69440 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

telephone number is (504) 589–2965. 

The Bridge Administration Branch of 

the Eighth Coast Guard District 

maintains the public docket for this 

temporary deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Frank, Bridge Administration 

Branch, telephone (504) 589–2965. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Burlington Northern Railway Company 

has requested a temporary deviation in 

order to repair and replace broken bolts 

on the lift span of the bridge across 

Berwick Bay, mile 17.5, at Morgan City, 

St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. This 

maintenance is essential for the 

continued safe operation of the railroad 

bridge. This temporary deviation will 

allow the bridge to remain in the closedto-navigation position from 8 a.m. until 

noon on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 

and Wednesday, November 30, 2005. 

The vertical lift span bridge has a 

vertical clearance of 4 feet above 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

(NGVD) in the closed-to-navigation 

position and 73 feet above NGVD in the 

open-to-navigation position. Navigation 

at the site of the bridge consists of tugs 

with tows transporting petroleum 

products, chemicals and construction 

equipment, commercial fishing vessels, 

oil industry related work boats and crew 

boats and some recreational craft. Since 

the lift span of the bridge will only be 

closed to navigation four hours per day 

for two days, ample time will be 

allowed for commercial and recreational 

vessels to schedule transits. 

Accordingly, it has been determined 

that this closure will not have a 

significant effect on vessel traffic. The 

bridge normally remains in the open-tonavigation position until a train enters 

the signal block, requiring it to close. An 

average number of openings for the 

passage of vessels is, therefore, not 

available. During the repair period, the 

bridge may open for emergencies; 

however, delays should be expected to 

remove all equipment from the bridge. 

The Intracoastal Waterway—Morgan 

City to Port Allen Landside Route is an 

alternate route for vessels with less than 

a 12-foot draft. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Marcus Redford, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–22646 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[RME NO. R03–OAR–2004–MD–0010; FRL–

7997–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Metropolitan Washington, 

DC 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, 

Lifting of Earlier Rules Resulting in 

Removal of Sanctions and Federal 

Implementation Clocks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland. 

This SIP revision is Maryland’s 

attainment plan for the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (the Washington 

area). EPA previously disapproved in 

part a 1-hour ozone attainment plan for 

the Maryland portion of the Washington 

area and issued a protective finding. 

This approval lifts the protective 

finding. EPA is also now determining 

that Maryland has submitted all 

required elements of a severe-area 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

and is thus stopping the sanctions and 

FIP clocks that were started through a 

finding that the State of Maryland had 

failed to submit one of the required 

elements of a severe-area 1-hour 

attainment plan. The intended effect of 

this action is to approve Maryland’s 1- 

hour ozone attainment plan for the 

Washington area and determine that 

Maryland now has a fully-approved 1- 

hour attainment plan and thus to turn 

off the sanctions and FIP clocks started 

based on a finding that one element of 

the plan was missing and to lift the 

protective finding that was issued when 

EPA disapproved Maryland’s earlier 

plan in part. These final actions are 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 16, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number 

R03–OAR–2004–MD–0010. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the RME index at http:// 

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then 

key in the appropriate RME 

identification number. Although listed 

in the electronic docket, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy for public inspection 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘our,’’ and ‘‘its’’ refer to the EPA. 

I. Background 

On July 15, 2005 (70 FR 40946), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. The NPR proposed approval 

of Maryland’s attainment plan for the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC severe 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area (the 

Washington area). Concurrently, EPA 

proposed to rescind its earlier final rule 

which disapproved and granted a 

protective finding for Maryland’s 1-hour 

ozone attainment plan for the 

Washington area. In that July 15, 2005 

notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA 

also proposed to rescind its earlier rule 

finding that the State of Maryland failed 

to submit one required element of a 

severe 1-hour ozone attainment plan, 

namely that for a penalty fee program 

required under sections 182(d)(3) and 

185 of the Act. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

A. Overview 

EPA received comments dated August 

15, 2005 opposing our proposed action 

to approve Maryland’s 1-hour ozone 

attainment plan for the Washington, DC 

area in the absence of an approved SIP 

revision for a section 185 penalty fee 

program covering the Maryland portion 

of the Washington area. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69441 

3A copy of this document is available in the 

docket (both paper and electronic) for this action 

and previously was docketed as items numbers 

OAR–2003–0079–0715 and OAR–2003–0079–0716 

in EPA Docket No. OAR–2003–0079. 

One comment was that promulgation 

of the 8-hour ozone standard did not 

grant EPA the authority to waive the 

section 185 penalty fee program for the 

Washington area. In support of this 

comment, the commenter incorporates 

the reasons stated in portions of 

comment letters the commenter had 

previously submitted on EPA’s 

proposed rules for implementation of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and on EPA’s 

proposed action on two issues raised in 

a petition for reconsideration of EPA’s 

rule to implement the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, the August 15, 

2005 comments enclosed a copy of: 

(1) ‘‘Proposal to Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard, 68 FR 32802 (June 2, 2003), EPA 

Docket No. OAR 2003–0079, Comments of: 

Clean Air Task Force, American Lung 

Association, Conservation Law Foundation, 

Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Southern 

Alliance For Clean Energy, Southern 

Environmental Law Center, and U.S. Public 

Interest Research Group,’’ dated August 1, 

2003, that was docketed as item number OAR 

2003–0079–0215 in EPA Docket No. OAR 

2003–0079; and, 

(2) A March 21, 2005 comment letter 

regarding ‘‘Notice of proposed rulemaking 

responding in part to reconsideration petition 

on ozone implementation rule, 70 FR 5593 

(Feb. 3, 2005), docket no. OAR–2003–0079,’’

that was docketed as item number OAR–

2003–0079–0753 in EPA Docket No. OAR–

2003–0079. 

A copy of each of these items has 

been placed in the docket for this 

action. The commenter specifically 

incorporates by reference parts I and III 

of the June 2, 2003 comments (identified 

in the August 15, 2005 document as 

being submitted to EPA on August 3, 

2003); and parts 1 and 2 of the March 

21, 2005 letter). 

The second comment asserts that EPA 

should defer final action on the 

Maryland attainment plan for the 

Washington area until after the 

resolution of litigation commenced by 

the commenter over EPA’s rules to 

implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

which relate to revocation of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS and waiver of the section 

185 penalty fee program requirement. 

B. Comments Regarding Section 185 

Penalty Fee Program Under the 8-Hour 

Implementation Rule 

Comment and Response: The 

commenter incorporated by reference 

portions of comment letters previously 

submitted on EPA’s proposed rules for 

implementation of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (Phase 1 Rule) and EPA’s 

proposed action reconsidering certain 

aspects of the final Phase 1 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS implementation rule 

(Reconsideration Rule). The issues 

raised in these comments concern EPA’s 

authority and policy bases for 

determining that States would no longer 

be required to submit SIP meeting the 

section 185 fee provision for purposes of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS once that 

standard no longer applied (i.e., for 

most areas of the country as of June 15, 

2005). EPA responded to these 

comments in those two rulemaking 

actions. EPA took final action in the 

Phase 1 Rule and in the Reconsideration 

Rule determining that it had authority to 

determine that the section 185 fee SIP 

is no longer required in areas where the 

1-hour standard had applied. Thus, the 

comments cited by the commenter are 

not relevant to this rulemaking where 

EPA is merely applying that final rule. 

However, to the extent those comments 

and responses might have some 

relevance to the present rulemaking on 

the Maryland SIP, we incorporate by 

reference our responses found in the 

following documents: 

(1) The ‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8- 

Hour requirements—Phase 1,’’ 69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004, particularly 69 FR at 23984–

23988. 

(2) ‘‘Implementation of the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality StandardPhase 1: Reconsideration,’’ 70 FR 30592, May 

26, 2005, particularly 70 FR at 30593–30595. 

(3) ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Ozone (Phase 1) Response to Comments 

Document’’ dated April 15, 2004, particularly 

pages 81 through 106 (inclusive), and, pages 

141 through 144 (inclusive).3

C. Comments Advocating a Delay of 

Final Action Until Resolution of 

Pending Litigation 

Comment: EPA received a comment 

stating that if EPA did not accept the 

commenter’s arguments for not 

approving this rule, then EPA should at 

least defer its final action until the 

litigation challenging EPA’s rules 

implementing the 8-hour ozone 

standard is resolved, because EPA’s 

stated basis for rescinding the Maryland 

SIP disapproval and sanctions clock 

relies on the national rules. This 

comment asserts that delay in 

implementing the section 185 penalty 

fee requirements would ‘‘undermine’’

air quality in the Washington area and 

that there is no harm in requiring 

Maryland to move forward in the 

interim with adoption of SIP provisions 

to implement the section 185 penalty 

fee provisions. The comment notes that 

the District and Virginia have already 

adopted and submitted SIP revisions for 

the section 185 penalty fee program and 

received EPA’s approval of these SIP 

revisions. 

Response: EPA disagrees that we 

should defer action on the Maryland SIP 

until the litigation on the Phase 1 and 

Reconsideration Rules is resolved and 

that such a deferral would not result in 

any harm. Such litigation could take a 

year or more until the court issues a 

decision. In the interim, the State would 

face sanctions and a FIP if it failed to 

adopt and submit the section 185 fees 

SIP. Thus, harm could result from the 

imposition of sanctions. Additionally, 

the State or EPA would also be required 

to devote resources to developing a 

section 185 fees SIP or FIP. 

Section 185 Penalty Fee and Air 

Quality: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that approving 

the Maryland attainment plan without a 

section 185 penalty fee provision would 

‘‘undermine the air quality’’ in the 

Washington area. The section 185 fee 

obligation is not a control measure that 

results in reductions of ozone precursor 

emissions. As we previously noted, in 

response to the comments submitted on 

our rulemaking disapproving 

Maryland’s attainment plan, but 

granting a protective finding for 

transportation conformity purposes, the 

section 185 fee program is not a control 

measure. See, 70 FR 25719 at 25721–

25722, May 13, 2005. Section 185 of the 

Act simply requires that the SIP contain 

a provision that major stationary sources 

within a severe or extreme 

nonattainment area pay ‘‘a fee to the 

state as a penalty’’ for failure of that area 

to attain the ozone NAAQS by the area’s 

attainment date. This penalty fee is 

based on the tons of volatile organic 

compounds or nitrogen oxides emitted 

above a source-specific trigger level 

during the ‘‘attainment year.’’ It first 

comes due for emissions during the 

calendar year beginning after the 

attainment date and must be paid 

annually until the area is redesignated 

to attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 42 

U.S.C. 7511d(a)–(c); 7511a(f)(1). Thus, if 

a severe area, with an attainment date of 

November 15, 2005, fails to attain by 

that date, the first penalty assessment 

will be assessed in calendar year 2006 

for emissions that exceed 80% of the 

source’s 2005 baseline emissions. 

A penalty fee that is based on 

emissions could have some incidental 

effect on emissions if sources decrease 

their emissions to reduce the amount of 

the per ton monetary penalty. However, 

the penalty fee does not ensure that any 

actual emissions reduction will ever 

occur, since every source can pay a 

penalty rather than achieve actual 

69442 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

emissions reductions. The provision’s 

plain language evinces an intent to 

penalize emissions in excess of a 

threshold by way of a fee; it does not 

have as a stated purpose the goal of 

emissions reductions. 

In addition, we note that it is unlikely 

that the section 185 penalty fee would 

take effect for the Washington, DC 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment. The 

Act is clear that the section 185 penalty 

fees apply only if a severe or extreme 

area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date. If the 1- 

hour ozone standard were still intact, 

and if the Washington area were to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its 

attainment date of November 15, 2005, 

then the requirement that sources pay 

the section 185 penalty fees would 

never be triggered. A determination that 

the Washington area has attained or not 

attained the standard by its attainment 

date must be based on air quality 

monitoring data for the 2003 through 

2005 (inclusive ozone seasons). The 

form of the 1-hour ozone standard is 

such that to show attainment a monitor 

must have no more than an average of 

one expected exceedance over a three 

year period. 40 CFR 50.9. The procedure 

for determining the number of expected 

exceedances is set forth in Appendix H 

to 40. EPA has reviewed the available 

air quality data for the Washington area. 

No monitor was violating the 1-hour 

ozone standard in 2003 and 2004. 

Additionally, we note our review of the 

air quality data for the 2005 ozone 

season (which has not yet been qualityassured by the States and for which the 

quality-assurance certification is not 

required until July 1, 2006), indicates 

there have been no reported 

exceedances of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Washington area through 

September 30, 2005. Thus, it seems 

likely that, had the 1-hour ozone 

standard not been revoked, the 

Washington area would attain the 1- 

hour NAAQS by the area’s 1-hour ozone 

attainment deadline, and that the 

section 185 fees will not apply for 

purposes of the 1-hour NAAQS in the 

area. 

EPA’s Delay Could Result in 

Irreparable Harm: We disagree with the 

commenter that requiring Maryland to 

adopt the section 185 fees program will 

not result in irreparable harm. 

If we do not find that Maryland has 

fully met its obligations with respect to 

the 1-hour attainment demonstration 

obligation, the Maryland portion of the 

Washington area will be subject to the 

2:1 offset sanction of 40 CFR 52.31 on 

December 21, 2005 pursuant to our 

finding that the State failed to submit a 

section 185 penalty fee program. See 69 

FR 29236 (May 21, 2004). The highway 

sanctions of 40 CFR 52.31 would 

commence on June 21, 2006. The 

briefing schedule in the South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist v. EPA, No. 

04–1200 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. 

Cir., filed 6–29–04) challenge to the 8- 

hour implementation rules currently 

does not call for EPA to submit its brief 

until January 26, 2006, and final briefs 

by May 26, 2006, i.e., after the offset 

sanctions have commenced and less 

than a month before the highway 

sanctions will commence. Therefore, the 

State would either be subject to 

sanctions for some period of time, or 

would need to devote resources to 

adopting the section 185 fees program. 

Thus, the State and its citizens would be 

harmed—either from the sanctions or 

from the need to devote limited state 

resources to adopting the program. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Maryland’s 

attainment plan for the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Concurrently, EPA 

is determining that Maryland has 

submitted all required elements of a 

severe-area 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration and is thus stopping the 

sanctions and FIP clocks that were 

started through a finding that the State 

of Maryland had failed to submit one of 

the required elements of a severe-area 1- 

hour attainment plan. See May 13, 2005 

(70 FR 25719). Additionally, since the 

State now has a fully approved 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration SIP, we 

are lifting the protective finding that 

was issued with our earlier disapproval 

of Maryland’s 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. See May 13, 2005 (70 FR 

25719). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal requirement, and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the 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. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69443 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

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

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 17, 2006. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

approving Maryland’s attainment plan 

for the Metropolitan Washington, DC 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

and rescinding earlier final rules 

starting sanctions clocks from may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 8, 2005. Donald S. 

Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, 

Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

1-hour Ozone Attainment Plan at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

1-hour Ozone Attainment Plan Washington DC 1–hour ozone 

nonattainment area.

9/2/2003 

2/24/2004 

11/16/05 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

§ 52.1073 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.1073 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (f) 

and (g). 

[FR Doc. 05–22700 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R05–OAR–2005–IN–0008; FRL–7997–8] 

Determination of Attainment, Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans and Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; 

Redesignation of Delaware County to 

Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 25, 2005, the State 

of Indiana, through the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM), submitted: a 

request for EPA approval of a 

redesignation of Delaware County to 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS); and a request for EPA 

approval of an Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a 10-year ozone maintenance 

plan for Delaware County. EPA is 

approving the State’s requests. 

EPA’s approval of the redesignation 

request is based on the determination 

that Delaware County and the State of 

Indiana have met the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment specified in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the 

determination that Delaware County has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In 

conjunction with the approval of the 

redesignation request for Delaware 

County, EPA is approving the State’s 

plan to maintain the attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015 in 

this area as a revision to the Indiana SIP. 

EPA is also approving the 2015 Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC) and 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for this 

area, as defined in the ozone 

maintenance plan, for purposes of 

transportation conformity. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

3, 2006, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comments by December 16, 

2005. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal 

Register and inform the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–

IN–0008, 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/. Regional RME, 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comments system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Once 

in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’

then key in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

Mail: You may send written 

comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

Hand delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM excluding 

Federal holidays.