................................ 09/08/06 05/08/07 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.349 the table entitled ‘‘West 

Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area to 

read as follows: 

§ 81.349 West Virginia. 

* * * * * 

WEST VIRGINIA—OZONE

[8-Hour Standard] 

Designated Area 

Designation a Category/Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area 

Wood County ........................................................................................................... 05/08/07 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8678 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0677a; FRL–8303–2] 

Revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan, Washoe County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Washoe County portion of the Nevada 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from fugitive dust 

sources, such as open areas, unpaved 

roads, and construction activities. We 

are approving this local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 

2007 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 7, 

2007. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0677a, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES