Proposed Rules. Notice of public hearing; extension of comment period

32,198 words·~146 min read·/register/2007/01/08/07-11

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 101 and 170 [Docket No. 2002P-0122] (formerly 02P-0122) Conventional Foods Being Marketed as “Functional Foods”; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public hearing; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is extending to March 5, 2007, the comment period for the notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** of October 25, 2006 (71 FR 62400). In the notice of public hearing, FDA requested comments on how the agency should regulate conventional foods marketed as “functional foods” under its existing legal authority. The agency is taking this action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments. DATES: Submit written and electronic comments by March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2002P-0122, by any of the following methods: *Electronic Submissions* Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. *Written Submissions* Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the *Electronic Submissions* portion of this paragraph. *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Yates, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-555), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1731. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In the **Federal Register** of October 25, 2006, FDA published a notice of public hearing with a 72-day comment period to request comments on the regulation of conventional foods marketed as “functional foods,” specifically the issues and questions presented in section III of the notice (see 71 FR 62400 at 62403). Comments will inform FDA's approaches to the regulation of conventional foods marketed as “functional foods.” The agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the notice of public hearing. Each request conveyed concern that the current 72-day comment period, which closes 30 days subsequent to the public hearing held December 5, 2006, does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the request for comments on the issues and questions presented in section III of the notice. FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice of public hearing for 60 days, until March 5, 2007. The agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments on the issues and questions presented in section III of the notice without significantly delaying the agency's consideration of how FDA should regulate conventional foods marketed as “functional foods” under its existing legal authority. II. Request for Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Dated: December 29, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-47 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 32 CFR Part 1900 FOIA Processing Fees AGENCY: Central Intelligence Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Consistent with the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)and Executive Order 13392, the Central Intelligence Agency

(CIA)has undertaken and completed a zero-based review of its public FOIA regulations governing fees associated with the processing of FOIA requests. As a result of this review, the Agency proposes to revise its fee-related regulations to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on FOIA requesters and to consolidate all regulatory requirements regarding FOIA fees in one subsection of the Code of Federal Regulations. As required by the FOIA, the Agency is providing an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments on these proposed regulations. DATES: Submit comments on or before February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing to the Chief of Information Management Services, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505, or by fax to 703-613-3007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott A. Koch, Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505 or by telephone, 703-613-1287. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent with the FOIA and Executive Order 13392, the CIA has undertaken and completed a zero-based review of its public FOIA regulations governing fees associated with the processing of FOIA requests. As a result of this review, the Agency proposes to revise its fee-related regulations to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on FOIA requesters and to simplify its fee schedule. The proposed regulations remove the unnecessary restrictions on the categories of FOIA requesters that are included in the CIA's current regulations. Under the proposed regulations, the CIA would not charge any FOIA requester, regardless of fee category, for a review fee in connection with the processing of a FOIA request. The proposed regulations would not affect any requester submitting a request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility. Under both current CIA regulations and the proposed CIA regulations, the CIA will continue to place any requester submitting a request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility in the “All Other” fee category and will bill them for search fees and for duplication fees (with the first two hours of search and the first one hundred pages free of charge), unless the CIA grants a fee waiver. Under the proposed regulations, the CIA would bill any requester not submitting a request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility, regardless of their fee category, only for the duplication costs (with the first one hundred pages free of charge) associated with the request, unless the CIA grants a fee waiver. The CIA would not bill these requesters for any search fee in connection with the processing of their request. The proposed regulations would establish a maximum amount the CIA could bill for search fees and a maximum amount the CIA could bill for duplication fees. The criteria the CIA would apply to fee waiver requests would remain unchanged. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 1900 Classified information, Freedom of information. As stated in the preamble, the CIA proposes to amend 32 CFR part 1900 as follows: PART 1900—PUBLIC ACCESS TO CIA RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1. The authority citation for part 1900 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552. § 1900.02 [Amended] 2. In § 1900.02, remove and reserve paragraphs

(e)and (h). § 1900.12 [Amended] 3. In § 1900.12, remove and reserve paragraph (b). § 1900.13 [Removed] 4. Remove § 1900.13. § 1900.14 [Removed] 5. Remove § 1900.14. 6. Add § 1900.20 to read as follows: § 1900.20 Fees. This section governs fees and fee waivers associated with Freedom of Information Act requests the CIA receives.

(a)*Categories of FOIA Requesters.*

(1)*Commercial Use Requester* means any requester who seeks information, on his or her own behalf or on the behalf of another, for a use or purpose that furthers his or her commercial, trade, or profit interests.

(2)*Non-Commercial Educational or Scientific Institution* means any requester that is professionally affiliated with either an accredited educational institution at any academic level or an institution engaged in research concerning the social, biological, or physical sciences.

(3)*Representative of the News Media* means any requester actively gathering information of current interest to the public, for an organization that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the general public.

(4)*All Other Requesters* means any requester who does not fall within one of the other categories.

(b)*Required Fee Commitment.* The Agency will not accept any FOIA request unless the requester has agreed in writing to pay all applicable fees.

(1)Providing this written agreement shall not preclude a requester from seeking a fee waiver in accordance with this section.

(2)The Agency will promptly advise any requester who has purported to submit a FOIA request for information without the required written agreement of this requirement and hold the request in abeyance for thirty calendar days from the date of the Agency's notice to the requester. If the Agency has not received the required written agreement, upon expiration of the thirty calendar days, the Agency will close the case and take no further action on the FOIA request. This action does not prevent the requester from re-submitting the request with the required fee agreement at a subsequent date.

(c)*Outstanding Fees.* The Agency will not accept a FOIA request or administrative appeal from any requester who has outstanding fees for information services at any federal agency.

(d)*Requests Processed Under Both the FOIA and the Privacy Act.* The CIA will not bill for fees for any request for information processed under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.

(e)*Special Services.* The CIA will bill any FOIA requester for the actual costs associated the CIA's provision of special services requested by a requester, such as certification that records are true copies or use of other than ordinary mail. The CIA will notify the requester of those costs before providing any special services.

(f)*Review Fees.* The CIA will not bill any FOIA requester for a review fee in connection with the processing of a FOIA request.

(g)*Search Fees.* Except as provided in this subsection, the CIA will not bill a FOIA requester for a search fee in connection with the processing of a FOIA request.

(1)Unless otherwise waived by the CIA in accordance with paragraph O below, the CIA will bill any requester submitting a FOIA request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility for search fees.

(2)Search means the process of looking for and retrieving information and records in response to a FOIA request and determining whether such information and records are responsive to that request.

(3)Search rates reflect the costs incurred by the Agency in searching for records in connection with a FOIA request, including but not limited to, the salary of the individual performing the work and the cost of operating any machinery, such as a central processing unit, needed to conduct the search. The Agency will bill requesters subject to search fees at the following rates: Completed search time in minutes Charge 1 through 120 Free. 121 through 150 Flat Rate: $30.00. 151 through 180 Flat Rate: $60.00. 181 through 210 Flat Rate: $90.00. 211 through 240 Flat Rate: $120.00. 241 through 270 Flat Rate: $150.00. 271 through 300 Flat Rate: $180.00. 301 through 330 Flat Rate: $210.00. 331 through 360 Flat Rate: $240.00. Over 361 Flat Rate: $300.00.

(4)The CIA will execute its searches in the most efficient and least expensive manner reasonably possible.

(5)Unless otherwise waived by the CIA in accordance with paragraph O below, the CIA will bill requesters subject to search fees for the time spent searching even if it does not locate any responsive information, or even if any or all of the responsive information located is exempt from release.

(h)*Duplication Fees.* Unless otherwise waived by the CIA in accordance with paragraph

(o)of this section, the CIA shall bill all FOIA requesters for duplication fees.

(1)Duplication means the making of a copy of information responsive to a FOIA request and deemed releasable by the Agency. Copies may be in paper form, microform, audiovisual materials, or electronic form, among others.

(2)*Requested Form or Format of Disclosure.*

(i)The Agency will honor a requester's specified preference of form or format of disclosure only if—

(A)The Agency can readily reproduce the information in the requested form with a reasonable amount of effort; and

(B)Providing the information in the requested form is consistent with national security or other U.S. Government interests; and

(C)The requester prepays the fees billed by the Agency.

(ii)If the Agency determines that it cannot honor a requester's specified preference of form or format of disclosure, the Agency will notify the requester.

(3)Duplication rates reflect the costs incurred by the Agency in duplicating the nonexempt information responsive to a FOIA request, including the salary of the individual performing the duplication and the cost of operating duplication machinery.

(4)For the duplication in paper form, the Agency will bill at the following rates: Number of pages released to requester Charge 1 through 100 None. 101 through 150 Flat Rate: $25.00. 151 through 200 Flat Rate: $50.00. 201 through 250 Flat Rate: $75.00. 251 through 300 Flat Rate: $100.00. 301 through 350 Flat Rate: $125.00. 351 through 400 Flat Rate: $150.00. 401 through 450 Flat Rate: $175.00. 451 through 500 Flat Rate: $200.00. 501 through 550 Flat Rate: $225.00. 551 through 600 Flat Rate: $250.00. 601 through 1000 Flat Rate: $450.00. Over 1000 Flat Rate: $1000.00.

(5)For the duplication in electronic or other form, the Agency will bill at the rate of $100.00 per compact disc.

(i)*No Fees Billed.* The CIA will not bill for fees when the cost of collecting the fee is equal to or greater than the fee itself. Therefore, the CIA will not bill for fees for any request for information when the total bill is twenty-five

(25)dollars or less.

(j)*Interest.* The CIA may charge interest on any unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the date of the bill, and will assess interest at the rate provided in section 3717 of title 31 of the U.S. Code. Interest will accrue from the date of the bill until the Agency receives payment. The CIA will follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749), as amended, and its administrative procedures, including the use of consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset.

(k)*Aggregation.* Where the CIA reasonably believes that a requester or group of requesters acting together is attempting to divide a request into a series of requests for a purpose of avoiding fees, the CIA may aggregate those requests and bill accordingly. This provision is not intended to limit the CIA's authority to aggregate the processing of multiple requests when necessary to protect national security or other U.S. Government interests.

(l)*Advance Payments.* An advance payment is a payment made before the CIA begins or continues work on a FOIA request. The CIA may require an advance payment only as specified in this section.

(1)The CIA may require a FOIA requester to make an advance payment of up to 100 percent of the total estimated fee only when—

(i)The CIA estimates, at any time before or during the processing of a FOIA request, that the total fee will exceed $250.00; or

(ii)The requester has previously failed to pay a fee in a timely fashion and the Agency did or could have charged the requester for interest in accordance with this section.

(2)When the CIA requires an advance payment, the CIA will promptly notify the requester and hold the request in abeyance for thirty calendar days from the date of the Agency's notice to the requester. If the requester fails to remit the payment within the thirty days, the Agency will close the case and take no further action on the FOIA request. This action does not prevent the requester from re-submitting the request at a susequent date.

(m)*Prepayments.* A prepayment is a payment made after the CIA has completed all the work on a FOIA request but has not forwarded the final response and the processed documents to the FOIA requester. The CIA may require any requester to pay up to the full amount of the billed fee before it provides the FOIA requester with the final response and the processed documents, particularly when the FOIA requester has no payment history or has previously failed to pay a fee within thirty calendar days of the bill.

(n)*Requests for Notification.* Upon request, the Agency may notify a requester when the estimated costs of processing the FOIA request meet or exceed a certain threshold.

(o)*Fee Waivers.*

(1)In order to qualify for any fee waiver, a FOIA requester must first agree in writing to pay all applicable fees.

(2)*Requesters shall submit fee waiver requests in writing.* The Agency will not consider any fee waiver request received by the Agency later than thirty calendar days of the date of the requester's FOIA request.

(3)The CIA will furnish records to a FOIA requester at no charge, or at a reduced rate, whenever the CIA determines that, as a matter of administrative discretion, the interest of the U.S. Government would be served.

(4)*Public interest fee waivers.* The CIA will furnish records to a FOIA requester at no charge, or at a reduced rate, whenever the CIA determines, based on all available information, that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interests of the requester.

(i)In order to determine whether the first public interest fee waiver requirement has been met (i.e., that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of Government operations or activities), the Agency will consider the following four factors, in sequence:

(A)*Subject matter of the requested records.* The subject of the requested records must specifically concern identifiable operations or activities of the federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

(B)*Informative value of the information to be disclosed.* The disclosable portions of the requested information must be meaningfully informative about specific federal government activities or operations in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that is already in the public domain, in either a duplicative or substantially identical form, would not be likely to contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

(C)*Contribution to public understanding.* The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of the public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester or a narrow segment of interested persons. A requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. The CIA may presume that requesters subject to search fees under these regulations do not have the ability to effectively convey information to the public.

(D)*Significance of the contribution to public understanding.* The disclosure must contribute “significantly” to public understanding of Government operations or activities. The public's understanding of the subject matter in question, as compared to the level of public understanding existing before the disclosure, must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.

(ii)In order to determine whether the second public interest fee waiver requirement is met (i.e., that the disclosure of the information “is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester”), the Agency will consider the following three factors, in sequence:

(A)*Existence of commercial interest.* A “commercial interest” is one that furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest. The Agency will consider any commercial interest of the requester or any person upon whose behalf the requester may be acting that would be furthered by the disclosure. Agency personnel may consider the requester's identity and the circumstances surrounding the request and draw reasonable inferences regarding the existence of a commercial interest.

(B)*Effects of disclosure on the commercial interest.* If the requester has a commercial interest, the CIA will determine whether and to what extent disclosure of the requested information would further that interest.

(C)*Primary interest in disclosure.* The Agency will determine whether the public interest in disclosure asserted by the requester is greater in magnitude than the requester's commercial interest.

(5)If the Agency denies a request for a public interest fee waiver, it shall provide the requester with written notice of his or her administrative appeal rights. Requesters shall have the right to file an administrative appeal of the denial of a request for a public interest fee waiver provided the appeal is submitted in writing and is received by the Agency within forty-five calendar days of the date of the denial decision.

(6)The Chair of the Agency Release Panel shall adjudicate all appeals of denials of requests for public interest fee waivers. § 1900.23 [Amended] 7. Revise the heading of § 1900.23, to read “§ 1900.23 Notification of Decision and Right of Appeal.” 8. In § 1900.23, remove and reserve paragraph (a). 9. Amend § 1900.42 by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 1900.42 Right of appeal and appeal procedures.

(a)*Right of Appeal.* A right of administrative appeal exists whenever access to any requested record or any portion thereof is denied or no records are located in response to a request. The Agency will apprise all requesters in writing of their right to appeal such decisions to the CIA Agency Release Panel through the Coordinator. Appeals of denials of requests for fee waivers shall be governed by 32 CFR 1900.20. Dated: December 28, 2006. Edmund Cohen, Chief of Information Management Services. [FR Doc. E6-22574 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6310-02-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648; FRL-8266-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Identification of the Northern Virginia PM2.5 Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision consists of the addition of counties in the Northern Virginia which were designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: *miller.linda@epa.gov.* C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0648. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller,

(215)814-2068, or by e-mail at *miller.linda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information on this rulemaking to add the boundaries of the PM2.5 nonattainment area to Virginia regulations, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** publication. Dated: December 22, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-22553 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0843; FRL-8261-4] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action revises various definitions of terms used by the SCAQMD and rescinds duplicate requirements for landfills from the VCAPCD. We are proposing to approve and rescind these local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0843, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD 102, “Definitions of Terms” and VCAPCD 74.17, “Solid Waste Disposal Sites.” In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving SCAQMD 102 and rescinding VCAPCD 74.17 in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: December 11, 2006. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-23 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0926; FRL-8266-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Excess Emissions Provisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75690), EPA proposed revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions relate to excess emissions provisions. EPA is extending the comment period until February 16, 2007. DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0926, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Rose, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4126, *Rose.Julie@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 2006, EPA proposed the following revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). Both of these revisions relate to excess emissions provisions. Rule No. Proposed action NAC 445.677 Approve requested rescission. NAQR Article 2.5.4 Disapprove rule previously approved in error. The proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. In response to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E., Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), submitted by letter on December 21, 2006, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 30 days. Dated: December 26, 2006. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-18 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0563; FRL-8266-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make determinations under the Clean Air Act

(CAA)that the nonattainment areas of Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass County have attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been attained in the areas. EPA is proposing to approve requests from the State of Michigan to redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These requests were submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ)on June 13, 2006, and supplemented on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. In proposing to approve this request, EPA also is proposing to approve the State's plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 in the areas as revisions to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also finds adequate and is proposing to approve the State's 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0563, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *mooney.john@epa.gov.* • Fax: (312)886-5824. • Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0563. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6031, *hatten.charles@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: Table of Contents I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take? III. What Is the Background for These Actions? IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions? VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests? i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets VIII. What Actions Are EPA Taking Today? IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to Take? EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass County, Michigan nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that these areas have met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve Michigan's request to change the legal designations of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve Michigan's maintenance plan SIP revisions for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2018. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2018 MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The adequacy comment period for the 2018 MVEBs began on August 4, 2006, with EPA's posting of the availability of these submittals on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm)* . The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on September 5, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for these submittals, or adverse comments on these submittals during the adequacy comment period. Please see the Adequacy Section of this rulemaking for further explanation on this process. Therefore, we find adequate, and are proposing to approve, the State's 2018 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. III. What Is the Background for These Actions? Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO X and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the current 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2005. At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour standard, the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas were all designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became effective June 15, 2004. The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003. The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the provisions of both subparts 1 and 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 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 Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under Subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Muskegon and Cass County areas were designated as subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23911), based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. The Flint and Benton Harbor areas were designated by EPA as subpart 1, 8-hour nonattainment areas (69 FR 23910—23911), based on 2001-2003 monitoring data. Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA EPA may adjust the classification of an ozone nonattainment area to the next higher or lower classification if the design value for the area is within five percent of the cut off for that higher or lower classification. On September 22, 2004, EPA adjusted the classification of several nonattainment areas which had been designated and classified under subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that time, EPA adjusted the classifications of the Muskegon and Cass County nonattainment areas from moderate to marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708-5670). 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour ozone standard is attained 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 when rounded. The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3(d). On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested that EPA redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. This submittal was supplemented on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. Michigan included complete, quality-assured air monitoring data for the 2004 through 2006 ozone season, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured air monitoring data are available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation provided that:

(1)The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;

(2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);

(3)the Administrator 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)the Administrator 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 William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, 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 of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; “State Implementation Plan

(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 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. V. Why Is EPA Proposing to Take These Actions? On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested redesignation of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Michigan supplemented its submittal on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. EPA believes that the areas have attained the standard and have met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan SIP plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plans include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 of 25.68 tons per day

(ppm)2005 4th high

(ppm)2006 4th high

(ppm)2004-2006 avg.

(ppm)Design value 2006 rounded to 2 decimals

(ppm)Flint Genesee Flint 26-0490021 0.075 0.079 0.075 0.076 0.08 Lapeer Otisville 26-0490021 0.077 0.080 0.075 0.077 0.08 Muskegon Muskegon Muskegon 26-1210039 0.070 0.090 0.091 0.083 0.08 Benton Harbor Berrien Coloma 26-0210014 0.073 0.090 0.077 0.080 0.08 Cass Cass Cassopolis 26-0270003 0.077 0.086 0.073 0.078 0.08 Table 2.—Data Completeness in Percent (%) Area County Monitor Annual Minimum of 75% Completeness 2004 (%) 2005 (%) 2006 (%) 3-Year Period Average Minimum of 90% Completeness 2004-2006 average (%) Flint Genesee Flint 26-0490021 100 75 97 91 Lapeer Otisville 26-0492001 100 87 100 96 Muskegon Muskegon Muskegon 26-1210039 99 96 99 98 Benton Harbor Berrien Coloma 26-0210014 98 98 100 99 Cass Cass Cassopolis 92 100 98 97 In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plans, MDEQ has committed to continue operating an EPA approved monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Michigan provide an adequate demonstration that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D; and the Areas Have Fully Approved SIPs Under Section 110(k) (Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) We have determined that Michigan has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under Section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Michigan SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under Part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the Michigan SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained what SIP requirements are applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA. a. *The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.* The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see “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) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See 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 the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). *General SIP requirements.* Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)and part D, New Source Review

(NSR)permit programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain 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 (NO X SIP Call, 1 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)(70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. 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. When the transport SIP submittal requirements are applicable to a state, they will continue to apply to the state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, there are no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard. 1 On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NO X SIP call, requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states, including portions of Michigan, to reduce emissions of NO X in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, MDEQ has developed rules governing the control of NO X emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA approved Michigan's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NO X SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029). *Part D Requirements.* EPA has determined that the Michigan SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for the 8-hour ozone standard prior to submission of the redesignation request for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, which includes sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, which is found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. The Flint and Benton Harbor areas are both classified as subpart 1 nonattainment areas and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not apply. The Muskegon and Cass County areas are classified as subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas and, therefore, both subpart 1 and subpart 2 requirements apply. *Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements.* For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for Flint, Benton Harbor, Muskegon, and Cass County areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (General Preamble 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). *Part D, Subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements.* For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for the Muskegon and Cass County areas are contained in section 182(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 182(a) can be found in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13502-13507 (April 16, 1992)). No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and, therefore, none is applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation. Since the State of Michigan has submitted complete ozone redesignation requests for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas prior to the deadline for any submissions required for purposes of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements do not apply to the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas for purposes of redesignation. Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas redesignating need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that these areas demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed 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 New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Michigan has demonstrated that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect; and therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). *Section 176 conformity requirements.* Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code 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, which EPA promulgated pursuant CAA requirements. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must implement conformity under federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See *Wall* v. *EPA,* 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation conformity SIPs on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61 FR 66609, respectively). Michigan has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets of 25.68 tons per day

(tpd)VOC and 37.99 tpd NO X for the Flint area, 6.67 tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NO X for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC and 15.19 tpd NO X for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd for NO X for the Cass County area based on the areas' projected 2018 emission levels. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. Thus, the areas have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. b. *The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.* EPA has fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner,* 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (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 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, or Cass County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. 3. The Improvement in Air Quality 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 (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change in emissions between 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Michigan and upwind areas have implemented in recent years. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas are all impacted, in varying degrees, by the transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind areas. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind counties are relevant to the improvement in air quality in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. a. *Permanent and enforceable controls implemented.* The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been implemented in the areas: *NO* X *rules.* In compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, Michigan developed rules to control NO X emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing NO X emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NO X emissions from EGUs have been capped at a statewide total well below pre-2002 levels. MDEQ expects that NO X emissions will further decline as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II NO X SIP call (69 FR 21604; April 21, 2004). *Federal Emission Control Measures.* Reductions in VOC and NO X emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future as the State implements additional emission controls. Federal emission control measures include: the National Low Emission Vehicle

(NLEV)program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule will reduce off-road diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in 2008. *Control Measures in Upwind Areas.* Upwind ozone nonattainment areas in the Lake Michigan region, including Chicago, Illinois; Gary, Indiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin have continued to reduce emissions of VOC and NO X to meet their rate of progress obligations under the 1-hour ozone standard. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have all developed regulations to control NO X , Illinois and Indiana pursuant to the NO X SIP call and Wisconsin to meet rate of progress requirements. These upwind reductions in emissions have resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering Michigan. The emission reductions resulting from these upwind control programs are permanent and enforceable. b. *Emission reductions.* Michigan is using 2002 for the nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. For 2002, MDEQ used the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002 base K inventory. This typical summer day inventory was developed by processing emissions data from the EPA final 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Nonroad emissions were estimated using the most current version of EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). For the 2005 inventory, Michigan interpolated between the 2002 LADCO base K inventory and the LADCO 2009 base K inventory to project emissions for the non-EGU point and area sectors. For EGU emissions, Michigan used 2004 actual emissions as a better representation of 2005 than interpolating from 2009. For nonroad emissions, Michigan used the most current version of NMIM. For onroad emissions, Michigan used the Mobile6.2 model. Based on the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal documents changes in VOC and NO X emissions from 2002 to 2005 for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The emissions reductions for both VOC and NO X , by county and by source category are shown below in Tables 3 through 7. Table 3.—Flint Area: Total VOC and NO X Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002

(tpd)Genesee VOC NO X Lapeer VOC NO X Total VOC NO X Point 4.93 2.66 1.14 0.32 6.07 2.98 Area 22.06 1.76 4.60 0.37 26.66 2.13 Nonroad 33.74 8.72 6.81 2.97 40.55 11.69 Onroad 26.68 40.80 4.84 9.82 31.52 50.62 Total 87.41 53.94 17.39 13.48 104.8 67.42 Table 4.—Flint Area: Total VOC and NO X Emissions for Attainment Year 2005

(tpd)Genesee VOC NO X Lapeer VOC NO X Total VOC NO X Point 4.38 2.61 0.95 0.30 5.33 2.91 Area 21.63 1.80 4.60 0.38 26.23 2.18 Nonroad 11.79 8.07 6.72 2.79 18.51 10.86 Onroad 17.71 29.98 3.39 6.10 21.10 36.08 Total 55.51 42.46 15.66 9.57 71.17 52.03 Table 5.—Flint Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) NO X 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) Point 6.07 5.33 −0.74 2.98 2.91 −0.07 Area 26.66 26.23 −0.43 2.13 2.18 0.05 Onroad 40.55 18.51 −22.04 11.69 10.86 −0.83 Nonroad 31.52 21.10 −10.42 50.62 36.08 −14.54 Total 104.80 71.17 −33.63 67.42 52.03 −15.39 Table 6.—Muskegon Area (Muskegon County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) NO X 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) Point 1.77 1.73 −0.04 14.35 13.83 −0.52 Area 8.20 8.15 −0.05 0.81 0.83 0.02 Onroad 7.67 5.08 −2.59 11.93 8.91 −3.02 Nonroad 10.41 10.26 −0.15 6.48 6.27 −0.21 Total 28.05 25.22 −2.83 33.57 29.84 −3.73 Table 7.—Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) NO X 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) Point 1.91 1.93 0.02 3.70 3.47 −0.23 Area 9.05 8.99 −0.06 0.79 0.81 0.02 Onroad 11.11 7.45 −3.66 20.45 14.49 −5.96 Nonroad 11.67 10.98 −0.69 4.80 4.54 −0.26 Total 33.74 29.35 −4.39 29.74 23.31 −6.43 Table 8.—Cass County Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) NO X 2002 2005 Net change (2002-2005) Point 0.31 0.34 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.00 Area 2.22 2.22 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 Onroad 2.45 1.66 −0.79 4.52 2.97 −1.55 Nonroad 5.07 5.06 −0.01 2.06 1.92 −0.14 Total 10.05 9.28 −0.77 6.98 5.29 −1.69 Table 5 shows that the Flint area reduced VOC emissions by 33.53 tpd and NO X emissions by 15.39 tpd between 2002 and 2005. Table 6 shows that the Muskegon area reduced VOC emissions by 2.83 tpd and NO X emissions by 3.73 tpd between 2002 and 2005. Table 7 shows that the Benton Harbor area reduced VOC emissions by 4.39 tpd and NO X emissions by 6.43 tpd between 2002 and 2005. Table 8 shows that the Cass County area reduced VOC emissions by 0.77 tpd and NO X emissions by 1.69 tpd between 2002 and 2005. Based on the information summarized above, Michigan has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. 4. The Areas Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175a of the CAA. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas to attainment status, Michigan submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas for at least 10 years after redesignation. a. *What is required in a maintenance plan?* Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required 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 ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: The attainment VOC and NO X emissions inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS. b. *Attainment Inventory.* As described above, the MDEQ developed attainment inventories for 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The 2005 attainment level of emissions is summarized, above, in Tables 4 to 8. c. *Demonstration of Maintenance.* Michigan submitted with the redesignation request revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 10-year maintenance plans for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas, as required by section 175A of the CAA. These demonstrations show maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas remain at or below attainment year emission levels. 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 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003). Michigan is using projected inventories developed by LADCO for the years 2009 and 2018. The exception to this is the 2018 onroad mobile source emissions estimates, which were prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Using projected inventories prepared by LADCO will ensure that the inventories used for redesignation are consistent with regional attainment modeling performed in the future. These emission estimates are presented in Tables 9 to 12 below. Table 9.—Flint Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 NO X 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 Point non-EGU 5.27 4.35 4.83 −0.44 2.77 2.74 2.81 0.04 Point EGU 0.06 0.00 0.00 −0.06 0.14 0.00 0.01 −0.13 Point Total 5.33 4.35 4.83 −0.50 2.91 2.74 2.82 −0.09 Area 26.23 25.65 26.01 −0.22 2.18 2.25 2.33 0.87 Onroad 21.10 18.18 9.76 −11.34 36.08 32.89 11.43 −24.65 Nonroad 18.51 16.35 12.88 −5.63 10.86 9.20 15.02 −4.16 Total 71.17 64.01 53.48 −17.69 52.03 47.08 22.51 −29.52 Safety Margin 17.69 29.52 Table 10.—Muskegon Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 NO X 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 Point Non-EGU 1.63 1.59 2.02 0.39 4.75 4.75 5.14 0.39 Point EGU 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.02 9.08 6.23 7.17 −1.91 Point Total 1.73 1.69 2.14 0.41 13.83 10.98 12.31 −1.52 Area 8.15 8.09 8.36 0.21 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.05 Onroad 5.08 4.66 2.27 −2.81 8.91 8.19 2.74 −6.17 Nonroad 10.26 9.52 7.56 −2.70 6.27 5.84 4.73 −1.54 Total 25.22 23.96 20.33 −4.89 29.84 25.86 20.66 −9.18 Safety Margin 4.89 9.18 Table 11.—Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 NO X 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 Point Non-EGU 1.93 1.95 2.40 0.47 3.47 3.17 3.22 −0.25 Point EGU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Point Total 1.93 1.95 2.40 0.47 3.47 3.17 3.22 −0.25 Area 8.99 8.92 9.38 0.39 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.05 Onroad 7.45 6.54 3.44 −4.01 14.49 13.27 4.57 −9.92 Nonroad 10.98 9.86 7.77 −3.21 4.54 4.01 2.86 −1.68 Total 29.35 27.27 22.99 −6.36 23.31 21.28 11.51 −11.80 Safety Margin 6.36 11.80 Table 12.—Cass County Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 VOC and NO X Emissions

(tpd)Sector VOC 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 NO X 2005 2009 2018 Net change 2005-2018 Point non-EGU 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.03 Point EGU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Point Total 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.03 Area 2.22 2.22 2.31 −0.44 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.02 Onroad 1.66 1.47 0.74 −9.64 2.97 3.03 0.94 −2.03 Nonroad 5.06 4.70 3.50 −3.59 1.92 1.67 1.17 −0.75 Total 9.28 8.78 7.04 −2.24 5.29 5.11 2.56 −2.73 Safety Margin 2.24 2.73 The emission projections show that MDEQ does not expect emissions in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to exceed the level of the 2005 attainment year inventory during the maintenance period. In the Flint area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO X emissions will decrease by 17.69 tpd and 29.52 tpd, respectively. In the Muskegon area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO X emissions will decrease by 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd, respectively. In the Benton Harbor area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO X emissions will decrease by 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd, respectively. In the Cass County area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO X emissions will decrease by 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd, respectively. As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a “safety margin” for the areas. 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 which continues to demonstrate attainment of the standard. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2004-2006 time period. Michigan used 2005 as the attainment level of emissions for the areas. For Flint, the emissions from point, area, nonroad, and mobile sources in 2005 equaled 71.17 tpd of total VOC. MDEQ projected VOC emissions out to the year 2018 to be 53.48 tpd of total VOC. The SIP submission demonstrates that the Flint area will continue to maintain the standard with emissions at this level. The safety margin for VOC is calculated to be the difference between these amounts or, in this case, 17.69 tpd of total VOC for 2018. By this same method, 29.52 tpd (i.e., 52.03 tpd less 22.51 tpd) is the safety margin for NO X for 2018. For the Muskegon area, 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NO X , respectively. For the Benton Harbor area, 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NO X , respectively. For the Cass County area, 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NO X , respectively. The safety margin, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the source categories, as long as the total attainment level of emissions is maintained. d. *Monitoring Network.* Michigan currently operates two ozone monitors in the Flint area, and one ozone monitor each in Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. MDEQ has committed to continue operating and maintaining an approved ozone monitor network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. e. *Verification of Continued Attainment.* Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The State's plan for verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas consists of plans to continue ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. In addition, MDEQ will periodically review and revise if necessary the VOC and NO X emissions inventories for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas, as required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 51), to track levels of emissions in the future. f. *Contingency Plan.* The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Michigan has adopted a contingency plan for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to address possible future ozone air quality problems. The contingency plan adopted by Michigan has two levels of response, depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only threatened (Action Level Response) or has occurred (Contingency Measure Response). An Action Level Response will occur when a two-year average fourth-high monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or higher is monitored within an ozone maintenance area. An Action Level Response will consist of Michigan performing a review of the circumstances leading to the high monitored values. MDEQ will conduct this review within six months following the close of the ozone season. If MDEQ determines that contingency measure implementation is necessary to prevent a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ will select and implement a measure that can be implemented promptly. A Contingency Measure Response will be triggered by a violation of the standard (a 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater). When a Contingency Measure Response is triggered, Michigan will select one or more control measures for implementation. The timing for implementation of a contingency measure is dependent on the process needed for legal adoption and source compliance which varies for each measure. MDEQ will expedite the process of adopting and implementing the selected measures, with a goal of having measures in place as expeditiously as practicable within 18 months. EPA is interpreting this commitment to mean that the contingency measure will be adopted and implemented within 18 months. Contingency measures contained in the maintenance plans are those emission controls or other measures that Michigan may choose to adopt and implement to correct possible air quality problems. These include the following: i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline requirements; ii. Reduced VOC content in Architectural, Industrial, and Maintenance

(AIM)coatings rule; iii. Auto body refinisher self-certification audit program; iv. Reduced VOC degreasing rule; v. Transit improvements; vi. Diesel retrofit program; vii. Reduced VOC content in commercial and consumer products rule; viii. Reduce idling program. g. *Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan.* As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Michigan commits to submit to the EPA an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to cover an additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. Michigan has committed to retain the control measures for VOC and NO X emissions that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the areas to attainment, as required by section 175(A) of the CAA. EPA has concluded that 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. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Michigan for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) 1. How Are MVEBs Developed and What Are the MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass Areas? Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress SIP and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and ozone maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. The 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 the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed. 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 SIP that addresses emissions from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation 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 SIP. When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs are “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs are used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps:

(1)Providing public notification of a SIP submission;

(2)providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and

(3)EPA's finding of adequacy. The process of 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 codified 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,” published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas' maintenance plans contain new VOC and NO X MVEBs for the year 2018. The availability of the SIP submission with these 2018 MVEBs was announced for public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web page on August 4, 2006, at: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.* The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2018 MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas closed on September 5, 2006. No requests for this submittal or adverse comments on this submittal were received during the adequacy comment period. In a November 29, 2006 letter, EPA informed MDEQ that we had found the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use in transportation conformity analyses. EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas because EPA has determined that the areas can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Flint area to be 25.68 tpd for VOC and 37.99 tpd for NO X . These MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO X emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 9 (“onroad” source sector), above, because MDEQ decided to include safety margins (described further below) of 15.92 tpd of VOC and 26.56 tpd for NO X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Flint area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 25.68 tpd of VOC and 37.99 tpd of NO X in 2018, including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year emission levels. MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Muskegon area to be 6.67 tpd for VOC and 11.0 tpd for NO X . These MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO X emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 10 (“onroad” source sector), above, because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 4.40 tpd of VOC and 8.26 tpd for NO X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Muskegon area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 6.67 tpd of VOC and 11.0 tpd of NO X in 2018, including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year emission levels. MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Benton Harbor area to be 9.16 tpd for VOC and 15.19 tpd for NO X . These MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO X emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 11 (“onroad” source sector), above, because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 5.72 tpd of VOC and 10.62 tpd for NO X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Benton Harbor area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 9.16 tpd of VOC and 15.19 tpd of NO X in 2018, including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year emission levels. MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Cass County area to be 2.76 tpd for VOC and 3.40 tpd for NO X . It should be noted that these MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO X emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 12 (“onroad” source sector), above. MDEQ decided to include safety margins (described further below) of 2.02 tpd of VOC and 2.46 tpd for NO X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Cass County area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 2.76 tpd of VOC and 3.40 tpd of NO X in 2018, including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year emission levels. 2. 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. As noted in Table 9, the Flint area total VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 17.69 tpd for VOC and 29.52 tpd for NO X in 2018 (the difference between the attainment year, 2005, emissions and the 2018 emissions for all sources in the Flint area). As noted in Table 10, the Muskegon area VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 11, the Benton Harbor area VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 12, the Cass County area VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd, respectively. Even if emissions reached the full level of the safety margin, the counties would still demonstrate maintenance, since emission levels would equal those in the attainment year. The MVEBs requested by MDEQ contain safety margins for mobile sources smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected in the total emissions for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The State is not requesting allocation of the entire available safety margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the State is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected onroad mobile source emissions for 2018 contained in the demonstration of maintenance, the increase in onroad mobile source emissions that can be considered for transportation conformity purposes is well within the safety margins of the ozone maintenance demonstration. Further, once allocated to mobile sources, these safety margins will not be available for use by other sources. VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and EPA is proposing to approve the redesignations of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating Michigan's redesignation requests, EPA has determined that they meet the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The final approvals of these redesignation requests would change the official designations for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan SIP revisions for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. EPA's proposed approval of the maintenance plans is based on Michigan's demonstration that the plans meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, as described more fully above. Additionally, EPA is finding adequate and proposing to approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by Michigan in conjunction with the redesignation requests. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 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. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed 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 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows a 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. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA met with interested tribes in Michigan to discuss the redesignation process and the impact of a change in designation status of these areas on the tribes. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” 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). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area but 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: December 21, 2006. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-22616 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891; FRL-8266-4] Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On July 31, 2006, and supplemented on October 3, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted: a request for EPA approval of redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request for EPA approval of a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision for the ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County. Jefferson County is the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that this area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data. Preliminary, non-quality assured data for the 2006 ozone season show that the area continues to attain the NAAQS. EPA is also proposing approval of Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a revision to the Ohio SIP and the State's request to redesignate Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQs. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)and Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Jefferson County, as supported by the ozone maintenance plan for this County, for purposes of conformity determinations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *mooney.john@epa.gov.* • Fax:

(312)886-5824. • Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. It is recommended that you telephone Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)353-5899, before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-5899, *dunn.jennifer@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take? II. What Is the Background for These Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions? V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity Determinations? VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take? We are proposing to take several related actions for Jefferson County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine that Jefferson County has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a requested revision of the Ohio SIP. The maintenance plan is designed to keep Jefferson County and, in conjunction with a West Virginia ozone maintenance plan for Hancock and Brooke Counties, the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through 2018. Third, we are proposing to find that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are, therefore, proposing to approve the July 31, 2006, and October 3, 2006, requests from the State of Ohio to change the designation of Jefferson County from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 1 1 A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905) addresses a request from the State of West Virginia to redesignate Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Fourth, as supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NO X MVEBs for Jefferson County for conformity determination purposes. These proposed actions pertain to the designation of Jefferson County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and to the VOC and NO X emission controls in this County related to attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC or NO X emissions source in this County or live in this County, this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may impact you if you are involved in transportation planning or implementation of emission controls in this area. Finally, it may also impact you if you breathe the air in Jefferson County or the air which has passed through Jefferson County or the Steubenville-Weirton area as a whole. II. What Is the Background for These Actions? EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human health. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856) of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm) (80 parts per billion (ppb)). 2 This 8-hour ozone standard replaced a prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which was promulgated on February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202) and revoked on June 15, 2005. 2 This standard is violated in an area when any ozone monitor in the area (or in its impacted downwind environs) records 8-hour ozone concentrations with a three year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations equaling or exceeding 85 ppb. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emitted NO X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone along with other secondary compounds. NO X and VOC are referred to as “ozone precursors.” The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The three most recent years of ozone data at the time (2001-2003 when the 8-hour ozone designations were initially established) were considered to establish the ozone designations. The **Federal Register** notice making these designations was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and emission control requirements for nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D of the CAA). Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS, and applies to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 contains more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas, and applies to ozone nonattainment areas classified under section 181 of the CAA. In the April 30, 2004, designation rulemaking, EPA divided 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas into the categories of subpart 1 nonattainment (“basic” nonattainment) and subpart 2 nonattainment (“classified” nonattainment) based on their 8-hour ozone design values (i.e., on the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at the worst-case monitoring sites in the designated areas) and on their 1-hour ozone design values (i.e., on the fourth-highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations over the three-year period at the worst-case monitoring sites in the designated areas). 3 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1-hour ozone design values equaling or exceeding 121 ppb were designated as subpart 2, classified nonattainment areas. Classification of the subpart 2 nonattainment areas were based on the levels of the monitored 8-hour ozone design values for each nonattainment area. All other 8-hour nonattainment areas were designated as subpart 1, basic nonattainment areas, which have no area-specific classifications. 3 The 8-hour ozone design value and the 1-hour ozone design value for each area were not necessarily recorded at the same monitoring site. The worst-case monitoring site for each ozone concentration averaging time was considered for each area. Emission control requirements for classified nonattainment areas are linked to area classifications. Areas with more serious ozone pollution problems are subject to more prescribed requirements. The requirements are designed to bring areas into attainment by their specified attainment dates, which also depend on the area classifications. For example, marginal nonattainment areas are subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest attainment deadline. Severe nonattainment areas are required to meet more mandated emission controls than marginal areas, including tighter restrictions on the sizes of existing VOC and NO X sources required to install emission controls, tighter restrictions on mandated emission controls, and offsetting of new sources. Severe nonattainment areas also have a later attainment deadline. In contrast, the attainment deadline for basic nonattainment areas does not depend on the magnitude of the area 8-hour ozone design values. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than or equal to 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb based on data rounding conventions specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) over the most recent three-year period at all monitors in an area and in its impacted downwind environs (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). Such supporting data must meet a minimum data completeness requirement. The completeness requirement (specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) for ozone data supporting a determination of attainment and a redesignation to attainment is met when the annual average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent for the ozone seasons during the three-year period, with no single year with less than 75 percent data completeness during the ozone season. In the April 30, 2004, designation/classification rulemaking, the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, including Jefferson County, was designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The designation was based on ozone data collected during the 2001-2003 period. On July 31, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a draft request for redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on ozone data collected in the Steubenville-Weirton WV-OH area during the 2003-2005 period. On October 3, 2006, the State of Ohio completed the ozone redesignation request by submitting documentation of the public hearing conducted by the State for the redesignation request and ozone maintenance plan. The information contained in the State's July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's public review process (summarized in the October 3, 2006, submittal). The State of West Virginia has also submitted an ozone redesignation request for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area (for Hancock and Brooke Counties). A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905), addresses this request. 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 provided that:

(1)The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data;

(2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA;

(3)the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions;

(4)the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and,

(5)the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA 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

(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act

(Act)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; “Technical Support Documents

(TSDs)for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 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

(1)Determine that Jefferson County has attained the 8-hour ozone standard;

(2)approve the ozone maintenance plan for this County and the VOC and NO X MVEBs supported by the ozone maintenance plan; and,

(3)approve the redesignation of this County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our proposed determination and approvals are as follows: 1. Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area Have Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Analyses of the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I. These analyses use the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the area and in its impacted downwind environs. To attain this standard, the average of the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each monitor (the monitoring site's ozone design value) within the area and in its impacted downwind environs over the most recent three-year period must not exceed the ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained if the area's ozone design value 4 is 0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or less. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitors generally should have remained at the same locations for the duration of the monitoring period required to demonstrate attainment (for three years or more). 4 The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value in the area or in its impacted downwind environs. As part of the July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the Ohio EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top four daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area during the 2002-2005 period. These summarized worst-case ozone concentrations are part of the quality-assured ozone data collected in this area and recorded in the AQS. The annual fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations for each year during the 2003-2005 period, along with the three-year averages, are summarized in Table 1 for Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County, West Virginia. All monitoring sites achieved at least 99% data completeness. Table 1.—Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Parts Per Million

(ppm)for Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County, West Virginia * County Monitoring site 2003 2004 2005 Average Jefferson County, Ohio 227 North 5h 0.079 618 Logan 0.071 0.083 0.078 Hancock County, West Virginia Oak St. & Owin 0.077 0.073 0.075 0.075 * Data for Hancock County was included in appendix A of the Ohio EPA's submission and is used in Table 1. The data table in the main body of the State's submission included data for Ohio County, West Virginia (part of the Wheeling area and not part of the Steubenville-Weirton area) rather than Hancock County, West Virginia. The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to a site 1/3 mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA lost access to the original site. The new site meets all citing criteria described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix E. The original and final sites are sufficiently close to each other, and removed from sources of ozone precursors such that the two sites represent the same air quality. Therefore, the data from the two sites can be combined when calculating the three-year average ozone concentration in Table 1. The monitored ozone concentrations for 2003-2005 show that the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The current three-year average (2003-2005) for Jefferson County, Ohio is 0.078 ppm. The current three-year average (2003-2005) for Hancock County, West Virginia is 0.075 ppm. The data collected at the Jefferson County and Hancock County, West Virginia monitoring sites show that the area satisfies the CAA requirement that the ozone standard must be attained at all sites in and around the ozone nonattainment area. The three-year ozone design value for the nonattainment area is less than 0.085 ppm. Furthermore, available (non-quality assured) ozone monitoring data from 2006 indicates that this area continues to attain the ozone NAAQs. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection have committed to continue ozone monitoring in this area as part of the State's ozone maintenance plan. This commitment meets a redesignation requirement, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, that ozone monitoring will be continued to assure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection will consult with EPA prior to altering the existing monitoring network if changes become necessary in the future. The two states will continue to quality assure the data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58 and all other federal requirements. The data will be available in real time on the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Web site and will be entered into AQS on a timely basis and in accordance with federal guidelines. We find that the ozone monitoring data submitted by the States of Ohio and West Virginia provide an adequate demonstration that the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to determine that Jefferson County, Ohio, as part of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 2. Jefferson County and the State of Ohio Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and This Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA We have determined that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Jefferson County under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have determined that the Ohio SIP meets the currently applicable SIP requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that all applicable requirements are approved into the Ohio SIP. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, we determined the CAA requirements which are applicable to Jefferson County, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA, which in this case are those CAA requirements applicable to Jefferson County at the time the State submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for this area, on October 3, 2006. a. *Jefferson County has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.* The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see “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) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation to attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that apply at the time of the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum, and 66 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved, but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See 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 the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). *General SIP requirements:* Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: enforceable emission 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 emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These SIP elements and requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and a hearing;

(b)provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;

(c)implementation of a source permit program;

(d)provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications;

(e)criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting;

(f)provisions for air quality modeling; and,

(g)provisions for public and local agency participation. SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA documents: “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

(CAA)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and “State Implementation Plan

(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 1993. See also other guidance documents listed above. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants (NO X SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted SIPs under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR 21147, April 25, 2005). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant measures to evaluate when 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. We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting; and otherwise satisfies the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). *Part D SIP requirements:* EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, an area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment area plan requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. *Part D, subpart 1 requirements:* For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and 176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, a notice of proposed rulemaking for an ozone redesignation for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section 172 requirements. No requirements for 8-hour ozone under part D of the CAA came due for Jefferson County prior to the State's submittal (October 3, 2006) of a complete ozone redesignation request for this area. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures

(RACM)and Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT)(section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress

(RFP)(section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D requirements are applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of redesignation. *Section 176 conformity requirements:* Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air 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 SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements. In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due prior to Ohio's submission of a complete ozone redesignation request for Jefferson County, and, therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be applicable for redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation of areas to attainment of a NAAQS and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a New Source Review

(NSR)program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR, since Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed 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 New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Ohio is not relying on reductions from NSR to attain the ozone standard, and so the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in Jefferson County upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. In its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio included the on-highway motor vehicle emission budgets

(MVEB)for 2009 and 2018 that Table 2 outlines. EPA reviewed the budgets for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905). Table 2.—2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Jefferson County, Ohio Inventory year VOC emissions

(tpd)NO X emissions

(tpd)2009 projected on-road mobile source emissions 2.29 3.57 2009 safety margin allocated to MVEBs 0.34 0.53 2009 MVEBs 2.63 4.10 2018 projected on-road mobile source emissions 1.19 1.45 2018 safety margin allocated to MVEBs 0.18 0.22 2018 MVEBs 1.37 1.67 The area must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. We conclude that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA to the extent that these requirements apply for purposes of reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request for this area. b. *Jefferson County has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.* EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Jefferson County under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner* , 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (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 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of redesignation. No Jefferson County SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. 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 reviewing the State's redesignation request. EPA has also noted that it may conclude that the section 110 SIP submission approved under the 1-hour standard will be adequate for purposes of attaining and maintaining the 8-hour standard. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements for the eight-hour ozone standard did not become due prior to Ohio's submission of a final, complete redesignation request for Jefferson County, they also are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. 3. The Air Quality Improvement in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP, Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations, and Other Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions In making this demonstration, the States of West Virginia 5 and Ohio have documented changes in VOC and NO X emissions from all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based) sources in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area occurring between 2002, an ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in which the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The States have also discussed permanent and enforceable emission reductions that have occurred elsewhere in these two States and in other upwind areas that have contributed to the air quality improvement in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NO X emissions totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. 6 From the Table, it can be seen that VOC emissions have decreased slightly between 2002 and 2004, whereas NO X emissions have significantly declined between 2002 and 2004. 5 West Virginia submitted a separate ozone redesignation request for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The West Virginia redesignation request is being addressed in a separate EPA proposed rule (71 CFR 57905). West Virginia did supply emissions data for the Steubenville-Weirton area to the State of Ohio for inclusion in Ohio's ozone redesignation request. The West Virginia data summarized here are those data provided to the State of Ohio, and may differ from those summarized in the West Virginia ozone redesignation request. We have noticed minor differences in the two sets of data, but emphasize that the differences are minor and primarily due to rounding differences induced by how the two States have handled the summarized data and by how various EPA reviewers have handled and rounded the data in the proposed rules. 6 Minor differences exist between the emissions summarized in Table 3 and those summarized by the State of Ohio in its July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request. For purposes of maintaining significant figure consistency and for readability, we have rounded all emissions to one significant decimal place. The State of Ohio has not maintained this consistency, leading to some differences in individual category emissions and in emissions totals. The States of Ohio and West Virginia conclude that the differences in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements. Table 3.—Total Anthropogenic VOC and NO X Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area [Tons per day] County Point Area Non-road On-road Total 2002 Volatile Organic Compounds Jefferson County, Ohio 1.1 3.1 1.0 4.2 9.4 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia 6.7 4.5 1.5 3.2 15.9 2002 Total 7.8 7.6 2.5 7.4 25.3 2004 Volatile Organic Compounds Jefferson County, Ohio 1.2 3.1 0.9 3.6 8.8 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virgina 4.8 4.6 1.5 2.6 13.5 2004 Total 6.0 7.7 2.4 6.2 22.3 Difference (2002-2004) 7 1.8 −0.1 0.1 1.2 3.0 2002 Nitrogen Oxides Jefferson County, Ohio 190.0 0.2 2.4 6.3 198.9 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia 5.9 4.6 4.3 4.3 19.1 2002 Total 195.9 4.8 6.7 10.6 218.0 2004 Nitrogen Oxides Jefferson County, Ohio 154.7 0.2 2.3 5.4 162.6 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia 4.5 4.8 5.3 3.6 18.2 2004 Total 159.2 5.0 7.6 9.0 180.8 Difference (2002-2004) 36.7 −0.2 −0.9 1.6 37.2 The significant decline in NO X emissions in this area between 2002 and 2004 occurred primarily at Electric Generating Units

(EGU)as the result of the implementation of the States' NO X emission control rules (resulting from the implementation of EPA's NO X SIP call and acid rain emission controls under title IV of the CAA). NO X reductions also resulted from tighter federal standards on new vehicles. 7 Positive differences indicate a decrease in emissions over time from 2002 to 2004. Negative differences indicate emissions were increasing over time, primarily as the result of emission changes from source growth exceeding the impacts of implemented emission controls. We concur with the States that NO X emissions have been significantly lowered in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We also concur with the States that these emission reductions have contributed to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. Therefore, the State of Ohio has met this criterion for redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Besides implementation of the NO X emission control rules, additional implemented, or soon to be implemented, emission control rules include several Federal rules:

(1)Tier II emission standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur standards (promulgated by EPA in February 2000 and currently being implemented);

(2)heavy-duty diesel engine emission control rules (promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 and currently being implemented; and,

(3)clean air non-road diesel rule (promulgated by the EPA in May 2004 and currently being phased in through 2009). All of these rules have contributed to reducing NO X emissions throughout the States of Ohio and West Virginia and will contribute to future emission reductions in these States. The State of Ohio commits to continuing the existing VOC and NO X emission controls after the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area is redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. 4. Jefferson County Has a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate Jefferson County to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted a SIP revision request to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County and in the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area through 2018, exceeding the minimum 10 year maintenance period required by the CAA. a. *What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan?* Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of air quality maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that maintenance of the standard will continue for 10 years following the initial 10 year maintenance 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 NAAQS violations. The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum, address the following items:

(1)The attainment VOC and NO X emissions inventories;

(2)a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the first 10 years of the maintenance period;

(3)a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network;

(4)factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment; and,

(5)a contingency plan to prevent and/or correct a future violation of the NAAQS. b. *What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Jefferson County?* Ohio EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and NO X emission inventories for Jefferson County, including EGU and non-EGU point (significant stationary sources), other (smaller and widely-distributed stationary sources that are also called area sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Rail mobile (MAR), mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources for 2002 (the base year). To develop the attainment year

(2004)and projected maintenance years (2009 and 2018) emissions, the Ohio EPA projected the 2002 emissions applying various source category-specific growth factors and emission control factors. The State has thoroughly documented how the 2002 base year emissions were derived. The following summarizes the procedures and sources of data used by the Ohio EPA to derive the base year emissions. i. *Point Sources.* The primary source of point source information was facility-specific information collected annually by the State for sources covered by Title V source permits. This information includes emissions, process rates, operating schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU emission inventory, maintained to support the NO X SIP call emissions trading program and the acid rain control program. The sources included in the 2002 point source inventory were identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database. The emissions included in this database are facility-reported actual emissions. Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those that occur at a Title V facility with an identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive emissions. Facility-specific fugitive emissions are also reported by each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database. Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) in National Emissions Inventory Input Format

(NIF)3.0 format. LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in the Emissions Modeling System

(EMS)and applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July weekday emissions rates. The Jefferson County emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split into EGU emissions and non-EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year emissions inventory used to support the Jefferson County ozone redesignation request. ii. *Area (Other) Sources.* Area sources are those sources which are generally small, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. The emissions for these sources are calculated and grouped by source type and are estimated using various surrogates, such as population, energy usage, estimates of employees in various occupational groups and facility-types. The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level. To estimate the area source emissions, Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement Program

(EIIP)emissions estimation methodologies or other methodologies typically used by other states. Area source categories include: Various stationary combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point source portion of the emissions inventory); human cremation; agricultural pesticides; architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and commercial solvents; degreasing and solvent cleaning (not included in point source emissions); fuel marketing; graphic arts (the emissions from the smaller facilities not included in the Title V STARS database); hospital sterilizers; small industry surface coating; small industry rubber and plastics coating; landfills; portable fuel containers; traffic markings; and Privately Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). The State has documented the data sources and emission factors or calculation procedures used for each of these area source categories. iii. *Non-Road Mobile Sources.* The non-road mobile source emissions inventory was generated regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). The NMIM output was converted to the NIF format and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain spatially and temporally allocated summer emission rates. The basic non-road algorithm for calculating emissions in NMIM uses base year equipment populations, average load factors, available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors to calculate the emissions. iv. *Marine, Aircraft, and Rail

(MAR)Sources.* Due to the significance of the emissions from these source types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat these source categories separately from other non-road mobile sources. The MAR emissions include emissions from commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive sources. Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types, emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by vessel type, along with the spatial range of each vessel type. Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; consumer lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations are expected to be the most significant rail operations in most areas, including Jefferson County, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and emissions-related information for each railroad line. Class I activity levels were provided by county in terms of ton-miles of freight movement and estimated fuel consumption. This approach provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. Class I railroads, however, could not provide information about their switching rail activity. Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per employee fuel consumption estimates. EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)published Landing and Take-Off

(LTO)rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of Ohio. The LTO-engine information was combined with engine type-specific emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO)and, through use of a FAA Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), which calculates aircraft-specific emissions. LADCO processed all of the MAR emissions data through the EMS to calculate July 2002 summer day emissions for VOC and NO X . v. *On-Road Mobile Sources.* A regional transportation model operated by the Brooke, Hancock, Jefferson Transportation Study (BHJTS), West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), and Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT) was used to estimate traffic levels, vehicle age and type distributions, vehicle speeds, and other emissions-related vehicle parameters for the roadways in Jefferson County and elsewhere in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This vehicle travel information, along with the MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission factor model, was used to estimate mobile source VOC and NO X emissions for Jefferson County and the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. vi. *Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year.* Ambient air quality data showed that the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area met the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004. Ohio EPA projected point source emissions from the 2002 baseline to 2004 with the statewide EGU NO X budgets from the Ohio NO X rule. Mobile source emission projections were based on the MOBILE6.2 model. Ohio EPA also used growth and control files for point, area, and non-road categories that LADCO developed in determining 2004 emissions of NO X and VOCs for Jefferson County. The State of West Virginia estimated 2004 VOC and NO X emissions for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 emissions to demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. See Table 3 above for the 2004 attainment level emissions. c. *Demonstration of Maintenance* . As part of the July 31, 2006, redesignation request submittal, Ohio EPA included a requested revision to the Ohio SIP to incorporate an ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County. This plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 by documenting current and projected VOC and NO X emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and NO X will remain at or below the attainment year emission levels. 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) and 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003). The State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia projected the VOC and NO X emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area for the years of 2009 and 2018 to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the expected redesignation dates for this area. For Jefferson County, Ohio EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile source growth estimates generated using the regional transportation model and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Jefferson County VOC and NO X emissions. The methods used by the State of West Virginia are described in West Virginia's ozone redesignation request (reviewed by EPA on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905)). Table 4 summarizes the VOC emissions projected to occur in Jefferson County, Ohio and in Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. Similarly, Table 5 summarizes the NO X emissions projected to occur in the same area during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. The State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia chose 2018 as a projection year to meet the 10-year maintenance demonstration requirement, allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation rulemaking process. The States also chose 2009 as an interim year to demonstrate that VOC and NO X emissions will remain below the attainment year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period. Table 4.—Projected VOC Emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area [tons/day] Source sector 2004 Attainment 2009 Interim 2018 Maintenance Safety margin Jefferson County, Ohio VOC Emissions EGU Point 0.9 1.0 1.0 Non-EGU Point 0.2 0.2 0.2 Area (Other) 3.1 2.9 2.9 Non-Road Mobile 0.9 0.8 0.6 On-Road Mobile 3.6 * 2.6 * 1.4 Marine-Air-Railroad 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Jefferson County 8.8 7.6 6.2 ** 2.6 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia VOC Emissions EGU Point 0 0 0 Non-EGU Point 4.8 4.3 5.3 Area (Other) 4.6 4.5 5.2 Non-Road Mobile (MAR included) 1.5 1.2 1.0 On-Road Mobile 2.6 * 2.0 * 1.0 Total Hancock and Brooke Counties 13.5 12.0 12.5 ** 1.0 Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 22.3 19.6 18.7 ** 3.6 * Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source VOC emissions in Jefferson County are 1.19 tons per day. In Brooke and Hancock Counties, the actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source VOC are 0.88 tons per day. ** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions. Table 5.—Projected NO X Emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area [tons/day] Source sector 2004 Attainment 2009 Interim 2018 Maintenance Safety margin Jefferson County, Ohio NO X Emissions EGU Point 148.8 60.8 41.0 Non-EGU Point 5.9 5.6 5.4 Area (Other) 0.2 0.2 0.2 Non-Road Mobile 0.7 0.6 0.3 On-Road Mobile 5.4 *4.1 * 1.7 Marine-Air-Railroad 1.5 1.4 1.3 Total Jefferson County 162.5 72.7 49.9 ** 112.6 Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia NO X Emissions EGU Point 0 0 0 Non-EGU Point 4.5 5.1 5.6 Area (Other) 4.8 4.9 5.2 Non-Road Mobile (MAR included) 5.3 3.8 3.2 On-Road Mobile 3.6 * 2.8 * 1.2 Total Hancock and Brooke Counties 18.2 16.6 15.2 ** 3.0 Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 180.7 89.3 65.1 ** 115.6 * Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source NO X emissions in Jefferson County are 1.45 tons per day. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source NO X emissions in Hancock and Brooke Counties are 0.94 tons per day. ** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions. The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NO X emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NO X SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented beyond 2006, will further lower NO X emissions in upwind areas, resulting in decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This will also support maintenance of the ozone standard in this area, which particularly benefits from the NO X SIP call and CAIR. These two regulations focus on utility emissions in the Eastern United States and impose a permanent cap on overall emissions from affected sources. This cap is likely to minimize growth of this very important component of emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton area. The emission projections for Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area as a whole coupled with the expected impacts of the States' EGU NO X rules and CAIR lead to the conclusion that Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area should maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the required 10-year maintenance period and through 2018. The projected decreases in local VOC and local and regional NO X emissions indicate that peak ozone levels in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area may actually further decline during the maintenance period. Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions, we conclude that Ohio EPA has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard can be maintained in Jefferson County and in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We believe that this is especially likely given the expected impacts of the NO X SIP call and CAIR. As noted by Ohio EPA, this conclusion is further supported by the fact that other states in the eastern portion of the United States are also expected to further reduce regional NO X emissions through implementation of their ozone NO X emission control rules for EGUs and other NO X sources through the implementation of the NO X SIP call and CAIR. d. *Contingency Plan.* The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are designed to result in prompt correction or prevention of violations of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the contingency measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were included in the SIP before the redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency plan to address a possible future ozone air quality problem in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The contingency plan has two levels of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action Level Response). A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs within the ozone maintenance area (within the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area). A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations and/or whether emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend. This would involve taking into consideration ease and timing for implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level Response will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season. An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area. A violation of the 8-hour ozone standard (three-year average fourth-high value of 85 ppb or greater) will also prompt an Action Level Response. In the event that an Action Level Response is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or rule requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional emission control measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season that prompted the Action Level Response. Any new emission control measure that is selected for implementation will be given a public review. If a new emission control measure is already promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State level and that emission control measure is determined to be sufficient to address the upper trend in peak ozone concentrations, additional local measures may be unnecessary. Ohio EPA will submit to the EPA an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed emission control measures are adequate to reverse the upward trend in peak ozone concentrations and to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The selection of emission control measures will be based on cost-effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that the Ohio EPA and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) deem to be appropriate. Selected emission control measures will be subjected to public review and the States will seek public input prior to selecting new emission control measures. The State of Ohio ozone redesignation request lists the following possible emission control measures as contingency measures in the ozone maintenance portion of the State's submittal: • Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program; • Tighten RACT on existing sources covered by U.S. EPA Control Technique Guidleines issued in response to the 1990 CAA; • Extension of Reasonably Available Control Techniques

(RACT)requirements to include source categories previously excluded. New VOC RACT rules could be adopted for the following source categories: —Consumer products —Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings —Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities (including pressure valves) —Automobile refinishing —Cold cleaner degreasers —Portable fuel containers —Synthetic organic compound manufacturing —Organic compound batch processes —Wood manufacturing —Industrial wastewater —Aerospace industry —Ship building —Bakeries —Plastic parts coating —Volatile organic liquid storage —Industrial solvent cleaning —Offset lithography —Industrial surface coating; and, —Other sources with VOC emissions greater than 50 tons per year; • Revision of new source permitting requirements to require more stringent emissions control technology and/or greater emissions offsets; • NO X RACT, with the following being potential source categories covered by such RACT requirements: —EGUs —Asphalt batching plants —Industrial/commercial and institutional boilers —Process heaters —Internal combustion engines —Combustion turbines —Other sources with NO X emissions exceeding 100 tons per year; • Transportation measures such as trip reduction programs, traffic flow and transit improvements. The selected transportation measure would need to achieve at least a half a percent reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions. • Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations. • Require VOC or NO X emissions offsets for new and modified major and/or minor sources. • Increase the ratio of emissions offsets required for new sources. • Require VOC or NO X controls on new minor sources (less than 100 tons). No contingency measure will be implemented without the State providing the opportunity for full public participation and review. e. *Provisions for a Future Update of the Ozone Maintenance Plan.* As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State commits to submit to the EPA an update of the ozone maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The updated maintenance plan will provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area for an additional 10 years beyond the period covered by the initial ozone maintenance plan. We find Ohio's ozone maintenance demonstration and contingency plan acceptable. V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity Determinations? A. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Developed and What Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Jefferson County? Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for applicable areas (for ozone nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the ozone standard or revising existing ozone maintenance plans). These emission control SIP revisions (e.g. reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration SIP revisions), including ozone maintenance plans, must create MVEBs based on on-road mobile source emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Under 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment of the NAAQS are established for the last year of the maintenance plan (for the maintenance demonstration year). The MVEBs serve as ceilings on mobile source emissions from an area's planned transportation system and are used to test planned transportation system changes or projects to assure compliance with the emission limits assumed in the SIP. 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 the MVEBs in the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs if needed. 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 SIP that addresses emissions from cars, trucks, and other on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality standard violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects that would expand the capacity of the roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA's policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs are “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs are used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIPs as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of MVEBs are specified in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process of determining adequacy of MVEBs consists of three basic steps:

(1)Providing public notification of a SIP submission;

(2)providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEBs during a public comment period; and,

(3)making a finding of adequacy. The process of 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 PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The Transportation Conformity Rule, in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides for adequacy findings through two mechanisms. First, 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) provides for posting a notice to the EPA conformity Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm* and providing a 30-day public comment period. Second, a mechanism is described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that EPA can review the adequacy of an implementation plan submission simultaneously with its review of the implementation plan itself. In this notice, EPA is reviewing the adequacy of the Jefferson County motor vehicle emission budgets as part of the review and proposal on the overall ozone maintenance plan. The State of Ohio had previously requested parallel processing and the expediency of this review process is best suited to following the 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) mechanism. Ohio and West Virginia are managing mobile source emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton area by establishing separate MVEBs for their respective portions of this area. EPA has proposed approval of the NO X and VOC MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 57905) on October 2, 2006. The Jefferson County ozone maintenance plan contains VOC and NO X MVEBs for 2009 and 2018. EPA has reviewed these MVEBs for Jefferson County and finds that they meet the adequacy criteria in the Transportation Conformity Rule. Furthermore, EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in Jefferson County. EPA has determined that the budgets are consistent with the control measures and future emissions projected in the SIP and that Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant required 10-year period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. Table 2 contains the 2009 and 2018 VOC and NO X MVEBs for Jefferson County. Ohio EPA decided to include 15 percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth not anticipated in the projected 2018 emissions. Ohio EPA has demonstrated that Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total source emissions, even with the increased mobile source emissions, will remain under the attainment year levels in both Jefferson County and the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area. 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 for a future maintenance year. As noted in Tables 4 and 5 above, Jefferson County VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 2.6 tons per day for VOC and 112.6 tons per day for NO X in 2018 (the differences between the 2004, attainment year, and 2018 VOC and NO X emissions for all sources in Jefferson County). The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA contain safety margins (selected by the State) significantly smaller than the safety margins reflected in the total emissions for Jefferson County. The State is not requesting allocation of the entire available safety margins actually reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the State is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected on-road mobile source emissions for 2018 contained in the demonstration of maintenance, the increase in on-road mobile source emissions considered for transportation conformity purposes is well within the safety margins of the ozone maintenance demonstration. C. Are the MVEBs Approvable? The VOC and NO X MVEBs for Jefferson County including the additional safety margin are approvable because they maintain the total emissions for Jefferson County at or below the attainment year emission inventory levels, as required by the transportation conformity regulations. VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation of Jefferson County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. It would also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining the ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plan includes a list of potential contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It establishes NO X MVEBs of 4.10 tons per day and 1.67 tons per day for 2009 and 2018, respectively. The plan establishes VOC MVEBs of 2.63 tons per day and 1.37 tons per day for 2009 and 2018, respectively. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, 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.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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 proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” 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). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: December 21, 2006. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-22617 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699; FRL-8266-9] RIN 2060-AN71 Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed rule amendments for the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, published on November 7, 2006, is being extended until February 8, 2007. DATES: *Comments.* Comments on the proposed amendments published on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302) must be received on or before February 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at *www.regulations.gov.* 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 through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is

(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at *www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to *www.regulations.gov* are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Rackley, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number

(919)541-0634; fax number

(919)541-0246; e-mail address: *rackley.karen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities.* Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS * Code Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry 32411 Petroleum refiners. Primarily 325110, 325192, 325193, and 325199 Synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry (SOCMI) units, e.g., producers of benzene, toluene, or any other chemical listed in 40 CFR 60.489. * North American Information Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Worldwide Web (WWW)* . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.* The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Comment Period We received several requests to extend the public comment period to February 8, 2007. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment period will now end on February 8, 2007, rather than January 8, 2007. How can I get copies of the proposed amendments and other related information? The proposed rule amendments for the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, published on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302). EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. Dated: January 3, 2007. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-20 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, FRL-8266-8] RIN 2060-AM74 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed rule amendments for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, published on November 9, 2006, is being extended until February 8, 2007. DATES: *Comments.* Comments on the proposed amendments published on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66064) must be received on or before February 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at *www.regulations.gov.* 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 through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is

(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at *www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to *www.regulations.gov* are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *General and Technical Information:* Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone

(919)541-5397, facsimile number

(919)685-3195, electronic mail (e-mail) address: *shedd.steve@epa.gov.* *Economic Analysis Information:* Mr. Art Rios, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group (C339-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone

(919)541-4883, facsimile number

(919)541-0839, electronic mail (e-mail) address: *Rios.Arturo@epamail.epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities.* Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS a Examples of regulated entities Industry 324110 493190 486910 424710 447110 447190 Operations at area sources that transfer and store gasoline, including bulk terminals, bulk plants, pipeline facilities, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Federal/State/ local/tribal governments a North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Worldwide Web (WWW).* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.* The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Comment Period We received a request to extend the public comment period to February 8, 2007. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment period will now end on February 8, 2007, rather than January 8, 2007. How Can I Get Copies of the Proposed Amendments and Other Related Information? The proposed rule National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities was published on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66064). EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. Dated: January 3, 2007. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-19 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 4 Monday, January 8, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (CCPAC) will meet for one day on January 25, 2007, in Eureka California. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues relating to implementing the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). DATES: The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on January 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Allen, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501

(707)441-3557 or *kmallen@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics to be covered include:

(1)Woody Biomass;

(2)Future of the CCPAC;

(3)Survey and Manage Update;

(4)NWFP 10 Year Monitoring Review; and

(5)New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time. Dated: December 29, 2006. Jean Hawthorne, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-11 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents