66316 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

demonstration, plan, and maintenance 

plan; Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, 

‘‘Section X, Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, Part A,’’ which 

incorporates general requirements and 

applicability for motor vehicle 

emissions inspections; and Utah’s Rule 

R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part D, Utah County,’’ which 

incorporates a revised vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program for 

Utah County. The Governor’s April 1, 

2004 submittal also stated that the prior 

July 11, 1994 submittal of Utah’s Rule 

R307–1–4.12, ‘‘Emissions Standards for 

Residential Solid Fuel Burning Devices 

and Fireplaces’’ to restrict woodburning 

in Utah County, remains part of her 

April 1, 2004 submittal and requested 

that Utah’s Rule R307–301, 

‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ be 

eliminated from the Federally-approved 

SIP. We note that on September 20, 

1999, the Governor submitted Utah 

Rules R307–302–3 and –4, which 

together comprise a re-numbered and retitled version of R307–1–4.12. The text 

of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is identical 

to the text of Rule R307–1–4.12 that the 

Governor submitted on July 11, 1994. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Provo area’s attainment demonstration 

and plan, the request for redesignation 

to attainment for the Provo area, the 

maintenance plan, the transportation 

conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015, 

the revisions to Rule R307–110–12, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–31, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–34, Rules 

R307–302–3 and –4, and the request to 

remove Rule R307–301 from the 

Federally-approved SIP. EPA is also 

identifying the transportation 

conformity MVEB for the year 2000, 

which is derived from the attainment 

year emission inventory in the 

attainment plan. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revisions as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If EPA receives no adverse 

comments, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and it will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by RME Docket Number R08–

OAR–2005–UT–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system for regional actions, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and 

russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6436, and 

e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

the Federal Register. 

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

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 

[FR Doc. 05–21836 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007; FRL–7993–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Redesignation of the City of 

Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, 

and Stafford County Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Area’s Maintenance 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a redesignation request and a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. The Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is 

requesting that the City of 

Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, 

and Stafford County (the Fredericksburg 

area) be redesignated as attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). In 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request, the Commonwealth submitted a 

State Implementation Plan revision 

consisting of a maintenance plan for the 

Fredericksburg area that provides for 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Frdericksburg 

area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This proposed determination 

is based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2002–2004 that 

demonstrate the 8-hour NAAQS has 

been attained in the area. EPA’s 

proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request is based on its 

determination that the Fredericksburg 

area has met the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment specified in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is 

providing information on the status of 

its adequacy determination for the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) that are identified in the 8- 

hour maintenance plan for the 

Fredericksburg area for purposes of 

transportation conformity, and is also 

proposing to approve those MVEBs. 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66317 

redesignation request and of the 

maintenance plan revision to the 

Virginia SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–

2005–VA–0007 by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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

Mail: R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007, 

Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

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 

RME ID No. R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007. 

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:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 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 RME, regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 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 RME or 

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 RME 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

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 RME 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 Actions Is EPA 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 Fredericksburg 

Area Adequate and Approvable? 

VIII. General Information Pertaining to SIP 

Submittals From the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

IX. Proposed Actions 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to 

Take? 

On May 2, 2005, VADEQ formally 

submitted a request to redesignate the 

Fredericksburg area to attainment of the 

8-hour NAAQS for ozone. On May 4, 

2005, Virginia submitted a maintenance 

plan for the Fredericksburg area as a SIP 

revision, to ensure continued attainment 

over the next 10 years. The 

Fredericksburg area is composed of the 

City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania 

County, and Stafford County. It is 

currently designated as a moderate 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Fredericksburg 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 

Fredericksburg area from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan SIP 

revision for the area (such approval 

being one of the CAA requirements for 

approval of a redesignation request). 

The maintenance plan is designed to 

ensure continued attainment in the 

Fredericksburg area for the next 10 

years. Additionally, EPA is announcing 

its action on the adequacy process for 

the MVEBs identified in the 

maintenance plan, and proposing to 

approve the MVEBs identified for 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the 

Fredericksburg 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 ozone 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 

Fredericksburg area was designated as 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

status in a notice signed on April 25, 

2004 and published on April 30, 2004 

(69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance 

of the 8-hour health-based standard for 

ozone during the years of 2001–2003. 

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 

66318 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA reclassified the Washington area from 

serious nonattainment to severe nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on January 24, 2003. See 

68 FR 3410 (January 24, 2003) for the 

reclassification and 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991) for the original classification. 

by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA 

refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment) 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas are 

subject only to the provisions of subpart 

1. Other areas are also subject to the 

provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA’s 8- 

hour ozone implementation rule, signed 

on April 15, 2004, an area was classified 

under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour 

ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year 

average annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 

1-hour design value in the CAA for 

subpart 2 requirements). All other areas 

are covered under subpart 1, based upon 

their 8-hour design values. In 2004, the 

Fredericksburg area was designated a 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area based on air quality monitoring 

data from 2001–2003, and is subject to 

the requirements of both subparts 1 and 

2. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 

50, the 8-hour ozone standard is 

attained when the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest 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. In 2004, the ambient ozone data 

for the Fredericksburg area indicated no 

further violations of the 8-hour ozone 

standard, using data from the 3-year 

period of 2002–2004 with a design value 

of 0.084 ppm. Available preliminary 

monitoring data through September 30, 

2005 indicates continued attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. The Fredericksburg Area 

The Fredericksburg 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area consists of the City 

of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, 

and Stafford County. Prior to 

designation as an 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the City of 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania 

County were designated attainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as part of the 

North Eastern Virginia Intrastate (Air 

Quality Control Region 224) area. 

Stafford County, on the other hand, was 

part of the Metropolitan Washington, 

DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

(the Washington area), and therefore 

was subject to requirements for both 

serious and severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas pursuant to 

sections 182(c) and 182(d) of the Clean 

Air Act.1

On May 2, 2005, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia requested redesignation to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard for the Fredericksburg area. 

The redesignation request included 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

data for the period of 2002–2004, 

indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone had been achieved for the 

Fredericksburg area. The data satisfies 

the CAA requirements 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. 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). 

C. Prior Proposed Rulemaking Actions 

On September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53746), 

EPA proposed approval of a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan submitted by the Commonwealth 

of Virginia for the Fredericksburg area. 

On September 30, 2005 (70 FR 57238), 

EPA withdrew the September 12, 2005 

proposed rule and stated that EPA 

would re-propose approval of the 

redesignation of the Fredericksburg area 

and the associated maintenance plan, 

and provide an expanded discussion as 

to why the redesignation request for this 

area is approvable under the CAA. In 

this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA 

is re-proposing approval of the 

redesignation of the Fredericksburg area 

and the associated maintenance plan as 

announced in the September 30, 2005 

withdrawal notice. 

III. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation to Attainment? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

redesignation, providing that: 

(1) EPA determines that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS; 

(2) EPA has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); 

(3) EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; 

(4) EPA has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and 

(5) The state containing such area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation 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 

(TSD’s) 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66319 

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. 

Relevant rulemakings also include 

EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS—Phase 1 and the 

Notice of Reconsideration thereof. See 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 

30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005). 

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? 

On May 2, 2005, the VADEQ 

requested redesignation of the 

Fredericksburg area to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. On May 4, 

2005, the VADEQ submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg 

area as a SIP revision, to assure 

continued attainment over the next 10 

years. EPA has determined that the 

Fredericksburg area has attained the 

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 designation of the 

Fredericksburg 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 maintenance plan ensuring 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Fredericksburg 

area for the next 10 years. 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 2004, 

2009 and 2015. These MVEBs are 

displayed in the following table: 

TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year NOX VOC 

2004 .............................. 19.742 11.298 

2009 .............................. 13.062 8.346 

2015 .............................. 7.576 7.334 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Commonwealth’s Request? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Fredericksburg 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 May 2, 2005 and May 4, 

2005 submittals satisfy the requirements 

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

A. The Fredericksburg Area Has 

Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Fredericksburg area has attained the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an 

area may be considered to be attaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no 

violations, as determined in accordance 

with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of 

Part 50, based on three complete, 

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To 

attain this standard, the 3-year average 

of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations 

measured at each monitor within the 

area over each year must not exceed the 

ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on 

the rounding convention described in 

40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the 

standard is attained if the design value 

is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must 

be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in Aerometric Information 

Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors 

generally should have remained at the 

same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

In the Fredericksburg area, there is 

one ozone monitor, located in Stafford 

County, that measures air quality with 

respect to ozone. As part of its 

redesignation request, Virginia 

submitted ozone monitoring data for the 

years 2002–2004 (the most recent three 

years of data available as of the time of 

the redesignation request). This data has 

been quality assured and is recorded in 

AIRS. The fourth high 8-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, along with 

the three-year average, are summarized 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—FREDERICKSBURG AREA

FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE

VALUES STAFFORD COUNTY STATION NO. 44–1, AIRS ID 

511790001 

Year 

Annual 4th 

high reading 

(ppm) 

2002 ...................................... 0.094 

2003 ...................................... 0.085 

2004 ...................................... 0.073 

The average for the 3-year period 2002 

through 2004 is 0.084 ppm. 

The data for 2002–2004 show that the 

area has attained the standard, and 

preliminary data for the 2005 ozone 

season show that the area continues to 

attain the standard. The data collected 

at the Stafford County monitor satisfies 

the CAA requirement that the three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration is less than or equal to 

0.08 parts per million (ppm). The 

VADEQ’s request for redesignation for 

the Fredericksburg area indicates that 

the data was quality assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The 

VADEQ uses AIRS as the 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, 

Virginia 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 area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

B. The Fredericksburg Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA and the Area 

Has a Fully Approved SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has determined that Virginia has 

met all SIP requirements for the 

Fredericksburg area applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under Section 

110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements) and that it meets all 

applicable SIP requirements under Part 

D of Title 1 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 what requirements are 

applicable to the area, and determined 

that the applicable portions of the SIP 

meeting these requirements are fully 

approved under section 110(k) of the 

66320 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 

come 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 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

St. Louis). 

1. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

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

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

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

the following: 

• Submittal of a SIP that has been 

adopted by the state after reasonable 

public notice and hearing; 

• Provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

• Implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirement 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of Part D requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

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

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX

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

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

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161). 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 classification 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 should be construed to be 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. In addition, 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 Commonwealth will 

still be subject to these requirements 

after the Fredericksburg area 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 requirements, as well 

as with the policy on the applicability 

of section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings 61 FR 53174–53176 

(October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 

7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at 60 FR 62748, (December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 

FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, 

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(l) 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. Any 

section 110 requirements that are linked 

to the Part D requirements for 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas are not yet 

due, because, as explained below, no 

Part D requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under the 8- 

hour standard became due prior to 

submission of the redesignation request. 

Therefore EPA concludes that Virginia 

has satisfied the criterion of section 

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

Act. 

2. Part D Nonattainment Area 

Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Standard and EPA’s Anti-Backsliding 

Rules 

Stafford County is the only locality in 

the Fredericksburg area that was subject 

to ozone requirements for 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. As noted 

previously, prior to its designation as an 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 

Stafford County was a part of the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, and 

therefore, subject to SIP requirements 

for serious and severe ozone 

nonattainment areas pursuant to 

sections 182 (c) and (d) of the CAA. 

While, on June 15, 2005, the 1-hour 

standard was revoked, 40 CFR 50.9(b), 

under EPA’s anti-backsliding rules, 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

1-hour standard at the time of the 8- 

hour ozone designations remained 

subject to certain control measures that 

applied by virtue of the area’s 

classification for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.900 et seq., see also 

70 FR 30592, 30604, May 26, 2005). The 

applicable Part D 1-hour ozone standard 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation are those that continue to 

apply under EPA’s anti-backsliding 

rules, which were promulgated in 

conjunction with the implementation of 

the 8-hour NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.900 et 

seq., as amended 70 FR 30592, 30604 

(May 26, 2005)). 

EPA’s 8-hour NAAQS implementation 

rule in 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribes 

the 1-hour NAAQS requirements that 

continue to apply after revocation of the 

1-hour NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas, such as Stafford 

County. Section 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides 

that: 

The area remains subject to the obligation 

to adopt and implement the applicable 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66321 

2Certain sources located in Stafford County 

applied for and received Federally Enforceable 

State Operating Permits (FESOPs) from VADEQ 

which limited their emissions of VOC and NOX

below the RACT applicability thresholds. After 

redesignation, those FESOPs will remain applicable 

requirements of the Virginia SIP. 

requirements as defined in section 51.900(f), 

except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of 

this section, and except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. * * * 

Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 

FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), states 

that: 

Applicable requirements means for an area 

the following requirements to the extent such 

requirements apply or applied to the area for 

the area’s classification under section 

181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS 

at designation for the 8-hour NAAQS: 

(1) Reasonably available control 

technology (RACT). 

(2) Inspetion and maintenance programs 

(I/M). 

(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for 

purposes of RACT. 

(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions. 

(5) Stage II vapor recovery. 

(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 

183(c)(4) of the CAA. 

(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 

182(e)(3) of the CAA. 

(8) Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as 

provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA. 

(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under 

section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

(10) Transportation control measures 

(TCMs) under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA. 

(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the CAA. 

(12) NOX requirements under section 

182(f) of the CAA. 

(13) Attainment demonstration or an 

alternative as provided under section 

51.905(a)(1)(ii). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), only 

the Stafford County portion of the 

Fredericksburg area is subject to the 

obligations set forth in 51.905(a) and 

51.900(f). At the time Stafford County 

was designated nonattainment for the 8- 

hour standard, it was part of a 1-hour 

nonattainment area classified as severe. 

Therefore, two of the elements—clean 

fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) 

and TCMs during heavy traffic hours as 

provided under section 182(e) are not 

applicable requirements for the Stafford 

County portion of the Fredericksburg 

area. The following paragraphs discuss 

how the applicable requirements have 

been met. 

With respect to RACT and the major 

source applicability cut-offs for 

purposes of RACT, EPA has fully 

approved Virginia’s SIP for the 

Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area as meeting the 

requirements of sections 182(b)(2), 

182(c) and 182(f) of the CAA. On March 

12, 1997 (62 FR 11332), EPA fully 

approved Virginia’s VOC RACT 

regulation SIP revision for control 

technique guideline (CTG) sources and 

for non-CTG sources which have an 

applicability threshold of 25 tons per 

year (tpy) or more. On January 2, 2001 

(66 FR 8), EPA fully approved Virginia’s 

NOX RACT regulation SIP revision 

which had a major source applicability 

threshold of 50 tpy or more. On August 

9, 2004 (69 FR 48150), EPA fully 

approved Virginia’s SIP revision that 

lowered the major source applicability 

threshold for its NOX RACT (and Part D 

NSR) regulations to 25 tpy. EPA has 

fully approved Virginia’s SIP revisions 

consisting of source category and 

individual source RACT 

determinations.2 See 62 FR 11332 

(March 12, 1997); 62 FR 11334 (March 

12, 1997); 64 FR 3425 (January 22, 

1999); 66 FR 8 (January 2, 2001); 69 FR 

48150 (August 9, 2004); 69 FR 54578 

(September 9, 2004); 69 FR 54600 

(September 9, 2004); 69 FR 59812 

(October 6, 2004); and, 69 FR 72115 

(December 13, 2004). 

On September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47670), 

EPA fully approved Virginia’s I/M 

program to meet the enhanced program 

required in the Washington 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area under section 

182(c)(3) of the CAA. 

EPA has fully approved Virginia’s SIP 

revisions that demonstrate ROP 

reductions required in the Washington 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area. On 

October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59727), EPA 

approved Virginia’s plan to achieve the 

15 percent reduction in VOC emissions 

in the Washington area that was 

required under section 182(b) of the 

CAA. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), 

EPA fully approved Virginia’s ROP plan 

to achieve further ROP reductions in the 

Washington, area by 1999, 2002 and 

2005 that were required of serious and 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas under section 182(c)(2) of the 

CAA. 

On June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32353), EPA 

approved Virginia’s Stage II vapor 

recovery program required in the 

Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area under section 

182(b)(2) of the CAA. 

On December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72564), 

EPA fully approved Virginia’s SIP 

revision which substituted a national 

low emission vehicle (NLEV) program 

for the clean fuel fleet program required 

in the Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area under section 

182(c)(4) of the CAA. 

On September 11, 1995, (60 FR 

47081), EPA fully approved Virginia’s 

SIP revision consisting of an enhanced 

ambient monitoring program required in 

the Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area under section 

182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

Within six years of November 15, 

1990, and every three years thereafter, 

section 182(c)(5) requires States to 

submit a demonstration of whether 

current aggregate vehicle mileage, 

aggregate vehicle emissions, congestion 

levels, and other relevant parameters 

(collectively ‘‘relevant parameters’’) are 

consistent with those used for the area’s 

demonstration of attainment for serious 

and above 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas. If the levels of relevant 

parameters that are projected in the 

attainment demonstration are exceeded, 

a State has 18 months to develop and 

submit a revision of the applicable 

implementation plan to include TCMs 

to reduce emissions to a level consistent 

with emissions levels in the attainment 

demonstration for the area. 

Alternatively, EPA has determined 

that nonattainment areas are not 

permanently locked into the estimates 

of future emissions given in the initial 

SIP submittal, nor locked into those in 

any subsequently approved amendment 

thereto. As we stated in the General 

Preamble, once approved, the amended 

SIP revision would have the effect of 

increasing the allowable motor vehicle 

emissions (including those due to 

changes in the relevant parameters). See 

57 FR 13498 at 13520 (April 16, 1992). 

Thus if actual emissions exceed those 

projected in an area’s attainment 

demonstration, a State may at any time 

before the area reaches attainment, 

amend the area’s SIP to demonstrate 

attainment while altering the mix of 

emissions reductions in its SIP from 

various kinds of sources (motor vehicle 

versus non-motor vehicle), rather than 

include TCMs in the SIP. 

On August 19, 2003, Virginia 

submitted a SIP revision consisting of a 

demonstration that the Washington 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area would 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

November 15, 2005. See 70 FR 25688 

(May 13, 2005). This SIP revision 

contained information on the relevant 

parameters current as of June 2003. On 

February 25, 2004, Virginia submitted as 

a SIP revision a revised attainment 

demonstration and plan for the 

Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area which also showed 

that the Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area would attain the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 

2005. See 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005). 

That February 25, 2004 SIP revision 

contained information on the relevant 

parameters current as of November 23, 

2003. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), 

EPA fully approved Virginia’s February 

66322 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

25, 2004 attainment demonstration and 

plan SIP revision for the Washington 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment. In the 

February 25, 2004 SIP revision, the 

relevant parameters remained consistent 

with the demonstration of attainment by 

relying on a mix of emissions reductions 

from motor vehicle and non-motor 

vehicle emission reduction without 

need to resort to TCMs. 

EPA therefore concludes that Virginia 

has complied with the substance of 

section 182(c)(5), has no currently due 

182(c)(5) obligations, and by virtue of 

EPA’s approval of the February 25, 2004 

attainment demonstration and plan SIP 

revision, has never triggered an 

obligation under 182(c)(5) to include 

TCMs in its SIP for the Washington 1- 

hour ozone area. Additionally, in line 

with EPA’s guidance and policy 

regarding what is an applicable Part D 

requirement under section 107 of the 

CAA that was discussed previously in 

this document, EPA believes that any 

future activities, which may be required 

under section 182(c)(5), e.g., the next or 

subsequent triennial demonstration of 

the relevant parameters, for the former 

Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area did not come due 

before Virginia submitted its 

redesignation request and therefore are 

not applicable Part D requirements with 

respect to the approval of Virginia’s 

request to redesignate the 

Fredericksburg area to attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), EPA 

fully approved Virginia’s SIP revision 

for the Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area that implemented 

the VMT provisions of section 182(d)(1) 

of the CAA. 

With respect to NOX requirements 

under section 182(f) of the CAA, as 

discussed above, EPA has fully 

approved Virginia’s SIP revision 

implementing the NOX RACT 

requirements in the Washington 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. For the 

Stafford County portion of the 

Fredericksburg area, EPA has fully 

approved, pursuant to section 110(k), 

Virginia’s Part D NSR program that 

meets the requirements for a severe 

ozone nonattainment area set under Part 

D of Title I of the CAA. The Virginia 

Part D NSR program covers major 

sources of NOX as well as VOC. See 64 

FR 51047 (September 21, 1999); 65 FR 

21315 (April 21, 2000); and, 69 FR 

48150 (August 9, 2004). 

On August 9, 2004 (69 FR 48150), 

EPA fully approved Virginia’s SIP 

revision that lowered the major source 

applicability threshold for its NOX

RACT (and Part D NSR) regulations to 

25 tpy. 

On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), EPA 

fully approved Virginia’s 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration SIP revision 

for the Washington 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

In its May 2, 2005 redesignation 

request, Virginia identified certain SIP 

revisions as pending before EPA. As 

explained previously, EPA has since 

approved all those SIP revisions which 

are applicable Part D requirements. The 

remainder of these SIP revisions are not 

needed to fulfill an applicable Part D 

requirement for the Fredericksburg area. 

These other non-Part D SIP revisions 

propose to amend the Virginia SIP. EPA 

will approve these SIP revisions only if 

they meet the applicable requirements 

of the CAA and EPA’s regulations, 

including but not limited to EPA’s rules 

for the transition from the 1-hour to the 

8-hour NAAQS under 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart X. 

Thus EPA believes that Virginia has 

met all applicable Part D requirements 

under the 1-hour standard for purposes 

of redesignation under the 8-hour 

standard. 

3. Part D Nonattainment Area 

Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Standard 

The Fredericksburg area was 

designated a moderate 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 for 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. For a 

moderate nonattainment area for the 8- 

hour ozone standard, such as the 

Fredericksburg area, section 182(b) sets 

forth requirements. Section 184 also sets 

forth additional requirements for 

Stafford County, due to its location 

within the Ozone Transport Region 

(OTR). With respect to the 8-hour 

standard, EPA proposes to determine 

that the Virginia SIP meets all 

applicable SIP requirements under Part 

D of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone 

standard Part D requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation became 

due prior to submission of the area’s 

redesignation request. 

In addition to the fact that Part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation did not become due prior 

to submission of the redesignation 

request, EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity, NSR, and OTR 

requirements as not requiring approval 

prior to redesignation. 

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) because 

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, 438–440 (6th Cir. 

2001), upholding this interpretation. See 

also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa 

FL). 

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, 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation. The rationale for this 

view is described in a memorandum 

from Mary Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ‘‘Part 

D NSR Requirements or Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ Virginia has demonstrated 

that the area will be able to maintain the 

standard without Part D NSR in effect in 

the City of Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania County, and therefore, 

Virginia need not have a fully approved 

Part D NSR program prior to approval of 

the redesignation request. Virginia’s 

PSD program will become effective in 

the area upon redesignation to 

attainment in the City of Fredericksburg 

and Spotsylvania County. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 

12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 

20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 

23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). 

As to Stafford County, which is 

located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR 

requirements will continue to be 

applicable. EPA has also interpreted the 

section 184 OTR requirements, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66323 

including NSR, as not being applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. The 

rationale for this is based on two factors. 

First, the requirement to submit SIP 

revisions for the section 184 

requirements continues to apply to areas 

in the OTR after redesignation to 

attainment. Therefore the 

Commonwealth remains obligated to 

have NSR, as well as RACT, and Vehicle 

I/M programs in Stafford County even 

after redesignation. Second, the section 

184 control measures are region-wide 

requirements and do not apply to the 

area by virtue of its designation and 

classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175–

53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 

24826, 24830–32 (May 7, 1997). 

In any event, as discussed previously, 

EPA has fully approved Virginia’s 

RACT, I/M and Part D nonattainment 

NSR SIP revisions for the Stafford 

County, the only part of the 

Fredericksburg area inside the OTR. 

Also, as noted previously, Virginia’s 

approved RACT SIP sets the major 

source applicability thresholds for both 

VOC and NOX at 25 tpy which are well 

below the 50 and 100 tpy applicability 

thresholds required in the OTR for VOC 

sources and NOX sources, respectively. 

EPA also notes that for the Stafford 

County portion of the Fredericksburg 

area EPA has fully approved under 

section 110(k) Virginia’s nonattainment 

NSR program that met the requirements 

for a severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. See 65 FR 21315 (April 21, 2000) 

as amended by 64 FR 51047 (September 

21, 1999) (recodification) and by 69 FR 

32928, June 14, 2004. Consequently 

Stafford County’s approved NSR 

program satisfies the NSR requirements 

applicable in the OTR. Thus, EPA 

proposes to find that the Fredericksburg 

area has satisfied all 8-hour ozone 

standard requirements applicable for 

purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) under 

Part D of the CAA. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

Virginia SIP for the area under section 

110(k) of the Clean Air Act. 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 

25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations 

therein. Virginia has adopted and 

submitted and EPA has fully approved 

at various times provisions addressing 

the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP 

elements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation, in the Stafford portion of 

the Fredericksburg area. As indicated 

above, EPA believes that the section 110 

elements not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked to the area’s nonattainment 

status are not applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA also 

believes that no 8-hour Part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation have yet become due, and 

therefore they need not be approved 

into the SIP prior to redesignation. 

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the 

Fredericksburg 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 area is due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other state-adopted 

measures. EPA approved Virginia’s SIP 

control strategy for the Fredericksburg 

area, including enforceable rules and 

the emissions reductions achieved as a 

result of those rules. Emissions 

reductions attributable to these rules are 

shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 (TPD) 

Year Point Area* Nonroad Mobile Total 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Year 2002 ................................................................................................ 0.563 13.487 3.545 13.054 30.649 

Year 2004 ................................................................................................ 0.602 14.070 3.304 11.298 29.274 

Diff. (02–04) ............................................................................................. 0.039 0.583 ¥0.241 ¥1.756 ¥1.375 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

Year 2002 ................................................................................................ 0.178 3.258 3.717 22.498 29.651 

Year 2004 ................................................................................................ 0.179 3.465 3.601 19.742 26.987 

Diff. (02–04) ............................................................................................. 0.001 0.207 ¥0.116 ¥2.756 ¥2.664 

* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling. 

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC 

emissions were reduced by 1.4 tpd, and 

NOX emissions were reduced by 2.7 tpd, 

due to the following permanent and 

enforceable measures implemented or in 

the process of being implemented in the 

Fredericksburg area: 

Programs Currently in Effect 

(a) National Low Emission Vehicle 

(NLEV); 

(b) Open burning restrictions for 

Stafford County only; 

(c) CTG RACT requirements for 

Stafford County only; 

(d) Non-CTG RACT requirements for 

Stafford County only; 

(e) Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery 

requirements for Stafford County only; 

(f) Reformulated gasoline (RFG) 

requirements for Stafford County only; 

(g) Area source VOC regulations 

concerning portable fuel containers; 

mobile vehicle refinishing; architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings; 

solvent cleaning; and, consumer 

products for Stafford County only; 

(h) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with 

new vehicles meeting the Tier 2 

standards; and, 

(i) Low-sulfur gasoline. 

Virginia has demonstrated that the 

implementation of permanent 

enforceable emissions controls have 

reduced local VOC and NOX emissions. 

Nearly all of these reductions are 

attributable to mobile source emission 

controls such as NLEV and Tier I 

programs. Additionally, Virginia has 

indicated in its submittal that the NOX

SIP Call took effect in 2004. While there 

are no subject sources currently located 

in the City of Fredericksburg, Stafford 

County or Spotsylvania County, Virginia 

expects to indirectly benefit in terms of 

66324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

improved air quality due to this 

program. 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 Fredericksburg Area Has a Fully 

Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Fredericksburg 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 10 years after redesignation. 

1. 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, 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. Eight years after 

the redesignation, the Commonwealth 

must submit a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years 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. 

2. Analysis of the Fredericksburg Area 

Maintenance Plan 

(a) Attainment Inventory—An 

attainment inventory includes the 

emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. The VADEQ 

determined that the appropriate 

attainment inventory year is 2004. That 

year establishes a reasonable year 

within the 3-year block of 2002–2004 as 

a baseline and accounts for reductions 

attributable to implementation of the 

CAA requirements to date. 

The VADEQ prepared comprehensive 

VOC and NOX emissions inventories for 

the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania 

County, and Stafford County, including 

point (sources with emissions over 10 

tons per year or greater), area, mobile 

on-road, and mobile non-road sources 

for a base year of 2002. All inventories 

are based on actual emissions for a 

‘‘typical summer day’’ and consist of a 

list of sources and their associated 

emissions. An attainment year of 2004 

was used for the Fredericksburg area 

since it is a reasonable year within the 

3-year block of 2002–2004 and accounts 

for reductions attributable to 

implementation of the CAA 

requirements to date. Because an actual 

emissions inventory for point sources 

has not yet been completed for 2004, the 

actual 2002 emissions inventory was 

used as a starting point and then 

projected to 2004 using Economic 

Growth Analysis System (EGAS 5.0). 

To develop the NOX and VOC base 

year emissions inventories, VADEQ 

used the following approaches and 

sources of data: 

(i) Point source emissions are 

recorded and maintained electronically 

in the VADEQ’s Comprehensive 

Environmental Data System (CEDS). The 

emissions for these sources are updated 

annually by collecting year-specific 

emissions and/or activity level 

information. While developing the 

emissions inventory, a cutoff emissions 

level of 10 tpy of ozone precursor 

pollutants was used to determine 

whether a source was included in these 

inventories. Smaller emissions sources 

were assumed to be included in the area 

source emissions inventories. 

(ii) Area source emissions were 

developed using the 2002 periodic year 

stationary area source emissions 

inventories along with growth factors. 

Before attempting to calculate the 

growth factors, VADEQ determined the 

appropriate annual growth rate 

representative of each industry or 

indicator. ‘‘Growth Rate’’ refers to the 

annual percentage of growth that occurs 

in a category per year. The area source 

growth rate estimates also involve the 

use of current local source data, 

including area populations and 

employment data by source type. 

(iii) The process of estimating on-road 

mobile source emissions consists of two 

components: Vehicular-related activity 

(i.e., VMT) and an average rate of 

pollutant produced as a result of a 

particular level of activity. A pollutant 

emission rate associated with a 

particular level of activity emissions 

were estimated using MOBILE6.2 

emissions factors. The VADEQ has 

provided detailed data summaries to 

document the calculations of mobile onroad VOC and NOX emissions for 2002, 

as well as for the projection years of 

2004, 2009, and 2015 (shown in tables 

4 and 5 below). 

(iv) Mobile non-road emissions were 

calculated using the NONROAD model 

that incorporates EPA’s recent 

regulations affecting these engine types 

(recreational vehicles, lawn and garden 

equipment, and outdoor power 

equipment) well into the future. The 

VADEQ used the NONROAD model to 

calculate emissions for all nonroad 

engine types except for aircraft, 

locomotives, and commercial marine 

vessels which were inventoried 

separately. The VADEQ’s nonroad 

inputs are based on the required RFG 

and the Stage II vapor recovery systems 

in Stafford County, while the City of 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania 

County’s non-road inputs are based on 

southern-grade conventional gasoline. 

The 2004 attainment year VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Fredericksburg 

area are summarized along with the 

2009 and 2015 projected emissions for 

this area in Tables 4 and 5 below, which 

covers the demonstration of 

maintenance for this area. EPA has 

concluded that the Commonwealth has 

adequately derived and documented the 

2004 attainment year VOC and NOX

emissions for this area. 

(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On 

May 4, 2005, the VADEQ submitted a 

SIP revision to supplement its May 2, 

2005 redesignation request. The 

submittal by VADEQ consists of the 

maintenance plan as required by section 

175A of the CAA. This plan shows 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by demonstrating that current 

and future emissions of VOC and NOX

remain at or below the attainment year 

2004 emissions levels throughout the 

Fredericksburg area through the year 

2015. A maintenance demonstration 

need not be based on modeling. See 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 

2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 

53099–53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 

25430–32 (May 12, 2003). 

Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Fredericksburg 

area for 2004, 2009, and 2015. The 

VADEQ chose 2009 as an interim year 

in the 10-year maintenance 

demonstration period to demonstrate 

that the VOC and NOX emissions are not 

projected to increase above the 2004 

attainment level during the time of the 

10-year maintenance period. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66325 

TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS

FOR 2004–2015 (TPD) 

Source 

category 

2004 

VOC 

emissions 

2009 

VOC 

emissions 

2015 

VOC 

emissions 

Mobile 1 11.298 8.346 7.334 

Nonroad 3.304 2.555 2.231 

Area 2 .... 14.070 13.161 15.303 

Point ...... 0.602 0.692 0.782 

Total .. 29.274 24.754 25.650 

1 Includes transportation conformity provisions. 2 Includes vehicle refueling emissions and 

the benefits of selected local controls (Stage I, 

CTG RACT, and open burning). 

TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS

2004–2015 (TPD) 

Source 

category 

2004 

NOX

emissions 

2009 

NOX

emissions 

2015 

NOX

emissions 

Mobile 1 19.742 12.062 7.576 

Nonroad 3.601 3.080 2.195 

Area 2 .... 3.465 3.926 4.742 

Point ...... 0.179 0.180 0.182 

Total .. 26.987 20.248 14.695 

1 Includes transportation conformity provisions. 2 Includes selected local controls (open 

burning). 

Additionally, the following mobile 

programs are either effective or due to 

become effective and will further 

contribute to the maintenance 

demonstration of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS: 

• Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/ 

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

(January 18, 2001, 66 FR 5002); and 

• Non-road emissions standards 

(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/ 

2010); (June 29, 2004, 69 FR 39858). 

Lastly, to further improve air quality 

and to ensure continued attainment by 

maintaining emissions in the area at or 

below 2004 levels, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia has initiated rulemaking to 

implement the following programs: 

• Stage I Vapor Recovery 

requirements in Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania; 

• Open burning restriction 

requirements in Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania; and 

• VOC RACT requirements for CTG—

subject sources in Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania. 

In addition to the above permanent 

and enforceable measures, CAIR should 

have positive impacts on the 

Commonwealth’s air quality by the 

years 2009 and 2015. 

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 Fredericksburg area. 

(c) Monitoring Network—There is 

currently one monitor measuring ozone 

in the Fredericksburg area. VADEQ will 

continue to operate its current air 

quality monitor in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58. Should measured mobile 

source parameters change significantly 

over time, the Commonwealth will 

perform a saturation monitoring study 

to determine the need for, and location 

of, additional permanent monitors. 

(d) Verification of Continued 

Attainment—The Commonwealth of 

Virginia has the legal authority to 

implement and enforce specified 

measures necessary to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. Key regulatory 

requirements that VADEQ will 

implement and retain to maintain 

attainment include expanding VOC 

RACT for CTG sources, Stage I Vapor 

Recovery, and open burning restrictions 

to the City of Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania County. The VADEQ 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 emissions 

update of stationary sources, the 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) VMT 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 comprehensive 

tracking inventories to EPA every three 

years during the maintenance plan 

period. For purpose of performing this 

tracking function for point sources, the 

Commonwealth will retain the annual 

emission statement requirements for the 

maintenance area (9 VAC 5–20–160). 

(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 Act 

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 measures 

that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

measure(s). 

The ability of the Fredericksburg 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 2004 

levels. The Commonwealth’s 

maintenance plan projects VOC and 

NOX emissions to decrease and stay 

below 2004 levels through the year 

2015. However, if emissions do not 

decrease as expected, or if emissions 

increase, the area may experience 8- 

hour ozone violations. 

The Commonwealth’s maintenance 

plan lays out three 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 above the 2004 

attainment levels is 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 2004 

attainment level emissions for VOC or 

NOX is exceeded or is predicted to be 

exceeded, the following measures will 

be implemented: 

• Preparation of a complete VOC and 

NOX emission inventory; and 

• The expanded implementation of 

one or more of the following of 

Virginia’s area source VOC regulations 

throughout the entire Fredericksburg 

area (these regulations are already 

required in Stafford County): Emission 

Standards for Portable Fuel Container 

Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 

42); Emission Standards for Mobile 

Equipment Repair and Refinishing 

Operations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 

48); Emission Standards for 

Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 5 Chapter 

40, Article 49); and Emission Standards 

for Consumer Products (9 VAC 5 

Chapter 40, Article 50). 

(ii) The Stafford County monitor 

indicates two or more ozone 

exceedances (any fourth highest 8-hour 

66326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / 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 Spotsylvania County and the City 

of Fredericksburg 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 nonCTG RACT sources would need to develop sourcespecific RACT plans and comply with their plans 

no later than 12 months from the date of Virginia’s 

adoption of the amended regulations. 

average above 0.08 ppm) in consecutive 

years—According to the maintenance 

plan, if two or more ozone exceedances 

(any fourth highest 8-hour average 

above 0.08 ppm) are recorded in 

consecutive years, the following 

measure(s) will be implemented: 

• The expanded implementation of 

one or more of the following of 

Virginia’s area source VOC regulations 

throughout the entire Fredericksburg 

area (these regulations are already 

required in Stafford County): Emission 

Standards for Portable Fuel Container 

Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 

42); Emission Standards for Mobile 

Equipment Repair and Refinishing 

Operations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 

48); Emission Standards for 

Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 5 Chapter 

40, Article 49); and Emission Standards 

for Consumer Products (9 VAC 5 

Chapter 40, Article 50). 

(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 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, the 

contingency measures will be 

implemented as follows: 

• If there remain any VOC regulations 

[Emissions Standards for Portable Fuel 

Container Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, 

Article 42); Emissions Standards for 

Mobile Equipment Repair and 

Refinishing Operations (9 VAC 5 

Chapter 40, Article 48); Emission 

Standards for Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 

5 Chapter 40, Article 49); and Emission 

Standards for Consumer Products (9 

VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 50)] not yet 

implemented following an earlier 

maintenance plan trigger event, expand 

the implementation of those remaining 

measures throughout the entire 

Fredericksburg area (these regulations 

are already required in Stafford County); 

• If a violation of the ozone standard 

occurs in an ozone season subsequent to 

implementation of all of the 

Commonwealth’s VOC area source 

regulations, then implement NOX RACT 

and VOC RACT for non-CTG sources 

emitting above 100 tpy located in 

Spotsylvania County and the City of 

Fredericksburg. Source categories that 

may be affected by this requirement 

include equipment manufacturing (NOX

RACT and VOC RACT for non-CTG 

RACT has already been implemented in 

Stafford County, due to prior 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS requirements). 

The following schedule for adoption, 

implementation and compliance applies 

to the contingency measures concerning 

non-CTG RACT requirements. It would 

also apply to the imposition of the area 

source VOC regulations if those 

regulations had not already been 

implemented due to other triggers or 

provisions of the maintenance plan. 

• Notification received from EPA that 

a contingency measure must be 

implemented, or three months after a 

recorded violation; 

• Applicable regulation to be adopted 

6 months after this date; 

• Applicable regulation to be 

implemented 6 months after adoption 3; 

• Compliance with regulation to be 

achieved within 12 months of adoption. 

(f) An Additional Provision of the 

Maintenance Plan—The 

Commonwealth’s maintenance plan for 

the Fredericksburg area has an 

additional provision. That provision 

states that regardless of the number of 

exceedances or violations noted, the 

regulations controlling VOC emissions 

from area sources: Article 42 Emission 

Standards for Portable Fuel Container 

Spillage (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 

48); Emission Standards for Mobile 

Equipment Repair and Refinishing 

Operations (9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 

49); Emission Standards for 

Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings (9 VAC 5 Chapter 

40, Article 50); and Emission Standards 

for Consumer Products (9 VAC 5 

Chapter 40) will be expanded to the City 

of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania 

County such that these regulations will 

take effect in 2008, or as expeditiously 

as possible thereafter in order to provide 

additional air quality benefits. 

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 

Fredericksburg area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the Act. 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in 

the Maintenance Plan for the 

Fredericksburg Area 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. 

Reasonable Further Progress 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 emissions 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 national ambient air quality 

standards. 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 assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a 

state implementation plan. 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find the MVEB budget 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66327 

‘‘conform’’ to the state implementation 

plan as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an 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 

follows this guidance and rulemaking in 

making its adequacy determinations. 

The MVEBs for the Fredericksburg 

area are listed in Table 1 of this 

document for the 2004, 2009, and 2015 

years and are the projected emissions 

for the on-road mobile sources plus any 

portion of the safety margin allocated to 

the MVEBs. 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 2015 

safety margin: The Fredericksburg area 

first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

during the 2002 to 2004 time period. 

The Commonwealth used 2004 as the 

year to determine attainment levels of 

emissions for the Fredericksburg area. 

The total emissions from point, area, 

non road and mobile sources in 2004 

equaled 29.274 tpd of VOC and 26.987 

tpd of NOX. The VADEQ projected 

emissions out to the year 2015 and 

projected a total of 25.650 tpd of VOC 

and 14.695 tpd of NOX from all sources 

in the Fredericksburg area. The safety 

margin for the Fredericksburg area for 

2015 would be the difference between 

these amounts, or 3.624 tpd of VOC and 

12.292 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. The following table shows the 

safety margins for the 2009 and 2015 

years. 

TABLE 6.—2009 AND 2015 SAFETY MARGINS FOR THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2004 Attainment ............................................................................................................................................... 29.274 26.987 

2009 Interim ..................................................................................................................................................... 24.754 20.248 

2009 Safety Margin ......................................................................................................................................... 4.520 6.739 

2004 Attainment ............................................................................................................................................... 29.274 26.987 

2015 Final ........................................................................................................................................................ 25.650 14.695 

2015 Safety Margin ......................................................................................................................................... 3.624 12.292 

The VADEQ allocated 0.25 tpd of the 

safety margin to both the 2009 interim 

VOC projected on-road mobile source 

emissions projection and the 2009 

interim NOX projected on-road mobile 

source emissions projection to arrive at 

the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2015 MVEBs 

the VADEQ allocated 0.25 tpd NOX and 

1.6 tpd VOC from the 2015 safety 

margins to arrive at the 2015 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 7.—2009 AND 2015 FINAL MVEBS FOR THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA

Inventory year 

VOC 

emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions .......................................................................... 8.096 12.812 

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................ 0.250 0.250 

2009 MVEBs .................................................................................................................................................... 8.346 13.062 

2015 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions .......................................................................... 5.734 7.326 

2015 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................ 1.600 0.250 

2015 MVEBs .................................................................................................................................................... 7.334 7.576 

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? 

The 2004, 2009 and 2015 MVEBs for 

the Fredericksburg area are approvable 

because the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for NOX and VOC including the 

allocated safety margins 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 

Fredericksburg Area Maintenance Plan? 

The MVEBs for the Fredericksburg 

maintenance plan are being posted to 

EPA’s conformity Web site concurrent 

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 

66328 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 update and associated 

MVEBs are approved in a final Federal 

Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds 

the budget adequate in a separate action 

following the comment period. 

If EPA receives adverse written 

comments with respect to the proposed 

approval of the Fredericksburg 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 

Fredericksburg MVEBs will also be 

announced on EPA’s conformity Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, 

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

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review 

of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’). 

VIII. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

Clean Air Act, including, for example, 

sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 

enforce the requirements or prohibitions 

of the state plan, independently of any 

state enforcement effort. In addition, 

citizen enforcement under section 304 

of the Clean Air Act is likewise 

unaffected by this, or any, state audit 

privilege or immunity law. 

IX. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Frdericksburg area has attainted the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s May 2, 

2005 request for the Fredericksburg area 

to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone because the requirements for 

approval have been satisfied. 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 

area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The final approval of this 

redesignation request would change the 

designation of the Fredericksburg area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the associated 

maintenance plan for this area, 

submitted on May 4, 2005, as a revision 

to the Virginia SIP. EPA is proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan for the 

area because it meets the requirements 

of section 175A. EPA is also proposing 

to approve the MVEBs submitted by 

Virginia for the 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. 

X. 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. 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 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

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

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66329 

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 affect 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 proposed 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 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 Fredericksburg area 

to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the associated maintenance 

plan, 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 oxides, 

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: October 27, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 05–21835 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 05–2693; MB Docket No. 05–282; RM–

11229] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Aragon, 

GA; Chattanooga and Lynchburg, TN; 

and Rockmart, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth a 

proposal to amend the FM Table of 

Allotments, section 73.202(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 73.202(b). 

The Audio Division requests comment 

on a petition filed by Woman’s World 

Broadcasting, Inc., pursuant to section 

1.420(i) of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.420(i). Petitioner proposes to 

change the community of license for 

Station WTSH–FM from Rockmart to 

Aragon, Georgia, to upgrade the 

authorization for Station WTSH–FM to 

Class C1, and to change the FM Table 

of Allotments by deleting Channel 

296C2 at Rockmart, Georgia, and by 

adding Channel 296C1 at Aragon, 

Georgia, as the community’s first local 

aural broadcast service. The proposed 

coordinates for Channel 296C1 at 

Aragon, Georgia, are 34–22–02 NL and 

84–58–33 WL. The allotment will 

require a site restriction of 36.4 km (22.6 

miles) north of Aragon. In order to 

accommodate the allotment of Channel 

296C1 at Aragon, the petitioner further 

requests the substitution of Channel 

230A for Channel 293A at Lynchburg, 

Tennessee. The proposed reference 

coordinates for Channel 230A at 

Lynchburg, Tennessee, are 35–21–58 NL 

and 86–17–18 WL, with a site restriction 

of 12.1 km (7.5 miles) northeast of 

Lynchburg. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before December 5, 2005, and reply 

comments on or before December 20, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the petitioner as follows: 

Gary S. Smithwick, Esq., Smithwick & 

Belendiuk, P.C., 5028 Wisconsin 

Avenue, NW., Suite 301, Washington, 

DC 20016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 

418–7072. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

05–282, adopted October 12, 2005, and 

released October 14, 2005. The full text 

of this Commission document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center 

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The complete text of 

this decision may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20554, (800) 378–3160, 

or via the company’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. This document does 

not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts.