Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

Agency: Department of Justice
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: FR Doc. 07-2279 · AAG/A Order No. 010-2007 · 28 CFR 16

Summary

The Department of Justice proposes to amend the Privacy Act exemptions to the National Security Division's system of records as described in today's notice section of the Federal Register : Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Records System (JUSTICE/NSD-001), which incorporates three previous systems of records of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR). These systems of records are the “Policy and Operational Records System, OIPR-001” last published in the Federal Register January 26, 1984 (49 FR 3281); “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Records System, OIPR-002” last published in the Federal Register January 26, 1984 (49 FR 3282); and “Litigation Records System, OIPR-003” last published in the Federal Register January 26, 1984 (49 FR 3284).

Dates

Submit any comments by June 18, 2007.

Supplementary Information

The Department proposes to exempt JUSTICE/NSD-001 from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H) and (I), (5) and (8); (f); (g); and (h). These exemptions will be applied only to the extent that information in a record is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (2) or (5). This order relates to individuals rather than small business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, this order will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of Information, and Privacy. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order No. 793-78, it is proposed to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION 1. The authority for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, and 9701. 2. Section 16.74 is revised to read as follows: § 16.74 Exemption of National Security Division System-limited access. (a) The following system of records is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H) and (I), (5) and (8); (f); (g); and (h) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (2) and (5): Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Records System (JUSTICE/NSD-001). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in the system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (2), and (5). (b) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons: (1) Subsection (c)(3). To provide the target of a surveillance or collection activity with the disclosure accounting records concerning him or her would hinder authorized United States intelligence activities by informing that individual of the existence, nature, or scope of information that is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958, as amended, and thereby cause damage to the national security. (2) Subsection (c)(4). This subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d). (3) Subsection (d)(1). Disclosure of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information would interfere with collection activities, reveal the identity of confidential sources, and cause damage to the national security of the United States. To ensure unhampered and effective collection and analysis of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information, disclosure must be precluded. (4) Subsection (d)(2). Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing intelligence activities thereby causing damage to the national security. (5) Subsections (d)(3) and (4). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2). (6) Subsection (e)(1). It is often impossible to determine in advance if intelligence records contained in this system are relevant and necessary, but, in the interests of national security, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide intelligence leads. (7) Subsection (e)(2). Although this office does not conduct investigations, the collection efforts of agencies that supply information to this office would be thwarted if the agencies were required to collect information with the subject's knowledge. (8) Subsection (e)(3). To inform individuals as required by this subsection could reveal the existence of collection activity and compromise national security. For example, a target could, once made aware that collection activity exists, alter his or her manner of engaging in intelligence or terrorist activities in order to avoid detection. (9) Subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent that this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). (10) Subsection (e)(5). It is often impossible to determine in advance if intelligence records contained in this system are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of national security, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and providing intelligence leads. (11) Subsection (e)(8). Serving notice could give persons sufficient warning to evade intelligence collection and anti-terrorism efforts. (12) Subsections (g) and (h). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent that this system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Dated: April 27, 2007. Lee J. Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8764 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-AW-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-07-026] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), Sunset Beach, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to change the drawbridge operating regulations that govern the S.R. 1172 Bridge, at Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 337.9, Sunset Beach, NC. This proposal would allow the bridge to open on the hour on signal for pleasure vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. year round. The reason for this change would be to improve the schedule for both roadway and waterway users. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05-07-026, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like a return receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all submittals received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose The S.R. 1172 Bridge at Sunset Beach has zero vertical clearance to vessels when in the closed position at mean high water. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) owns and operates this single-lane, floating steel-barge, swing-span referred to as a pontoon drawbridge. Current regulations set out at 33 CFR 117.821 (a)(5) require the bridge to open on signal for commercial vessels at all times; and on the hour on signal for pleasure vessels between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., April 1 to November 30, except that on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, from June 1 through September 30, the bridge shall open on signal on the hour between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. NCDOT and the residents of the Town of Sunset Beach requested a change to the operating regulations for the S.R. 1172 Bridge in an effort to improve the schedule for both roadway and waterway users. The S.R. 1172 Bridge provides the only route on and off Sunset Beach Island. This proposal would not change the requirement for the bridge to open on signal at any time for commercial vessels. The Coast Guard reviewed the bridge logs for 2005 and 2006 provided by NCDOT which illustrate a small decrease in the numbers of vessels passing through the bridge during the spring, summer, and fall over the past year. Most vessels transiting the area in the spring and fall are operated by owners commonly referred to as “snowbirds”. Owners of these transitory recreational vessels are either traveling north to south towards a warmer climate in the fall or south to north towards a cooler climate in the spring which can result in frequent bridge openings due to increased vessel numbers. During the spring and fall months, the flow of recreational vessels is constant. There were approximately 10,461 and 11,429 vessel passages occurring in 2006 and 2005, respectively, over an eight-month period (during the peak boating season from April to November) according to records furnished by the NCDOT. (See Table A) Table A JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Bridge Openings for 2006 233 191 307 392 436 394 451 392 349 386 326 317 Boat Passages for 2006 273 157 463 1207 1659 1538 1486 1024 921 1234 1392 481 Bridge Openings for 2005 218 165 313 322 441 439 474 413 327 393 331 297 Boat Passages for 2005 294 211 532 1041 1767 1438 1639 1152 834 1302 2256 538 Based on the above information, we have proposed to change the regulations that govern the S.R. 1172 Bridge in regards to pleasure vessels to open on the hour on signal between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., year-round. At all other times, the draw shall open on demand. The proposal will facilitate pleasure vessels in navigating the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, while also helping to ease vehicular traffic congestion. The bridge will continue to open on signal at any time for commercial vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.821, by revising paragraph (a)(5) for pleasure vessels to read “shall open on the hour on signal from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.” Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning, and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. However, comments on this section will be considered before the final rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. In § 117.821, paragraph (a)(5) is revised to read as follows: § 117.821 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Albermarle Sound to Sunset Beach. (a) * * * (5) S.R. 1172 Bridge, mile 337.9, at Sunset Beach, NC, shall open on the hour on signal between 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Dated: April 9, 2007. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-8723 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0347; FRL-8309-6] Approval And Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Iowa; Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on August 15, 2006. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Iowa. Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) concerning SO ² , NO ^X annual, NO ^X ozone season emissions for Iowa. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO ² ) and nitrogen oxides (NO ^X ) that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO ² and NO ^X and requires States to submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Iowa would meet CAIR requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0347, by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: jay.michael@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0347. 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this proposal, please contact Michael Jay at (913) 551-7460 or by e-mail at jay.michael@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? V. Analysis of Iowa's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. NO ^X Allowance Allocations D. Allocation of NO ^X Allowances from Compliance Supplement Pool E. Individual Opt-in Units VI. Proposed Actions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Iowa's SIP submitted on August 15, 2006. In its SIP revision, Iowa would meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions, as finalized in the Iowa Administrative Bulletin on June 7, 2006 (567-20.1(455B,17A), 21.1(4), and Chapter 34). Iowa's regulations adopt by reference most of the provisions of EPA's SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season model trading rules, with certain changes discussed below. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP will be taken by the Regional Administrator for Region 7. If EPA approves this revision, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions for Iowa. This action would delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.840 and 40 CFR 52.841, relating to the CAIR FIP obligations for Iowa. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Iowa is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Iowa. Once a SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIPs following full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIPs. II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM ^2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO ² , which is a precursor to PM ^2.5 formation, and/or NO ^X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM ^2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM ^2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO ² and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO ^X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO ^X for the ozone season (May 1 to September 30). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM ^2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM ^2.5 NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. Iowa submitted its SIP in response to EPA's section 110(a)(2)(D) finding, which EPA approved in a rule published March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10380). In that rule, EPA stated that Iowa had met its obligation with regard to interstate transport by adoption of the CAIR model rule. EPA also stated that it would review and act on Iowa's CAIR rule in a separate rulemaking. This document proposes action on Iowa's CAIR rule as explained below. On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR FIP SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading programs will work together to effectively create a single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season) in all States covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating NO ^X allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions. On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States subject to CAIR for PM ^2.5 and announced EPA's final decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any substantive changes to the CAIR requirements. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO ² and NO ^X and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO ^X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO ² reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO ^X and SO ² starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either: (1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO ² and NO ^X budgets. The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO ^X SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO ^X ozone season trading programs. IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the NO ^X allowance allocation methodology). A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by reference the model rules. CAIR provides that States may only make limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP revision may change the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance allocation provisions to: (1) Include NO ^X SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NO ^X ozone season trading program; (2) provide for State allocation of NO ^X annual or ozone season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State; (3) provide for State allocation of NO ^X annual allowances from the compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or (4) allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into the CAIR SO ² , NO ^X annual, or NO ^X ozone season trading programs under the opt-in provisions in the model rules. An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO ² , NO ^X annual, or NO ^X ozone season emissions will replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions. V. Analysis of Iowa's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations The CAIR NO ^X annual and ozone season budgets were developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data, EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu, for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain regional NO ^X budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NO ^X annual and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data adjusted by fuel factors. The CAIR State SO ² budgets were derived by discounting the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations under the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each allowance allocated in the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1 of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO ² emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO ² emissions in the CAIR trading program. In this action, EPA is proposing approval of Iowa's SIP revision that adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 32,692 (2009-2014) and 27,243 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO ^X annual emissions, 14,263 (2009-2014) and 11,886 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO ^X ozone season emissions, and 64,095 (2010-2014) and 44,866 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO ² emissions. Iowa's SIP revision sets these budgets as the total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. Iowa has committed to revising a definition in all three CAIR rules in order to fully ensure allowances can be traded among all sources participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs as intended. EPA discovered after review of other States' rules, but after Iowa had adopted its CAIR rules, that there was an issue related to the definition of “permitting authority” when it is revised to refer to a specific State's permitting authority. In each of Iowa's rules for CAIR, the EPA model trading rules were revised to limit all references to “permitting authority” to refer to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. This change is acceptable in most, but not all, instances under the current model rules. In certain definitions in the model rules incorporated by Iowa (i.e., “allocate” or “allocation,” “CAIR NO ^X allowance,” “CAIR SO ² allowance,” and “CAIR NO ^X Ozone Season allowance”), it is important that the term “permitting authority” cover permitting authorities in all States that choose to participate in the respective EPA-administered trading programs. This is necessary to ensure that all allowances issued in each EPA-administered trading program are fungible and can be traded and used for compliance with the allowance-holding requirement in any State in the program. On February 17, 2007, EPA provided a letter to Iowa that requested and outlined necessary definition revisions. EPA received a letter from Iowa on February 28, 2007, that provided a commitment to make the EPA suggested rule revisions as soon as is practicable upon publication of the final rule concerning the proposed Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Federal plan. On April 11, 2007, EPA received an electronic correspondence from Iowa stating that Iowa will, in any event, complete these rule revisions before January 1, 2008. The State will be able to simultaneously revise the “permitting authority” definition in all cap-and-trade rules for both CAIR and CAMR, and properly update the State's rule as necessary to meet the requirements of the EPA-administered cap-and-trade-program for mercury. The final rule concerning the CAMR Federal plan is expected to be published before the earliest, major deadline for compliance with requirements for source owners and operators under the CAIR trading programs, i.e., the January 1, 2008, deadline for emissions monitoring requirements under the CAIR Annual Trading Program. EPA expects that, by timing adoption of the EPA requested rule revisions to be soon after the publication of the final rule concerning the CAMR Federal plan, the State will ensure the revisions to the definition of “permitting authority” will be completed prior to any of the major compliance deadlines for source owners and operators under the CAIR trading programs. In the event the final rule concerning the CAMR Federal plan is not published in the expected timeframe, the State will need to ensure the necessary State rule revisions are completed and submitted to EPA in advance of the January 1, 2008, monitoring deadline for the CAIR NO ^X Annual Trading Program. To be clear, EPA notes that it is not proposing to approve the State's rule to comply with CAMR as part of this rulemaking. EPA will propose a separate rulemaking for the Iowa rule relating to CAMR. B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO ^X annual and ozone season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO ^X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO ^X annual and ozone season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO ^X annual model rule (but not the NO ^X ozone season model rule) provides for a compliance supplement pool (CSP), which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO ^X annual emissions. As a further example, the NO ^X ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO ^X ozone season trading program replaces the NO ^X SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO ^X SIP Call program. The NO ^X ozone season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO ^X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO ^X ozone season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO ^X SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO ^X ozone season trading program and including all their NO ^X SIP Call trading sources in that program. The provisions of the CAIR SO ² model rule are also similar to the provisions of the NO ^X annual and ozone season model rules. However, the SO ² model rule is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO ² cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO ² model rule uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.36 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO ² cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO ² cap-and-trade program. EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for Federal rather than State implementation. The CAIR model SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season trading programs. In the SIP revision, Iowa has chosen to implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions. Iowa has adopted a full SIP revision that adopts, with the changes discussed above and with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions. C. NO ^X Allowance Allocations Under the NO ^X allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO ^X annual and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO ^X allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO ^X allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to: (1) The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; (2) the frequency of allocations; (3) the basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and (4) the use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. Iowa has chosen to adopt the essential components of the CAIR NO ^X annual and CAIR NO ^X ozone season model trading rules concerning the allocation of allowances with two notable exceptions. Language is provided in Iowa's rules that attempts to clarify that allowances will be allocated in future years only “to meet the minimum timing requirements” specified in the Federal regulations. EPA understands that the language is intended to mean that allocations will be determined by the dates and only for the years identified or described in 40 CFR 96.141 and 40 CFR 96.341. Additionally, Iowa's CAIR NO ^X Annual and CAIR NO ^X ozone rules establish permanent allocations for specified units designated as “existing units” or “new units” and do not include provisions of the EPA's model rules that call for adjusting the allocations for existing units to provide allocations for future, new units. EPA is proposing to approve these changes to the model rule provisions because the changes are consistent with the flexibility that CAIR provides States with regard to allocation methodologies. D. Allocation of NO ^X Allowances From Compliance Supplement Pool The CAIR establishes a compliance supplement pool to provide an incentive for early reductions in NO ^X annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO ^X annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the projected magnitude of the emission reductions required by CAIR in that State. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make NO ^X reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls. The CAIR annual NO ^X model trading rule establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States. Iowa has not chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NO ^X annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. Iowa has chosen to distribute CSP allowances using the allocation methodology provided in 40 CFR 96.143 and has adopted this section by reference. E. Individual Opt-in Units The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all. Iowa has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to opt into the CAIR trading programs by adopting by reference the entirety of EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in the CAIR SO ² , CAIR NO ^X annual, and CAIR NO ^X ozone season trading programs. VI. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to approve Iowa's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on August 15, 2006. Under this SIP revision, Iowa is choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions. EPA believes that the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO ^X annual and NO ^X ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO ² emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR. If EPA finalizes this action as proposed, the Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO ² , NO ^X annual, and NO ^X ozone season emissions for Iowa. The Administrator's action would delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.840 and 40 CFR 52.841. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and would not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it would 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 will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal Standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Dated: April 30, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-8665 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0827; FRL-8303-1] Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from open burning. We are proposing approval of a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0827, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. • E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov . • Mail or deliver : Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 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: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the approval of local MCESD Rule 314. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving this local rule 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. 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: March 23, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-8691 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0249; FRL-8310-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Missouri; Interstate Transport of Pollution AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the purpose of approving the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' (MDNR) actions to address requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. MDNR has adequately addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and interference with efforts of other states to protect visibility. The requirements for public notification were also met by MDNR. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0249 by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule that is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at (913) 551-7039, or by e-mail at Hamilton.heather@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal Register EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 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 action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule that is located in the rules section of this Federal Register . Dated: April 30, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-8775 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0677b; FRL-8303-3] Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Washoe County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Washoe County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from fugitive dust sources, such as open areas, unpaved roads, and construction activities. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0677b, 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: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947-4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses Washoe County Regulation 040.030-Dust Control. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. However, if we receive adverse comments, 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: March 29, 2007. Enrique Manzanilla, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-8694 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0862; FRL-8310-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Tioga County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Tioga County ozone nonattainment area (Tioga Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for Tioga Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Tioga Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Tioga Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Tioga Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Tioga Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the 2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0862 by one of the following methods: A. http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov . C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0862, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning 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-2006-0862. 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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request? VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Tioga Area Adequate and Approvable? VIII. Proposed Action IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? On September 28, 2006, PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate the Tioga Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on September 28, 2006, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Tioga Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment for at least 10 years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory as a SIP revision on September 28, 2006 and a supplement submittal on November 14, 2006. The Tioga Area is currently designated as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that the Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the Tioga Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Tioga Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision, such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status. The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the Tioga Area for the next ten years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the Tioga Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Tioga Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO ^X ) for transportation conformity purposes. II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? A. General Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO ^X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO ^X and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Tioga Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area (as well as most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See , 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23966 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard, (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), See, South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter “ South Coast .”). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, Part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI.B. “The Tioga Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has Fully Approved SIP under Section 110(k) of the CAA,” EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast is not an impediment to redesignating the Tioga Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, Tioga Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore, is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D. Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR 23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone monitoring data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 indicates that the Tioga Area has a design value of 0.081 ppm. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Tioga Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. The Tioga Area The Tioga Area consists of Tioga County, Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, Tioga Area was an attainment/unclassifiable area for the 1-hour ozone nonattainment NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On September 28, 2006, PADEP requested that the Tioga Area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in the Tioga Area. The data satisfies the CAA requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the area's design value) is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for redesignation, providing that: (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: • “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations”, Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990; • “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; • “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; • “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; • “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; • “Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; • “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; • Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” dated November 30, 1993; • “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and • “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? On September 28, 2006, PADEP requested redesignation of the Tioga Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On September 28, 2006, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Tioga Area as a SIP revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA has determined that the Tioga Area has attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision and supplemented on November 14, 2006. V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation of the Tioga Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year inventory and a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area for the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for NO ^X and VOC for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2004, 2009 and 2018. These motor vehicle emissions (2004) and MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table: Table 1.—Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons Per Day (tpd) Year NO ^X VOC 2004 4.8 3.0 2009 3.4 2.2 2018 1.6 1.3 VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request? EPA is proposing to determine that Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's September 28, 2006 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. A. The Tioga Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS EPA is proposing to determine that the Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value, which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. In the Tioga Area, there is one monitor that measures air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005 (the most recent three years of data available as of the time of the redesignation request) for the Tioga Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average, are summarized in Table 2. Table 2.—Tioga County Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values; Tioga County Monitor, AQS ID 42-117-4000 Year Annual 4th High Reading (ppm) 2003 0.084 2004 0.079 2005 0.080 The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Tioga Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.081 ppm. The data collected at the Tioga Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that 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. PADEP's request for redesignation for the Tioga Area indicates that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicates that Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. B. The Tioga Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has determined that the Tioga Area has met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also , 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). This action also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: • Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing; • Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; • Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); • Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; • Provisions for air pollution modeling; and • Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain States to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NO ^X SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NO ^X SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Tioga Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See , Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also , the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NO ^X SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO ^X SIP Call rules are not “an ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(l) because the NO ^X rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the redesignation request. Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act. 2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour and 8-Hour Standards The Tioga Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas. As discussed previously, because the Tioga Area was designated unclassifiable/attainment under the 1-hour standard, and was never designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, there are no outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area requirements it would be required to meet. Thus, we find that the Court's ruling does not result in any additional 1-hour requirements for purposes of redesignation. With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA notes that the Court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of the area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2) consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied. At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Tioga Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also , Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (which upheld this interpretation); 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. See , Sierra Club v. Whitman , 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plan in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.” Id. at 68. Similarly, here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of resedignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request. With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that Pennsylvania's SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the redesignation request for the Tioga Area. Because the Commonwealth submitted a complete redesignation request for the Tioga Area prior to the deadline for any submissions required under the 8-hour standard, we have determined that the Part D requirements do not apply to the Tioga Area for the purposes of redesignation. In addition to the fact that no Part D requirements applicable under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and NSR requirements of Part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. See , Wall v. EPA , 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also , 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). In the case of the Tioga Area, EPA has also determined that before being redesignated, the Tioga Area need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. The Part D NSR SIP revision does not come due until June 15, 2007, see, 70 FR 71683, November 29, 2005, and thus is not an applicable requirement with respect to redesignation. Additionally, Pennsylvania's preconstruction permitting program regulations in Chapter 127.200-217 of the Pennsylvania Code (approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)), apply only to ozone nonattainment area sources that are located in areas classified as marginal or worse, i.e. , to subpart 2 nonattainment areas. Pennsylvania's NSR regulations do not apply to sources in nonattainment areas classified as basic nonattainment under subpart 1. Consequently, sources in the Tioga Area are subject to Part D NSR requirements of Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k). Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 contains the preconstruction permitting program that applies to major stationary sources in nonattainment areas lacking an approved Part D NSR program. Appendix S applies during the interim period after EPA designates an area as nonattainment, but before EPA approves revisions to a SIP to implement the Part D NSR requirements for that pollutant. See , 70 FR 71618 (November 29, 2005). The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply to attainment areas within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). See , Chapter 127 in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); See , 66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001. Therefore, after the Tioga Area is redesignated to attainment, sources in the Tioga Area will be subject to Part D NSR applicable under the permitting regulations in Chapter 127, because the Tioga Area is located in the OTR. All areas in the OTR, both attainment and nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The section 184 requirements include reasonably available control technology (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of Tioga Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved the 1-hour Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the Tioga Area. The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR. EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Tioga Area by virtue of the area's designation and classification. Rather, section 184 measures are required in the Tioga Area because it is located in the OTR. See , 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997). 3. The Tioga Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of Redesignation EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998),; Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See also, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Tioga Area was a 1-hour attainment/unclassifiable area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the Tioga Area was a 1-hour attainment/unclassifiable area, there are no previous Part D SIP submittal requirements. Also, no Part D submittal requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the area. Therefore, all Part D submittal requirements have been fulfilled. Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of the Tioga Area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation have yet become due for the Tioga Area, and therefore they need not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation. C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Tioga Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Tioga Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 3. Table 3.—Total VOC and NO ^X Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons Per Day (tpd) Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Year 2002 0.6 2.7 2.1 3.4 8.8 Year 2004 0.6 2.7 2.2 3.0 8.5 Diff. (02-04) 0.0 0.0 0.1 −0.4 −0.3 Nitrogen Oxides (NO ^X ) Year 2002 1.9 0.3 1.5 5.4 9.1 Year 2004 2.0 0.3 1.5 4.8 8.6 Diff. (02-04) 0.1 0.0 0.0 −0.6 −0.5 Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 0.3 tpd, and NO ^X emissions were reduced by 0.5 tpd. These reductions and anticipated future reductions are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures implemented or in the process of being implemented in the Tioga Area: 1. Stationary Point Sources Federal NO ^X SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) 2. Stationary Area Sources Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004) 3. Highway Vehicle Sources Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) —Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991) —Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000) Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999) Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005) 4. Nonroad Sources Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004) EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. D. The Tioga Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tioga Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area for at least 10 years after redesignation. Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Tioga Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard. What Is Required In A Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) A maintenance demonstration; (3) A monitoring network; (4) Verification of continued attainment; and (5) A contingency plan. Analysis of the Tioga Area Maintenance Plan (a) Attainment Inventory—An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the Tioga Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year block of 2002-2004 and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NO ^X during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NO ^X emissions inventories for the Tioga Area, including point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002. To develop the NO ^X and VOC base year emissions inventories, PADEP used the following approaches and sources of data: (i) Point source emissions —Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System and EPA's publication series AP-42 and are based on Source Classification Code (SCC). Each process has at least one SCC assigned to it. If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates supersede those calculated using SCC codes. (ii) Area source emissions —Area source emissions are generally estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or collective activity for each area source category at the county level. Pennsylvania estimates emissions from area sources using emission factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary point sources. Emission factors may also be derived from research and guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and AP-42 factors. Throughput estimates are derived from county-level activity data, by apportioning national and statewide activity data to counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers. County employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to the industry covered. (iii) On-road mobile sources —PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions. The Tioga Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle type and roadway type. (iv) Mobile nonroad emissions —The 2002 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives. For 2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in the Tioga Area. For 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small aircraft operation statistics from http://www.airnav.com, and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). The 2004 attainment year VOC and NO ^X emissions for the Tioga Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions for this area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the demonstration of maintenance for this area. EPA has concluded that Pennsylvania has adequately derived and documented the 2004 attainment year VOC and NO ^X emissions for this area. (b) Maintenance Demonstration—On September 28, 2006, PADEP submitted a SIP revision to supplement its September 28, 2006 redesignation request. The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Tioga Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and NO ^X remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Tioga Area through the year 2018. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See, Wall v. EPA, supra ; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra . See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32. Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NO ^X emissions for the Tioga Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NO ^X emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period. Table 4.—Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd) Source category 2004 VOC emissions 2009 VOC emissions 2018 VOC emissions Mobile* 3.0 2.2 1.3 Nonroad 1.5 1.36 1.0 Area 2.7 2.4 2.6 Point 0.6 0.5 0.6 Total 8.4 7.1 6.0 Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Table 5.—Total NO ^X Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd) Source category 2004 NO ^X emissions 2009 NO ^X emissions 2018 NO ^X emissions Mobile 4.8 1.3 1.6 Nonroad 1.5 1.3 0.8 Area 0.3 0.3 0.3 Point 2.0 2.1 2.6 Total 8.5 7.1 5.3 *Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. The following programs are either effective or due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: 1. Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004) 2. Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004) 3. Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings (69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004) 4. Federal NO ^X SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) 5. Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) 6. FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 and Tier 2 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991 and 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000) 7. NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564, December 28, 1999)—proposed amendments to move the implementation to model year (MY) 2008 8. Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001) 9. Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004) Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in the Tioga Area. (c) Monitoring Network—There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Tioga Area. Pennsylvania will continue to operate its current air quality monitor in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. (d) Verification of Continued Attainment—The Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area by reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key factors, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) to see if the area exceeds the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent. Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. (e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures—The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). The ability of the Tioga Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NO ^X emissions in the area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO ^X emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur. Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at the Tioga Area monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state and local measure that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time of excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing any selected measures. Contingency measures will be considered in the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Tioga County, Pennsylvania monitor. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return the area to attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for the Tioga Area will include, but not limited to the following: Non-Regulatory Measures —Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash”—installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavy duty diesel engines —Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use, for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets —Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives —Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and other freight-handling facilities —Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment —Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating and agricultural use Regulatory Measures —Additional controls on consumer products —Additional control on portable fuel containers The plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures within 12-24 months of the trigger. VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Tioga Area Adequate and Approvable? A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e. RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road mobile sources. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and § 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. A MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. “Conformity” to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget contained therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM ^2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The MVEBs for the Tioga Area are listed in Table 1 of this document for the 2004, 2009, and 2018 years and are the projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs. These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations. B. What Is a Safety Margin? A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety margin: The Tioga Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the Tioga Area. The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 equaled 7.7 tpd of VOC and 8.0 tpd of NO ^X . PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of 5.5 tpd of VOC and 4.1 tpd of NO ^X from all sources in the Tioga Area. The safety margin for Tioga for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts, or 2.2 tpd of VOC and 3.9 tpd of NO ^X . The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the safety margins are projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels are maintained at or below the attainment levels. Table 6 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years. Table 6.—2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Tioga Area Inventory year VOC emissions (tpd) NO ^X emissions (tpd) 2004 Attainment 7.7 8.0 2009 Interim 6.7 6.2 2009 Safety Margin 1.0 1.8 2004 Attainment 7.7 8.0 2018 Final 5.5 4.1 2018 Safety Margin 2.2 3.9 PADEP allocated 0.2 tpd NO ^X and 0.1 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009 interim NO ^X projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 0.2 tpd NO ^X and 0.2 tpd VOC from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source category. Table 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Tioga Area. Table 7.—2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Tioga Area Inventory year VOC emissions (tpd) NO ^X emissions (tpd) 2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions 2.1 3.2 2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.1 0.2 2009 MVEBs 2.2 3.4 2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions 1.1 1.4 2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs 0.2 0.2 2018 MVEBs 1.3 1.6 C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? The 2004, 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Tioga Area are approvable because the MVEBs for NO ^X and VOC, including the allocated safety margins, continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation conformity regulations. D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Tioga Area Maintenance Plan? The MVEBs for the Tioga Area maintenance plan are being posted to EPA's conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal. The public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period. If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed approval of the Tioga Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Tioga Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov.otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm (once there, click on “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions”). VIII. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to determine that the Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Commonwealth's September 28, 2006 request for the Tioga Area to be redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of the Tioga Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan and the 2002 base year inventory for Tioga Area, submitted on September 28, 2006 and supplemented on November 14, 2006, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Tioga Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Tioga Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Tioga Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 26, 2007. Judith Katz, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-8669 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0715; FRL-8310-9] Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of the Clark and Floyd Counties 8-Hour Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On November 15, 2006, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a request to redesignate the Indiana portion of the Louisville 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area (Clark and Floyd Counties) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and a request for EPA approval of a 14-year maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd Counties. Today, EPA is making a determination that the Indiana portion of the Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2003-2005 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. EPA is proposing to approve the request to redesignate Clark and Floyd Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard based on its determination that the Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also proposing to approve Indiana's maintenance plan which adequately supports continued attainment through 2020 and, for purposes of transportation conformity, the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO ^X ) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2003 and 2020. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0715, 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, 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- 0715. 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 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 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 and any form of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. 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 hardcopy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://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 Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6052, before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052, rosenthal.steven@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 follow: I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Background for This Action? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Redesignation Request and What Are the Bases for EPA's Proposed Action? V. Has Indiana Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End of the 14-Year Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity Determinations? VI. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Action? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? We are proposing to take several related actions for the Indiana portion of the Louisville 8-hour nonattainment area (Clark and Floyd Counties). First, we are proposing to determine that Clark and Floyd Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality for the period of 2003 through 2005. Second, we are proposing to approve Indiana's ozone maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd Counties as a revision of the Indiana SIP. The maintenance plan is designed to keep Clark and Floyd Counties in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2020 by ensuring that the VOC and NO ^X emissions in both Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville area will be lower in 2020 than in 2003, an attainment year. As supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2003 and the 2020 VOC and NO ^X MVEBs for the Louisville area for transportation conformity purposes. We are also proposing to approve the request from the State of Indiana to change the designation of Clark and Floyd Counties from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We have determined that Indiana and Clark and Floyd Counties have met the requirements for redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). II. What Is the Background for This Action? A. General Background Information EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human health. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm) (80 parts per billion (ppb)) (62 FR 38856). 1 This 8-hour ozone standard replaced a prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which had been promulgated on February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202), and which was revoked on June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23858). 1 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 an average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over a three-year period equaling or exceeding 85 ppb. 40 CFR 50.10. 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.” Control of ground-level ozone concentrations is achieved through controlling VOC and NO ^X emissions. The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Federal Register notice promulgating these designations and classifications 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 all nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS. 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). EPA based this division on the area's 8-hour ozone design values (i.e., on the three-year averages of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at the worst-case monitoring sites in the 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 areas). 2 EPA classified 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1-hour ozone design values equaling or exceeding 121 ppb as subpart 2, classified nonattainment areas. EPA classified all other 8-hour nonattainment areas as subpart 1, basic nonattainment areas. The basis for area classification was explained in a separate April 30, 2004 final rule (the Phase 1 implementation rule) (69 FR 23951). 2 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 and later attainment dates. The prescribed emission control requirements are designed to bring areas into attainment by their specified attainment dates. In the April 30, 2004 ozone designation/classification rulemaking, EPA designated the Louisville nonattainment area, including Clark and Floyd Counties as a subpart 1 basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA based the designation on ozone data collected during the 2001-2003 period. On November 15, 2006, the State of Indiana requested redesignation of Clark and Floyd Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on ozone data collected in these counties from 2003-2005. B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006 United States Court of Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 1. Summary of Court Decision On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under Subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this area under Subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating State submissions in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and, (2) consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any future requirements. First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, Clark and Floyd Counties (and the entire Louisville area) were classified under Subpart 1 and were obligated to meet Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division) See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). See Sierra Club v. EPA , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking, See Sierra Club v. Whitman , 285 F.3d 63 (DC Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.” Id. at 68. Similarly here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request. 3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard, Clark and Floyd Counties were attainment areas subject to a Clean Air Act section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas. First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for redesignation requests for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP 3 . Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). Federal transportation conformity regulations apply in all States prior to approval of transportation conformity SIPs. The 1-hour ozone areas in Indiana were redesignated to attainment without approved State transportation conformity regulations because the Federal regulations were in effect in Indiana. When challenged, these 1-hour ozone redesignations, which were approved without State regulations, were upheld by the courts. See Wall v. EPA , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). Although Indiana does not have approved State transportation conformity regulations, it has developed memoranda of understanding, signed by all parties involved in conformity, to address conformity consultation procedures. The Federal transportation conformity regulations, which apply in Indiana, require the approved 1-hour ozone budgets to be used for transportation conformity purposes prior to 8-hour ozone budgets being approved. 3 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, Clark and Floyd Counties are attainment areas subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision requirements no longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard. Thus, the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area. 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; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an 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). The two main policy guidelines affecting the review of ozone redesignation requests are the following: “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum); 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. For additional policy guidelines used in the review of ozone redesignation requests, see our proposed rule for the redesignation of the Evansville, Indiana ozone nonattainment area at 70 FR 53606 (September 9, 2005). IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Redesignation Request and What Are the Bases for EPA's Proposed Action? EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that Clark and Floyd Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd Counties and the VOC and NO ^X MVEBs supported by this maintenance plan; and (3) approve the redesignation of Clark and Floyd to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our proposed determination and approvals follow. A. Louisville Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I, based on the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all ozone monitoring sites in the area and in its nearby 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 nearby downwind environs over the three-year period must not exceed the ozone standard. Based on an ozone data rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the 8-hour standard is attained if the area's ozone design value 4 is 0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or lower. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, 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). The data supporting attainment of the standard must be complete in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. 4 The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value in the area or in its affected downwind environs. Indiana submitted ozone monitoring data for the April through September ozone seasons from 2003 to 2005 for the Indiana and Kentucky portions of the Louisville nonattainment area. This data has been quality assured by Indiana and Kentucky and is recorded in AQS. The 4th high averages are summarized in Table 1, in which the values are in ppm ozone. Table 1.—4th high values in ppm ozone. Monitor County 2003-2005 2003 2004 2005 2006 Charlestown, IN Clark 0.081 0.090 0.074 0.080 0.079 New Albany, IN Floyd 0.079 0.086 0.071 0.079 0.076 WLKY, KY Jefferson 0.071 0.073 0.068 0.074 0.067 Watson, KY Jefferson 0.076 0.075 0.070 0.085 0.077 Bates, KY Jefferson 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.079 0.074 Shepherdsville, KY Bulitt 0.073 0.072 0.068 0.080 0.071 Buckner, KY Oldham 0.082 0.082 0.076 0.089 0.083 These data show that the average fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for the monitoring sites in the Louisville area are all below the 85 ppb ozone standard violation cut-off. The data support the conclusion that the Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (including Clark and Floyd Counties) did not experience a monitored violation of the 8-hour ozone standard from 2003-2005. In addition, the surrounding counties in Indiana and Kentucky did not monitor nonattainment during the 2003-2005 period. As also noted in Table 1, the 8-hour ozone NAAQS continued to be attained in the Louisville area through 2006. Indiana has committed to continue ozone monitoring at the sites in Clark and Floyd Counties. IDEM also commits to consult with the EPA prior to making any changes in the existing monitoring network. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Indiana provide an adequate demonstration that the Louisville area attains the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. B. Clark and Floyd Counties Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has determined that Indiana has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Clark and Floyd Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has determined that the Indiana SIP meets currently applicable SIP requirements under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 and subpart 2 ozone nonattainment areas). See section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, EPA has determined that the Indiana SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA, those CAA requirements applicable to Clark and Floyd Counties at the time the State submitted the final, complete ozone redesignation request for this area. 1. Clark and Floyd Counties Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(D)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation of an area to attainment, the State and the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also a September 17, 1993, memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, “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” 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 to attainment of the standard 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, 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. SIP elements and requirements are specified in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements and SIP elements 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 new source part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and new source part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR)); (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. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain measures to prevent sources in one 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, 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 in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State. These requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, 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 in evaluating this aspect of 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 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, 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). In addition, Indiana's response to the CAIR rule was due in September 2006. Because this deadline had not yet passed when the State submitted the final, complete redesignation request, the State's CAIR submittal is also not an applicable requirement for redesignation purposes. It should be noted 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 Indiana SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone standard. We have analyzed the Indiana SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart P, 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; provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and 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 Indiana SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, an area's classification (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 regarding a St. Louis ozone redesignation notice of proposed rulemaking for a discussion of section 172 requirements.) No requirements under part D of the CAA came due for Clark and Floyd Counties prior to the State's November 15, 2006, submittal of a complete redesignation request. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), was not yet applicable, nor were 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)). All of these required SIP elements are required for submittal after November 15, 2006. Therefore, none of the part D requirements are applicable to Clark and Floyd Counties 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 that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due prior to Indiana's submission of the complete ozone redesignation request for Clark and Floyd Counties, and, therefore, are not applicable for redesignation purposes, EPA has similarly concluded that the conformity requirements do not apply for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. In addition, 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 an area 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). We conclude that the State and Clark and Floyd Counties have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA to the extent that the requirements apply for the purposes of reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request. 2. Clark and Floyd Counties Have a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has fully approved the Indiana SIP for Clark and Floyd Counties 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, Indiana has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to Clark and Floyd Counties for purposes of redesignation. No Clark and Floyd 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 review of the State's redesignation request. EPA has concluded 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 did not become due prior to Indiana's submission of a final, complete redesignation request, they also are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. C. The Air Quality Improvement in Clark and Floyd Counties Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions EPA believes that the State of Indiana has demonstrated that implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures have contributed to the observed air quality improvement in Clark and Floyd Counties. In making this demonstration, the State has documented the changes in VOC and NO ^X emissions from anthropogenic (man-made or man-based) sources in Clark and Floyd, as well as the entire Louisville nonattainment area, between 1996 and 2004 and the statewide NO ^X emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs) from 1999 to 2005. The Louisville area was monitored in violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the period of 2001-2003 and in attainment with the NAAQS during the period of 2003-2005. The total VOC and NO ^X emissions for both Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville nonattainment area (Louisville NA in the table) for 2002, an attainment year, and 2003, a nonattainment year, are given in Table 2. Table 2.—VOC and NO ^X Emissions in Clark & Floyd Counties and Louisville, All Sources—Emissions in Tons/Summer Day Pollutant 2002 2003 VOC—Clark & Floyd 32.69 29.26 NO ^X —Clark & Floyd 57.59 51.76 VOC—Louisville NA 138.24 133.83 NO ^X —Louisville NA 247.46 238.76 The statewide NO ^X emissions for EGUs from 1999-2005 are given in Table 3 below. Table 3.—NO ^X Emissions From Electric Generating Units in Indiana Statewide—Emissions in Thousands of Tons per Ozone Season [April-October] Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Statewide 149.8 133.9 136.1 114.0 99.3 66.6 55.5 The NO ^X and VOC emissions for Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville nonattainment area have decreased from 2002, an 8-hour standard violation year, to 2003, an 8-hour standard attainment year. In addition, the Indiana Statewide EGU NO ^X emissions have continued to decline from 1999 to 2005. This is a result of the implementation of the Indiana NO ^X SIP (in response to EPA's NO ^X SIP call) and acid rain control regulations, both of which led to permanent, enforceable emission reductions. VOC and NO ^X emissions have declined as a result of enforceable emission reductions. As required by Section 172 of the CAA, Indiana in the mid-1990s promulgated rules requiring RACT for emissions of VOCs. Statewide RACT rules have applied to all new sources locating in Indiana since that time and include the following VOC rules: 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8-1-6 (Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for non-specific sources); 326 IAC 8-2 (surface coating emission limitations); 326 IAC 8-3 (organic solvent degreasing operations); 326 IAC 8-4 (petroleum sources); and 326 IAC 8-5 (miscellaneous sources). The VOC emission reductions resulting from the implementation of these VOC emission control rules are permanent and enforceable. Besides the statewide VOC RACT rules and NO ^X emission control requirements, other Federal emission reduction requirements have resulted in decreased ozone precursor emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties (a similar set of control measures have been implemented for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville area) and will produce future emission reductions that will support maintenance of the ozone standard in these Counties. These emission reduction requirements include the following: Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules are being phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following vehicle NO ^X emission reductions will occur: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent; and larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). VOC emission reductions are also expected to range from 12 to 18 percent, depending on vehicle class, over the same period. Although some of these emission reductions have already occurred by the 2004 attainment year, most of these emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period for Clark and Floyd Counties. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. In July 2000, EPA issued a final rule to control the emissions from highway heavy duty diesel engines, including low-sulfur diesel fuel standards. These emission reductions are being phased in between 2004 and 2007. This rule is expected to result in a 40 percent decrease in NO ^X emissions from heavy duty diesel vehicle. Non-Road Diesel Rule. Issued in May, 2004, this rule generally applies to new stationary diesel engines used in certain industries, including construction, agriculture, and mining. In addition to affecting engine design, this rule includes requirements for cleaner fuels. It is expected to reduce NO ^X emissions from these engines by up to 90 percent, and to significantly reduce particulate matter and sulfur emissions from these engines in addition to the NO ^X emission reduction. This rule did not affect 2004 emissions from these sources, but will limit emissions from new engines beginning in 2008. Indiana commits to maintain all existing emission control measures that affect Clark and Floyd Counties after this area is redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. All changes in existing rules affecting Clark and Floyd Counties and new rules subsequently needed to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Clark and Floyd Counties will be submitted to the EPA for approval as SIP revisions. D. Clark and Floyd Counties Have a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate Clark and Floyd Counties to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Indiana submitted a SIP revision request to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Clark and Floyd Counties for at least 10 years after the redesignation of this area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 1. 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 maintenance of the standard 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 of VOC and NO ^X emissions inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the 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. 2. Demonstration of Maintenance IDEM prepared comprehensive VOC and NO ^X emission inventories for Clark and Floyd Counties, including point (significant stationary sources), area (smaller and widely-distributed stationary sources), mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources for 2003 (the base year/attainment year). As part of the November 15, 2006, redesignation request submittal, IDEM included a requested revision to the SIP to incorporate a 14-year ozone maintenance plan which is consistent with the requirements under section 175A of the CAA. Included in the maintenance plan is a maintenance demonstration. This demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by documenting current and projected VOC and NO ^X emissions for both Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville nonattainment area and by documenting photochemical modeling results that support maintenance of the standard in this area. 5 5 The attainment year can be any of the three consecutive years in which the area has clean (below violation level) air quality data (2003, 2004, or 2005 for the Louisville area). Table 4 specifies the VOC emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire nonattainment area for 2003, 2011 and 2020. IDEM chose 2020 as a projection year to meet the 10-year minimum maintenance projection requirement, allowing several years for the State to complete its adoption of the ozone redesignation request and ozone maintenance plan and for the EPA to approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan. IDEM also chose 2011 as an interim year to demonstrate that VOC and NO ^X emissions will remain below the attainment levels throughout the 14-year maintenance period. The mobile source emission projections for 2011 and 2020 exclude VOC reductions associated with Indiana's Clark and Floyd vehicle inspection and maintenance program that was discontinued at the end of 2006. Indiana's termination of its inspection and maintenance program in Clark and Floyd Counties will be the subject of a subsequent Federal Register notice. Table 5, similar to Table 4, specifies the NO ^X emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire nonattainment area for 2003, 2011 and 2020. Together, the information contained in Tables 4 and 5 and the photochemical modeling results demonstrate that Clark and Floyd Counties, and the Louisville nonattainment area, should remain in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS between 2003 and 2020, which is more than 10 years after EPA is expected to approve the redesignation of these counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The mobile source emission projections for 2011 and 2020 exclude NO ^X reductions associated with Indiana's Clark and Floyd vehicle inspection and maintenance program that was discontinued at the end of 2006. Table 4.—Attainment Year (2003) and Projected VOC Emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties and Entire Nonattainment Area [Tons per summer day] Source sector Year 2003 2011 2020 Point: Clark and Floyd 4.17 6.61 7.14 Louisville NA 36.62 39.28 39.85 Area: Clark and Floyd 11.94 12.77 14.59 Louisville NA 35.07 36.93 40.02 On-Road Mobile: Clark and Floyd 9.60 6.12 3.98 Louisville NA 40.97 25.69 16.89 Off-Road Mobile: Clark and Floyd 3.55 2.35 2.20 Louisville NA 21.17 15.87 15.28 Total: Clark and Floyd 29.26 27.85 27.91 Louisville NA 133.83 117.77 112.04 Table 5.—Attainment Year and Projected NO ^X Emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties and Entire Nonattainment Area [Tons per summer day] Source sector Year 2003 2011 2020 Point: Clark and Floyd 24.26 27.29 28.66 Louisville NA 99.73 78.95 75.97 Area: Clark and Floyd 1.60 1.71 1.80 Louisville NA 2.53 2.67 2.79 On-Road Mobile: Clark and Floyd 20.27 10.20 4.15 Louisville NA 95.51 47.53 19.62 Off-Road Mobile: Clark and Floyd 5.63 4.43 3.49 Louisville NA 41.01 34.77 27.88 Total: Clark and Floyd 51.77 43.63 38.10 Louisville NA 238.79 163.92 126.26 IDEM also notes that the State's EGU NO ^X emission control rules stemming from EPA's NO ^X SIP call, implemented beginning in 2004, and CAIR, which is to be implemented beginning in 2009 will further lower NO ^X emissions in upwind areas. This should result in decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Clark and Floyd Counties. It will also support maintenance of the ozone standard in Clark and Floyd Counties. Based upon the data in Table 4, VOC emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties are projected to decline by about 5% between 2003 and 2020 and VOC emissions in the entire nonattainment area are projected to decline by 16%. Based upon the data in Table 5, NO ^X emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties are projected to decline by over 26% between 2003 and 2020, and NO ^X emissions in the entire nonattainment area are projected to decline by 47%. Based on the projected VOC and NO ^X emission reductions between the attainment year in 2003 and the maintenance year of 2020, for both Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville nonattainment area, we conclude that IDEM has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in Clark and Floyd Counties, as well as the entire Louisville nonattainment area through 2020. This is reinforced by photochemical modeling done for Clark and Floyd Counties. We believe that this is especially likely given the expected impacts of the NO ^X SIP call and CAIR. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that other states in the eastern portion of the United States are expected to further reduce regional NO ^X emissions through implementation of their own NO ^X emission control rules for EGUs and other NO ^X sources and through implementation of CAIR, reducing ozone and NO ^X transport into Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville nonattainment area. 3. Monitoring Network IDEM commits to continue operating and maintaining an approved ozone monitoring network in Clark and Floyd Counties in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 through the 14-year maintenance period. This will allow the confirmation of the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in this area and the triggering of contingency measures if needed. 4. Verification of Continued Attainment Continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Clark and Floyd Counties depends on the State's efforts toward tracking applicable indicators during the maintenance period. The State's plan for verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in Clark and Floyd Counties consists, in part, of a plan to continue ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. In addition, IDEM will periodically revise and review the VOC and NO ^X emissions inventories for these counties to assure that emissions growth is not threatening the continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in this area. Revised emission inventories for this area will be prepared for 2005, 2008, and 2011 as necessary to comply with the emission inventory reporting requirements established in the CAA. The revised emissions will be compared with the 2003 attainment emissions and the 2020 projected maintenance year emissions to assure continued maintenance of the ozone standard. 5. 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 controlled 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, Indiana commits to review its maintenance plan eight years after redesignation and to adopt and expeditiously implement any necessary corrective actions (or contingency measures). Contingency measures to be considered will be selected from a comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made. 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 (Action Level Response). A Warning Level Response will be prompted whenever an annual (1-year) fourth-high monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 89 ppb (or greater) occurs at any monitor in Clark and Floyd Counties, or a 2-year averaged annual fourth-high daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater occurs at any monitor in Clark or Floyd Counties. A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the monitored ozone level indicates a trend toward higher ozone levels or whether emissions are increasing, threatening a future violation of the ozone NAAQS. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue, and, if so, the emission control measures necessary to reverse the trend, taking into consideration the ease and timing of implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. Implementation of necessary controls will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season. If new emission controls are needed to reverse the adverse ozone trend, the procedures for emission control selection under the Action Level Response will be followed. An Action Level Response will be triggered when a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is monitored at any of the monitors in the maintenance area (when a 3-year average annual fourth-high monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or higher is recorded at any such monitor). In this situation, IDEM will determine the additional emission control measures needed to assure future attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. IDEM will focus on emission control measures that can be implemented within 18 months from the close of the ozone season in which the ozone standard violation is monitored. Adoption of any additional emission control measures prompted by either of the two response levels will be subject to the necessary administrative and legal processes dictated by State law. This process will include publication of public notices, providing the opportunity for a public hearing, and other measures required by Indiana law for rulemaking by State environmental boards. If a new emission control measure is already promulgated and scheduled for implementation at the Federal or State level, and that emission control measure is determined to be sufficient to address the air quality problem or adverse trend, additional local emission control measures may be determined to be unnecessary. IDEM will submit to the EPA an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed emission control measures are adequate to return the area to attainment. Contingency measures contained in the maintenance plan are those emission controls or other measures that the State may choose to adopt and implement to correct existing or possible air quality problems in Clark and Floyd Counties. These include, but are not limited to, the following: i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline requirements; ii. Broader geographic applicability of existing emission control measures; iii. Tightened RACT requirements on existing sources covered by EPA Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued in response to the 1990 CAA amendments; iv. Application of RACT to smaller existing sources; v. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance; vi. One or more Transportation Control Measures sufficient to achieve at least a 0.5 percent reduction in actual area-wide VOC emissions, to be selected from the following: A. Trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to, employer-based transportation management plans, area-wide rideshare programs, work schedule programs, and telecommuting; B. Transit improvement; C. Traffic flow improvements; and, D. Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in widespread use that affect State and local governments as deemed appropriate; vii. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; viii. Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted elsewhere in the United States; ix. VOC or NO ^X emission offsets for new or modified major sources; x. VOC or NO ^X emission offsets for new or modified minor sources; xi. Increased ratio of emission offsets required for new sources; and, xii. VOC or NO ^X emission controls on new minor sources (with VOC or NO ^X emissions less than 100 tons per year). 6. 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 the County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The revision will contain Indiana's plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone standard for 10 years beyond the first 10-year period after redesignation. V. Has Indiana Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the End of the 14-Year Maintenance Plan 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 Clark and Floyd Counties? 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 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 and the State has the option of setting budgets for other years in the maintenance plan. The MVEBs serve as ceilings 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 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 and trucks. 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 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 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 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 for determining the 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 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 Transportation Conformity Rule, in 40 CFR section 93.118(f), provides for MVEB 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 MVEB simultaneously with its review of the implementation plan itself. EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in the Louisville 8-hour ozone area because EPA has determined that the budgets are consistent with the control measures in the SIP and that Louisville can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant required 14-year period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. The MVEBs in the maintenance plan are for the entire Louisville area, which includes the Kentucky areas (Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties), in addition to Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana. Through the transportation consultation process, it was decided that the best way to maintain the mobile source emissions for the area would be to set budgets for the entire area rather than each individual State. There is one Metropolitan Planning Organization for the entire area (the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency). The transportation network modeling and transportation conformity determinations are conducted for the entire Louisville area. The transportation conformity regulations allow States to decide in consultation with the transportation partners, to determine budgets for the entire area or for each state. The transportation conformity budgets are listed in the Table below. MVEBs are proposed for both the 2020 year or last year of the maintenance plan and also for the 2003 year which is an attainment year. Louisville KY-IN 8-Hour Ozone Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (Tons per day) 2003 2020 VOC 40.97 22.92 NO ^X 95.51 29.46 Kentucky and Indiana have jointly chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the 2020 MVEBs. This allocation is 6.03 tpd for VOC and 9.84 tpd for NO ^X . The 2020 regional MVEBs are derived as follows for VOC: [16.89 tpd for total mobile emissions] + [6.03 tpd from available safety margin] = 22.92 tpd; and for NO ^X : [19.62 tpd for total mobile emissions] + [9.84 tpd from available safety margin] = 29.46 tpd. Thus, the remaining safety margin for the interstate Louisville area is 15.76 tpd for VOC and 102.69 tpd for NO ^X . These budgets are the same as the budgets that have been submitted by the State of Kentucky for the entire Louisville area and have been discussed by the transportation partners for the Louisville area. Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs for the interstate Louisville 8-hour ozone area for use to determine transportation conformity because EPA has determined that the interstate Louisville area maintains the standard with emissions at the levels of the budgets. If EPA approves the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs in the final rulemaking action, the new MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. The new regional 2003 and 2020 MVEBs, if found adequate or if approved in the final rulemaking, will be effective with the publication of EPA's adequacy finding or final rulemaking in the Federal Register , whichever is done first. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve the year 2020 or beyond, the applicable budgets for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity will be the 2020 MVEBs for the interstate Louisville area. For required analysis years prior to 2020, the applicable budgets will be the 2003 MVEBs. B. Are the MVEBs Approvable? The VOC and NO ^X MVEBs for Louisville are approvable because they provide for continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2020 and provide a 6.03 tons-per-day safety margin for VOC and 9.84 tons-per-day safety margin for NO ^X . EPA is proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs for the interstate Louisville area because the maintenance plans demonstrate that expected emissions for the area, including the MVEBs plus the estimated emissions for all other source categories, will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. VII. What is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Action? Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Clark and Floyd Counties from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It would also incorporate into the Indiana SIP a plan for maintaining the ozone NAAQS through 2020. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs (for the entire Louisville area) for the years 2003 and 2020. 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 proposes approval of a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. 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 NTTAA 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 Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: April 30, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-8772 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0258; FRL-8310-7] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; States of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) section 111(d) negative declarations submitted by the states of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. These negative declarations certify that OSWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist in these states. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0258 by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at (913) 551-7039, or by e-mail at hamilton.heather@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal Register , EPA is approving the states’ submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 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 action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register . Dated: April 30, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-8798 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0322; FRL-8309-8] Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; State of Arizona, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; State of Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA granted delegation of specific national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on March 16, 2007, and to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on January 12, 2007. EPA is proposing to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the current delegation status of NESHAP in Arizona and Nevada. DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0322, 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 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: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4124, wang.mae@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns the delegation of unchanged NESHAP to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , EPA is amending regulations to reflect the current delegation status of NESHAP in Arizona and Nevada. EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency believes these actions are 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. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. Date Signed: April 19, 2007. Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-8681 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 88 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0046] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Animal Health Monitoring System; Small Enterprise Chicken Study 2007 AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection activity to support the National Animal Health Monitoring System's national Small Enterprise Chicken Study. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal : Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0046 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0046, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0046. Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Small Enterprise Chicken Study, contact Mrs. Sandra Warnken, Management and Program Analyst, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B MS 2E3, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7193. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Animal Health Monitoring System; Small Enterprise Chicken Study 2007. OMB Number: 0579-0260. Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection. Abstract: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to protect the health of our Nation's livestock and poultry populations by preventing the introduction and interstate spread of serious diseases of poultry and for eradicating such diseases from the United States when feasible. In connection with this mission, APHIS operates the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), which collects, on a national basis, statistically valid and scientifically sound data on the prevalence and economic importance of livestock and poultry diseases and associated risk factors. NAHMS' national studies have evolved into a collaborative industry and government initiative to help determine the most effective means of preventing and controlling diseases of poultry. APHIS is the only agency responsible for collecting national data on poultry health. Participation in any NAHMS study is voluntary, and all data are confidential. APHIS plans to conduct the Small Enterprise Chicken Study for operations with 1,000 to 19,999 chickens as part of an ongoing series of NAHMS studies on the U.S. poultry population. The purpose of this study is to collect information, through a questionnaire, in order to: • Describe characteristics of small enterprise operations, including bird species on hand, seasonal inventory, and marketing of free-range chickens or eggs, and organic or other niche-market products. • Describe movements of animals, people, waste products, vehicles, and equipment on and off operations, and estimate the distances associated with these movements. • Examine biosecurity practices, including bird access to the outdoors. The questionnaire will be administered via postal mail, with followup telephone interviews for those who do not respond. The information collected through the Small Enterprise Chicken Study will be analyzed and organized into descriptive reports. Information sheets will be derived from these reports, and the data will be disseminated to and may be used by a variety of constituents, including producers, stakeholders, academia, and others. This information will be used to develop parameters for the North American Animal Disease Spread Model (NAADSM), the Multiscale Epidemiologic/Economic Simulation and Analysis (MESA) model, and possibly other models. These disease simulation models examine how a contagious disease may spread in an animal population. The information collected from this study will also be used to develop background information on the small enterprise segment of the poultry industry. The potential benefit to the industry is a scientifically valid description of management, marketing, and biosecurity practices of the Nation's small enterprise chicken industry. The study will assist in understanding the mechanisms of disease spread by developing background information on the small enterprise chicken industry. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response. Respondents: Producers with 1,000 to 19,999 chickens. Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,500. Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1. Estimated annual number of responses: 2,500. Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,250 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-8801 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Direct Verification Pilot Study AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection for purposes of the National School Lunch Program's Direct Verification Pilot Study. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Steven Carlson, Acting Director, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Steven Carlson at (703) 305-2576 or via e-mail to Steven.Carl son@fns.usda.gov. All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, Room 1014. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will be also become a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Steven Carlson (703) 305-2017. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Direct Verification Evaluation Study. OMB Number: Not yet assigned. Form Number: “N/A”. Expiration Date: To be determined. Type of Request: New collection of information. Abstract: The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265) expanded authorization for local education agencies (LEAs) to directly verify eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) without contacting households, using data from other means-tested programs such as the Food Stamp Program (FSP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Direct verification is intended to reduce burden on households and LEAs, improve program operations, and reduce the number of children losing NSLP benefits due to household non-response to verification requests. In an effort to understand the methods of direct verification and their effectiveness, the Direct Verification Pilot Study will systematically collect data from eight States. Currently, there is limited information on the feasibility and effectiveness of direct verification. The information to be collected is necessary to understand and assess the effectiveness of direct verification; compare different implementation methods; and inform States about best practices and cost savings. Respondents: State Child Nutrition Agency officials, State Medicaid Agency officials, and Local Education Agency school food service directors. Estimate of Burden: State Child Nutrition Agency Initial Interview: Public burden for respondents of the State Child Nutrition Agency initial interview is estimated at 210 minutes (3.5 hours) for 8 respondents for one response each. State Child Nutrition Agency Follow-up Interview: Public burden for respondents of the State Child Nutrition Agency follow-up interview is estimated at 150 minutes (2.5 hours) for 8 respondents for one response each. State Medicaid Agency Interview: Public burden for respondents of the State Medicaid Agency Interview is estimated at 75 minutes (1.25 hours) for 8 respondents for one response each. State Medicaid Agency Follow-up Interview: Public burden for respondents of the State Medicaid Agency follow-up interview is estimated at 75 minutes (1.25 hours) for 8 respondents for one response each. Local Education Agency Administrative Data Collection: Public burden for respondents of the Local Education Agency administrative data collection is estimated at 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for 240 respondents for one response each. Local Education Agency Survey: Public burden for respondents of the LEA survey is estimated at 20 minutes (0.33 hours) for 240 respondents for one response each. Local Education Agency Interview: Public burden for respondents of the LEA Agency Interview is estimated at 60 minutes (1 hour) for 40 respondents for one response each. Description No. of respondents No. of responses per respondent Hours per response Total hours State Child Nutrition Agency—Initial Interview 8 1 3,500 28.00 State Child Nutrition Agency—Follow-up Interview 8 1 2,500 20.00 State Medicaid Agency Interview 8 1 1,250 10.00 State Medicaid Agency Follow-up Interview 8 1 1,250 10.00 Local Ed. Agency Administrative Data Collection 240 1 0.500 120.00 Local Education Agency Survey 240 1 0.333 80.00 Local Education Agency Survey Interview 40 1 1.000 40.00 Total 256 308.00 Estimated Number of Respondents: 256. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.2 (average). Estimated Total Annual Responses: 552. Estimated Time per Response: 0.56. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 308 hours. Dated: April 27, 2007. Nancy Mont Johner, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. 07-2279 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]