Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27247 

applicants for employment could be 

directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is also 

exempt from the regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of sections 603 

and 604. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) unless OMB waives such review, 

as any regulatory action that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined and it has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1532, 

requires agencies to prepare an 

assessment of anticipated costs and 

benefits before issuing any rule that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any year. This final rule would have 

no such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

There is no Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance number for this 

final rule. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 2 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies). 

Approved: April 19, 2007. 

Gordon H. Mansfield, 

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 2 as follows: 

PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF 

AUTHORITY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302, 552a; 38 U.S.C. 

501, 512, 515, 1729, 1729A, 5711; 44 U.S.C. 

3702, and as noted in specific sections. 

■ 2. Amend § 2.6, by revising paragraph 

(j) to read as follows: 

§ 2.6 Secretary’s delegations of authority 

to certain officials (38 U.S.C. 512). 

* * * * * 

(j) Delegation to the Chairman, Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals. In cases where 

OEDCA has recused itself from a case 

due to an actual, apparent, or potential 

conflict of interest, the Chairman, Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals, is delegated 

authority to make procedural agency 

decisions to dismiss, in whole or in 

part, EEO discrimination complaints 

filed by agency employees, former 

employees, and applicants for 

employment; to make substantive final 

agency decisions where complainants 

do not request an EEOC hearing; to take 

final agency action following a decision 

by an EEOC Administrative Judge; and 

to make final agency decisions ordering 

appropriate remedies and relief where 

there is a finding of discrimination. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9286 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0682; FRL–8314–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Redesignation of the West 

Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WVOH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

to Attainment and Approval of the 

Area’s 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 Marshall and Ohio 

County, West Virginia (Wheeling) 

portion of the Wheeling, 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 Wheeling that 

provides for continued attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 

years, until 2018. EPA is also approving 

the adequacy determination for the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) that are identified in the 

Wheeling 8-hour ozone 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. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective on June 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0682. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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 

e-mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57894), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West 

Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of 

West Virginia’s redesignation request 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
27248 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1The fourth highest 8-hour ozone monitoring 

values at the Ohio County, West Virginia monitor 

for 2006 were 0.085 ppm, 0.083 ppm, 0.079 ppm, 

and 0.079 ppm. Thus the design value at the Area 

monitor for monitoring years 2004–2006 are still 

showing attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a 

value of 0.077 ppm at the Wheeling monitor. 

and a SIP revision that establishes a 

maintenance plan for Wheeling that sets 

forth how Wheeling will maintain 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the next 12 years. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by the WVDEP 

on July 24, 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 October 20, 2006, EPA received a 

comment, from the West Virginia 

Division of Highways, in support of its 

October 2, 2006 NPR. Also, on October 

28, 2006, EPA received adverse 

comments on the said October 2, 2006 

NPR. A summary of the comments 

submitted and EPA’s responses are 

provided in Section II of this document. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

on behalf of the West Virginia Division 

of Highways, they would like to go on 

record as supporting the redesignation 

of the Wheeling, West Virginia portion 

of the Wheeling, WV-OH interstate area 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

comment of support for our final action. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

the Wheeling Area redesignation is 

based on 2002–2004 air quality data, 

and should instead be based on the most 

recent three years of air quality data, 

2004–2006. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 2006 

data was available as a basis for 

redesignating Wheeling to attainment, 

and also disagrees with the comment 

that the redesignation cannot be based 

on the quality assured 2002–2004 air 

quality data. EPA may redesignate an 

area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS if three years of quality assured 

data indicate that the area has attained 

the standard and the most recent quality 

assured air quality data indicate that the 

area is still attaining the standard at the 

time of the redesignation. EPA has 

determined that the Wheeling, WV 

portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 

nonattainment area has attained 

compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS subsequent to the calendar year 

2004 ozone season (April–October) 

based on three years (2002–2004) of 

quality assured data. It is also worth 

noting that while our determination that 

the Area has attained the standard is 

based on the 2002–2004 data, the 2005 

calendar year quality assured data and 

the newly available quality assured data 

from 2006, indicate that the Area 

continues to attain the standard. The 

2005 and 2006 data support our 

conclusion in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) on October 2, 2006 

(71 FR 57894) that emissions reductions 

in the Area can be attributed to 

permanent and enforceable measures 

throughout the Area and that air quality 

monitoring date indicates that the Area 

continues to attain the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.1

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

EPA should not approve the 

redesignation of Wheeling because the 

Wheeling monitor was twice relocated 

during calendar years 2004 and 2005. 

The commenter states that (at its current 

location) the Wheeling ozone monitor 

should operate for one additional year 

in order to confirm attainment of the 

NAAQS and that EPA should not act on 

WVDEP’s redesignation request until 

the air quality data for the additional 

monitoring period have been evaluated. 

Response: Since 1982, WVDEP has 

operated and maintained an ozone 

monitoring station for the West Virginia 

portion of the Wheeling Area. The 

commenter refers to the Wheeling 

monitor as having been relocated from 

‘‘Site 7’’ to ‘‘Site 9,’’ and finally to ‘‘Site 

10.’’ The monitoring station was 

originally located at WVDEP’s Northern 

Panhandle Regional Office. The station 

continued to operate at this location 

(Site 7) until WVDEP had to discontinue 

the operations at the site due to the 

relocation of its Northern Panhandle 

Regional Office prior to the calendar 

year 2004 ozone season (April through 

October). As a result, WVDEP installed 

an interim ozone station in the 

Wheeling Area which was located 

approximately four miles south of the 

station’s original location and collected 

data for the 2004 ozone season (Site 9). 

In anticipation of the 2005 season, 

WVDEP established a new site for the 

Wheeling ozone monitor which was 

approximately three-tenths of a mile 

south of the monitor’s original location 

(Site 10). The new monitoring site is 

similar in characteristics to the original 

monitoring site. The sites are located in 

the same river valley with no 

obstructions between the sites and have 

a similar distribution of surrounding 

ozone sources. Both monitoring 

locations are located within the City of 

Wheeling, West Virginia and the 

surrounding areas have comparable 

population density, with no large 

industrial sources, and no adjacent 

highways. The current location of the 

Wheeling ozone monitor is in an area 

which has the infrastructure and 

arranged access to operate for many 

years. 

The data from monitoring sites 7, 9, 

and 10 were pooled for two three-year 

periods: (1) 2002, 2003, and 2004 (Sites 

7 and 9) and (2) 2003, 2004 and 2005 

(Sites 7, 9, 10). In addition, the data 

from monitoring sites 9 and 10 were 

pooled for 2004–2006. See also, footnote 

1. The commenter asserted that data 

obtained from Site 9 was a ‘‘poor site’’

and that the data obtained from this site 

in 2004 was of low value for purpose of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

evaluated ozone statistics for the 

Wheeling Area for 2004 (i.e., number of 

days with eight-hour averages greater 

than 0.0084 ppm and 4th highest eighthour average for the year), and found 

them to be reasonable and consistent 

when compared to ozone measurements 

collected in Wheeling and at other 

nearby monitoring stations in the Ohio 

River Valley during the period 

examined (1998 thru 2005). 

Based on a review of ozone air quality 

data from the Wheeling Area for this 

period, the proximity and 

characteristics of the monitoring sites, 

and giving consideration to WVDEP’s 

reasons for relocating the ozone 

monitoring station during period of 

2003–2005, EPA has concluded that the 

integrity of ozone data submitted for 

this Area was not affected by the fact 

that the data was collected from three 

different, and relatively close together, 

monitoring locations. This data is 

acceptable for purposes of redesignating 

the Wheeling Area to attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

cold and wet summers, rather than 

enforceable emissions reductions are a 

significant cause of improvement of air 

quality in Wheeling, although the 

commenter also asserts based on the 

number of days exceeding 84 ppb in 

2005 that the air quality is actually not 

improving. 

Response: In accordance with 

Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 50, 

compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is met at an ambient air 

monitoring site when 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; it is not based on the number 

of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Additionally, EPA uses the 

three-year averaging period to minimize 

year to year variations in the summer 

(i.e., ozone season) weather. See 

Redesignation of Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53094, 53100 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27249 

(October 19, 2001). Therefore, the 

number of days exceeding 84 ppb are 

not relevant to a determination of 

whether an area (or portion thereof), has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Information relative to long term trends 

of West Virginia summer temperatures 

and rainfall-based data was obtained 

from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Climate Data Center (please see 

attached). Based on EPA’s review, this 

information shows that the summers 

2000 through 2006 experienced year to 

year variations in average summer 

temperature and rainfall typical of the 

summer seasons in the State of West 

Virginia. Thus the improvement in air 

quality is not due to unusually cold and 

wet summers. Rather, the improvement 

in air quality is due to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable measures as explained in 

the NPR. The permanent and 

enforceable measures listed in the 

Wheeling NPR include the National 

Low Emissions Vehicle (NLEV), motor 

vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles 

meeting the Tier 2 standards, and the 

Clean Diesel Program. These federal 

vehicle programs along with the NOX

SIP Call resulted in a 0.9 tons per year 

(tpy) decrease in VOC emissions and a 

69.8 tpy decrease in NOX emissions 

throughout the Wheeling Area between 

2002 and 2004. Therefore, EPA believes 

that the improvement in 8-hour ozone 

air quality is a result of identifiable, 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in ozone precursor emissions, not 

unusually cold and wet summers. 

Comment: The commenter requests 

air quality data for time periods outside 

the time period be used for 

redesignation, and for areas outside the 

West Virginia portion of the Wheeling 

Area which is the subject of this 

rulemaking, and other air quality data 

such as data provided by the Clean Air 

Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) 

and the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring 

networks, which has not been used to 

support this rulemaking. The 

commenter also insists that monitoring 

data from a rural ozone monitoring site, 

a CASTNET monitor, located in 

adjacent Noble County, Ohio should 

have been considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Response: As discussed previously, 

the redesignation is demonstrated by the 

quality assured 2002–2004 ozone 

monitoring data, and continued 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

is demonstrated by the quality assured 

2005 and 2006 ozone monitoring data 

for the Wheeling Area. Other air quality 

data, from other monitoring networks or 

for time periods outside the years being 

used to support the redesignation 

request, or which are located outside the 

Wheeling Area (i.e., Noble County, OH 

CASTNET monitor), are not relevant to 

the redesignation request. Furthermore, 

CASTNET and NADP monitors are not 

operated for purposes of the regional 

ozone monitoring network nor do they 

satisfy the quality assurance 

requirements necessary to support 

requests for redesignation. 

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. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the State of West 

Virginia’s July 24, 2006 redesignation 

request and maintenance plan because 

the requirements for approval have been 

satisfied. EPA has evaluated West 

Virginia’s redesignation request, 

submitted on July 24, 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 

Wheeling has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The final approval of this 

redesignation request will change the 

designation of Wheeling from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA is approving 

the associated maintenance plan for 

Wheeling, submitted on July 24, 2006, 

as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. 

EPA is approving the maintenance plan 

for Wheeling because it meets the 

requirements of section 175A. 

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 Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan are adequate and approved for 

conformity purposes. As a result of our 

finding, Marshall and Ohio Counties 

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 ............ 4.3 2.5 

2018 ............ 1.7 1.4 

Wheeling is subject to the CAA’s 

requirements for basic ozone 

nonattainment areas until and unless it 

is redesignated to attainment. 

IV. 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 Fed. Reg. 

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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
27250 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 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 16, 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 Wheeling, 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 dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: May 8, 2007. 

William T. Wisniewski, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

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, 

Wheeling, 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 Wheeling, WV-OH Area.

Marshall and Ohio County ............. 07/24/06 05/15/07 [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 

Wheeling, WV-OH Area to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.349 West Virginia. 

* * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27251 

WEST VIRGINIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Wheeling, WV-OH Area 

Marshall County ........................................................... 5/15/07 Attainment. 

Ohio County ................................................................. 5/15/07 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. E7–9287 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 060525140–6221–02] 

RIN 0648–XA21 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper/ 

Grouper Resources of the South 

Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the 

commercial trip limit for golden tilefish 

in the South Atlantic to 300 lb (136 kg) 

per trip in or from the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit 

reduction is necessary to protect the 

South Atlantic golden tilefish resource. 

DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., 

local time, May 17, 2007, through 

January 1, 2008, unless changed by 

further notification in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Rueter, telephone 727–824–5305, 

fax 727–824–5308, e-mail 

jason.rueter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Resources of the South Atlantic 

(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council and is implemented under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Under 50 CFR 622.44(c)(2), NMFS is 

required to reduce the trip limit in the 

commercial fishery for golden tilefish 

when 75 percent of the fishing year 

quota is met to 300 lb (136 kg) per trip, 

by filing a notification to that effect in 

the Federal Register. Based on current 

statistics, NMFS has determined that 75 

percent of the available commercial 

quota of 295,000 lb (133,810 kg), gutted 

weight, for golden tilefish will be 

reached on or before May 17, 2007. 

Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the 

commercial golden tilefish trip limit to 

300 lb (136 kg) in the South Atlantic 

EEZ from 12:01 a.m., local time, on May 

17, 2007, until the fishery closes or 

12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 

2008, whichever occurs first. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) as such prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. Such procedures would be 

unnecessary because the rule itself 

already has been subject to notice and 

comment, and all that remains is to 

notify the public of the closure. 

Allowing prior notice and opportunity 

for public comment is contrary to the 

public interest because of the need to 

immediately implement this action in 

order to protect the fishery since the 

capacity of the fishing fleet allows for 

rapid over harvest of the quota. Prior 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment would require additional time 

and would likely result in a harvest well 

in excess of the established quota. For 

the aforementioned reasons, the AA also 

finds good cause to waive the 30-day 

delay in the effectiveness of this action 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

622.43(a) and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–2392 Filed 5–10–07; 4:08 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES