[Federal Register: July 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 134)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39618-39629]
[DOCID:fr13jy06-44]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0485; FRL-8196-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Redesignation of the Huntington, WV Portion of the
Huntington-Ashland 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and
Approval of the Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Huntington portion of
the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY (herein referred to as the ``Huntington-
Ashland area'') interstate area from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting
that the Cabell and Wayne County, West Virginia (Huntington) portion of
the Huntington-Ashland area be redesignated as attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The interstate Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of three counties (Cabell and Wayne
Counties, West Virginia and Boyd County, Kentucky). EPA is proposing to
approve the ozone redesignation request for the Huntington portion of
the Huntington-Ashland area. In conjunction with its redesignation
request, the WVDEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for Huntington that provides for continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years. EPA is proposing to make a
determination that Huntington 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
Huntington has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is providing information on
the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Huntington maintenance plan
for purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing to
approve those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation
request and of the maintenance plan revision to the West Virginia SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0485 by one of the following methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPAR03-OAR-2006-0485, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, D. Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    E. 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-
2006-0485. 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.epa.gov/edocket www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address

will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    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 during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE,
Charleston, WV 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Huntington Maintenance Plan Adequate and
Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    On May 17, 2006, WVDEP formally submitted a request to redesignate
Huntington from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone. On May 17, 2006, West Virginia submitted a maintenance plan for
Huntington as a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment over the
next 12 years. Huntington is comprised of Cabell and Wayne Counties.
Huntington is currently designated as a basic 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that Huntington
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 Huntington from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
the maintenance plan SIP revision for Huntington, such approval being
one of the CAA requirements for approval of a redesignation request.
The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment
throughout the Huntington-Ashland area for the next 12 years.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for
the MVEBs identified in the Huntington maintenance plan, and proposing
to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for transportation conformity
purposes. These MVEBs are State MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of
the Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone area. In a separate submittal, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky is establishing MVEBs for the remainder of
this area (i.e., Boyd County). Concurrently, the State is requesting
that EPA approve the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of
CAA 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update.

II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

A. General

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Huntington-Ashland area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment status in a Federal Register notice signed on April 25,
2004 and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). On June 15, 2005
(69 FR at 23396), the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked in the Huntington-
Ashland area (as well as most other areas of the country). See 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23396 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August
3, 2005).
    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, signed on April 15, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, the Huntington-Ashland
area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon
air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and is subject to the
requirements of subpart 1.
    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 indicates that Huntington has a design value of 0.081
ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and a design value of design
value of 0.076 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005. The ozone
monitoring data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 indicates that
Ashland has a design value of 0.079 ppm. Therefore, the ambient ozone
data for the Huntington-Ashland area indicates no violations of the 8-
hour ozone standard. Final monitoring data for 2005 indicates continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Huntington-Ashland area.

B. The Huntington-Ashland Area

    The Huntington-Ashland area consists of Cabell and Wayne Counties,
West Virginia and Boyd County, Kentucky. Prior to its designation as an
8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Huntington-Ashland area was a
maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone nonattainment NAAQS. See 59 FR
65719 (December 21, 1994).
    On May 17, 2006, the WVDEP requested that Huntington 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 2002-2004, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in Huntington. 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 May 17, 2006, the WVDEP requested redesignation of Huntington to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On May 17, 2006, the WVDEP
submitted a maintenance plan for Huntington as a SIP revision, to
assure continued attainment over the next 12 years, until 2018.
Concurrently, West Virginia is requesting that EPA approve the
maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of CAA 175A(b) with
respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is proposing
to approve the maintenance plan to fulfill the requirement of section
175A(b) for submission of a maintenance plan update eight years after
Huntington was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA believes that such an update must ensure that the maintenance plan
in the SIP provides maintenance of the NAAQS for a period of 20 years
after an area is initially redesignated to attainment. EPA can propose
approval because the maintenance plan, which demonstrates maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018, also demonstrates maintenance
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018, even though the latter standard
is no longer in effect. Huntington was redesignated to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on December 21, 1994 (59 FR 45985), and, the
initial 1-hour ozone maintenance plan provided for maintenance through
2005. Ashland was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33748). Section 51.905(e) of the ``Final Rule
To Implement the 8-Hour Requirements--Phase 1'' April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23999) specifies the conditions that must be satisfied before EPA may
approve a modification to a 1-hour maintenance plan which: (1) Removes
the obligation to submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
eight years after approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan and/
or (2) removes the obligation to implement contingency measures upon a
violation of the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA believes that section 51.905(e) of
the final rule allows a State to make either one or both of these
modifications to a 1-hour maintenance plan SIP once EPA approves a
maintenance plan for the 8-hour NAAQS. The maintenance plan will not
trigger the contingency plan upon a violation of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, but upon a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes
that the 8-hour standard is now the proper standard which should
trigger the contingency plan now that the 1-hour NAAQS has been revoked
and now that approval of the maintenance plan would allow the State to
remove a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS obligation from the SIP. EPA has
determined that Huntington has attained the standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).

V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation
of Huntington from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the West
Virginia SIP a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in Huntington for the next 12 years, until 2018. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for transportation conformity purposes
for the years 2004, 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the
following table:

     Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004..................................................     11.5      6.0
2009..................................................      8.7      4.6
2018..................................................      4.1      3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Huntington-Ashland area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation
criteria have been met. The following is a description of how the
WVDEP's May 17, 2006 submittal satisfies the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

A. The Huntington-Ashland Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Huntington-Ashland area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year
average of the fourth-highest daily

maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor,
within the area, over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at
the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
for demonstrating attainment.
    In the Huntington-Ashland area there is one ozone monitor, located
in Cabell County, West Virginia and one ozone monitor in Boyd County,
Kentucky that measure air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its
redesignation request, West Virginia submitted ozone monitoring data
for the years 2002-2005 for the Huntington-Ashland area. This data has
been quality assured and is recorded in AIRS. The fourth high 8-hour
daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year averages, are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

   Table 2.--Huntington's Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values; Cabell
                      Monitor, AIRS ID 54-011-0006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual 4th
                          Year                             high reading
                                                              (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...................................................            0.097
2003...................................................            0.080
2004...................................................            0.066
2005...................................................            0.082
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.081 ppm.
    The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.076 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 3.--Ashland's Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values; Boyd Monitor,
                           AIRS ID 21-019-0017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual 4th
                          Year                             high reading
                                                              (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...................................................            0.102
2003...................................................            0.088
2004...................................................            0.068
2005...................................................            0.082
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.086 ppm.
    The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.079 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the entire Huntington-
Ashland area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.076 ppm
for Huntington and a design value of 0.079 ppm for Ashland. The data
collected at the Huntington-Ashland area monitors satisfy 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. The WVDEP's request for redesignation for Huntington
indicates that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. The WVDEP uses AIRS 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,
WVDEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by West
Virginia and data taken from AIRS indicates that the Huntington-Ashland
area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. The Huntington-Ashland 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 Huntington 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 Huntington-Ashland 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 came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
     Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
     Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
     Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
     Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
     Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and

classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area's designation and 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 should be construed
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In
addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. West Virginia and Kentucky will still be subject to
these requirements after the Huntington-Ashland area is redesignated.
The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linked with a
particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy
is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels 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 37890
(June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399
(October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NOX SIP
Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ``an
`applicable requirement' for purposes of section 110(l) because the
NOX rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
    EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as 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 West Virginia and Kentucky SIPs satisfy all of the
applicable general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2), EPA concludes that West Virginia and Kentucky have satisfied
the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    The Huntington-Ashland 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, there are no
outstanding Part D submittals under the 1-hour standard for this area.
    Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification. The Huntington-Ashland area was classified as a subpart
1 nonattainment area; therefore, no subpart 2 requirements apply to
this area.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that
the West Virginia and Kentucky SIPs meet all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard
Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due
prior to submission of the area's redesignation request. Because the
State submitted a complete redesignation request for Huntington 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
Huntington for the purposes of redesignation.
    In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity and NSR requirements 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 the EPA to promulgate.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) 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).
    EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect, because PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' West Virginia has
demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard
without Part D NSR in effect in Huntington, and therefore, West
Virginia need not have a fully approved Part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request. West Virginia's SIP-approved PSD
program will become effective in Huntington upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March
7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7,
1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
3. Huntington Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation
    EPA has fully approved the West Virginia SIP for the purposes of
this 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 68 FR 25425
(May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Huntington-Ashland area was a
1-hour maintenance area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area on April 30,

2004. Because Huntington was a 1-hour maintenance area, all previous
Part D SIP submittal requirements were fulfilled at the time the area
was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or have been
fulfilled with the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the
area. See rulemakings for Huntington, WV (59 FR 45980 at 45981-45982,
September 6, 1994); (59 FR 45019, September 6, 1994); and, (59 FR
65719, December 21, 1994). Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of
Huntington, 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 Huntington-Ashland area, and
therefore they need not be approved into the SIP prior to
redesignation.
4. The Air Quality Improvement in the Huntington-Ashland 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 States have demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the Huntington-Ashland 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 in
Huntington are shown in Table 4.

                          Table 4.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                Point    Area*    Nonroad     Mobile    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002......................................................      1.1     11.7        4.1        6.8     23.7
Year 2004......................................................      1.3     12.1        4.3        6.0     23.7
Diff. (02-04)..................................................     +0.2     +0.4       +0.2       -0.8        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002......................................................     12.4      1.2       14.0       11.4     39.0
Year 2004......................................................      7.4      1.2       17.3       11.5     37.4
Diff. (02-04)..................................................     -5.0        0       +3.3       +.10     -1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Fire emissions are assumed to remain constant.

    Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions stayed the same, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 1.6 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures implemented or in the process of
being implemented in Huntington:
Programs Currently in Effect
    (a) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV);
    (b) Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier
2 standards; and,
    (c) Clean Diesel Program.
    West Virginia has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. All of the reductions in VOC are attributable
to mobile and nonroad source emission controls such as federally
mandated Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program and the Clean
Diesel Program.
    Nearly all of the reductions in NOX are attributable to
the implementation of the NOX SIP Call. West Virginia has
indicated in its submittal that the implementation of the
NOX SIP Call, with its mandatory reductions in
NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs) and
large industrial boilers (non-EGUs), reduced NOX emissions
throughout the Huntington-Ashland area. NOX emissions from
EGUs in Huntington were reduced by 0.3 tpd between 2002 and 2004. Also,
NOX emissions from non-EGU sources in Huntington were
reduced by 4.7 tpd between 2002 and 2004. Reductions in NOX
emissions from the implementation of the NOX SIP Call from
EGUs and non-EGUs in counties adjacent to the Huntington (Cabell and
Wayne Counties), such as Boyd (the other county in the Huntington-
Ashland area) and Lawrence Counties in Kentucky and Putnam County in
West Virginia have also occurred. The WVDEP believes that the
improvement in ozone air quality from 2002 to 2004 was the result of
identifiable, permanent and enforceable reductions in ozone precursor
emissions for the same period.
    Additionally, WVDEP has identified, but not quantified, additional
reductions in VOC emissions that will be achieved as a co-benefit of
the reductions in the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as a
result of implementation of EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards.
    Other regulations, such as the non-road diesel, 69 FR 39858 (June
29, 2004), the heavy duty engine and vehicle standards, 66 FR 5002
(January 18, 2001) and the new Tier 2 tailpipe standards for
automobiles, 65 FR 6698 (January 10, 2000), are also expected to
greatly reduce emissions throughout the country and thereby reduce
emissions impacting the Huntington-Ashland area monitors. The Tier 2
standards came into effect in 2004, and by 2030, EPA expects that the
new Tier 2 standards will reduce NOX emissions by about 74
percent nationally. 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 Huntington-Ashland area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
5. Huntington Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Huntington to
attainment status, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Huntington for at least 12
years after redesignation. West Virginia is requesting that EPA

approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A(b) and
replace the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update requirement.
    Under 40 CFR 51.905(e), the EPA may approve a SIP revision
requesting the removal of the obligation to implement contingency
measures upon a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when the State
submits and EPA approves an attainment demonstration for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for an area initially designated nonattainment for the 8-
hour NAAQS or a maintenance SIP for the 8-hour NAAQS for an area
initially designated attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. The rationale
behind 40 CFR 51.905(e) is to ensure that Huntington maintains the
applicable ozone standard (the 8-hour standard in areas where the 1-
hour standard has been revoked). EPA believes this rationale
analogously applies to areas that were not initially designated, but
are redesignated as attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA intends to treat redesignated areas as though they had been
initially designated attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
accordingly proposes to relieve Huntington of its maintenance plan
obligations with respect to the 1-hour standard. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP
for Huntington 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 (12 years in
Huntington's case). To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency
measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to
assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section
175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni
memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address
the following provisions:
    (a) An attainment emissions inventory;
    (b) A maintenance demonstration;
    (c) A monitoring network;
    (d) Verification of continued attainment; and
    (e) A contingency plan.
Analysis of the Huntington 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 Huntington
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 WVDEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for Huntington, including point, area, mobile on-road, and
mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
    To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, WVDEP used the following approaches and sources of data:
    (i) Point source emissions--West Virginia maintains its point
source emissions inventory data on the i-STEPS database, which is
commercial software purchased from a vendor, Pacific Environmental
Services. Facilities subject to emissions inventory reporting
requirements were those operating point sources subject to Title V
permitting requirements. Affected sources were identified from the
WVDEP's Regulation 30 database which is maintained by the WVDEP's Title
V Permitting Group. For the 2002 inventory, diskettes were populated
with i-STEPS software information, as well as source-specific data from
the previous year and sent to facilities for updates of their 2002
activity and emissions data. The facilities then sent the diskettes
back to the State and, where WVDEP staff quality assured the data and
submitted it to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) site as well as to
contractors for the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association
of the Southeast (VISTAS), a Regional Planning Organization (RPO).
    WVDEP used EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) actual data to
calculate 2002 summer daily NOX emissions from EGUs. To
calculate summer weekday NOX emissions WVDEP used EPA's CAMD
data for the date range of June 1, 2002 through August 31, 2002. WVDEP
staff filtered the resulting NOX data to select West
Virginia sources (Ceredo and Big Sandy peaking stations). The
NOX data was downloaded, all weekend days were deleted and
the remaining emissions were added together, and the total was divided
by 65. Since, CAMD data does not require VOC emissions reporting, WVDEP
used VISTAS summer daily VOC emissions values for 2002.
    (ii) Area source emissions--In order to calculate the area source
emissions inventory the WVDEP took the annual values from the VISTAS
base year inventory and derived the typical ozone summer weekday, using
procedures outlined in the EPA's Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse
(EMCH) Memorandum, ``Temporal Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH
Temporal Profiles, April 29, 2002.'' This enabled WVDEP to arrive at
the ``typical'' summer day emissions.
    (iii) On-road mobile source emissions--VISTAS developed 2002 on-
road mobile (highway) emissions inventory data based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) updates provided by WVDEP. VISTAS also estimated future
emissions based upon expected growth for the future years 2009 and
2018. However, Federal Transportation Conformity requirements dictate
that the WVDEP consult with the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) responsible for transportation planning in developing SIP
revisions which may establish motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB).
This applies to the maintenance plan submitted by WVDEP on May 17,
2006. Therefore, the WVDEP has consulted with the Huntington MPO, the
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission (KYOVA). The KYOVA provided base
year and projection emissions data consistent with their most recent
available Travel Demand Model (TDM) results along with EPA's most
recent emission factor model, MOBILE6.2. The WVDEP used these data to
estimate highway emissions and, in consultation with the KYOVA, to
develop highway emissions budgets for VOC and NOX. The KYOVA
must evaluate future Long Range Transportation Plans and Transportation
Improvement Programs to ensure that the associated emissions are equal
to or less then the final emissions budgets. The budgets are designed
to facilitate a positive conformity determination while ensuring
overall maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS. It should be noted that the
MVEBs and budgets only represent the Huntington, West Virginia (Cabell
and Wayne Counties) portion of the nonattainment area.
    (iv) Mobile non-road emissions--The 2002 mobile non-road emissions

inventory was developed by WVDEP staff using the NONROAD2005b Model.
    The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions
Huntington are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected
emissions for Huntington in tables 5 and 6, which covers the
demonstration of maintenance for this portion of the area. EPA has
concluded that West Virginia has adequately derived and documented the
2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for Huntington.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration--On May 17, 2006, the WVDEP submitted
a SIP revision to supplement its May 17, 2006 redesignation request.
The submittal by WVDEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA. The Huntington plan shows maintenance of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions
of VOC and NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004
emissions levels throughout Huntington through the year 2018. The
Huntington maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19,
2001), 68 FR 25430-32 (May 12, 2003).
    Tables 5 and 6 specify the Huntington VOC and NOX
emissions for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The WVDEP chose 2009 as an interim
year in the 12-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 12-year
maintenance period.

            Table 5.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2004 VOC     2009 VOC     2018 VOC
         Source category            emissions    emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile \1\.......................          6.0          4.6          3.0
Nonroad..........................          4.3          3.9          3.2
Area \2\.........................         12.1         11.2         12.4
Point............................          1.3          0.9          1.1
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total \3\....................         23.7         20.6        19.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2004 emissions are actual; Emission budgets are established for 2009
  and 2018 and include a reallocation from the safety margin.
\2\ Fire emissions are assumed to remain constant.
\3\ Sums may not total exactly due to rounding.

              Table 6.--Total NOX Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2004 NOX
         Source category            emissions     2009 NOX     2018 NOX
                                       \1\       emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile \1\.......................         11.5          8.7          4.1
Nonroad..........................         17.3         13.4         12.6
Area \2\.........................          1.2          1.3          1.5
Point............................          7.4          8.1          8.8
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
    Total \3\....................         37.4         31.5        27.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2004 emissions are actual; Emission budgets are established for 2009
  and 2018 and include a reallocation from the safety margin.
\2\ Fire emissions are assumed to remain constant.
\3\ Sums may not total exactly due to rounding.

    Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
     Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-
road (2006); 66 FR 2001 (January 18, 2001); and
     Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel (2007/2010); 69 FR 39858 (June 29, 2004).
    In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, CAIR,
promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161) should have positive impacts on
West Virginia and Kentucky's air quality. CAIR, which will be
implemented in the eastern portion of the country in two phases (2009
and 2015), should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors,
which will have a beneficial effect on air quality in the Huntington-
Ashland area.
    Currently, West Virginia is in the process of adopting rules to
address CAIR through State rules 45CSR39, 45CSR40, and 45CSR41, which
require annual and ozone season NOX reductions from EGUs and
ozone season NOX reductions from non-EGUs. These rules will
be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision by September 11, 2006 as required
in the May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161) Federal Register publication.
    Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that WVDEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in Huntington.
    (c) Monitoring Network--There is currently two monitor measuring
ozone in the Huntington-Ashland area, one in Cabell County, West
Virginia and one in Boyd County, Kentucky. West Virginia will continue
to operate its current air quality monitor (located in Cabell County)
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    (d) Verification of Continued Attainment--The State of West
Virginia has the legal authority to implement and enforce specified
measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Additionally,
Federal programs such as Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, 2007 On-Road
Diesel Engine Rule, and Federal Non-road Engine/Equipment Rules will
continue to be implemented on a national level. These programs help
provide the reductions necessary for the Huntington-Ashland area to
maintain attainment.
    In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory
program, West Virginia requires ambient and source emissions data to
track attainment and maintenance. The WVDEP proposes to fully update
its point, area, and mobile emission inventories at 3-year intervals

as required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) to
assure that its growth projections relative to emissions in these areas
are sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS.
The WVDEP will review stationary source VOC and NOX
emissions by review of annual emissions statements and by update of its
emissions inventories. The area source inventory will be updated using
the same techniques as the 2002 ozone inventory. However, some source
categories may be updated using historic activity levels determined
from Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data or West Virginia
University/Regional Research Institute (WVU/RRI) population estimates.
The mobile source inventory model will be updated by obtaining county-
level VMT from the West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT)
for the subject year and calculating emissions using the latest
approved MOBILE model. Alternatively, the motor vehicle emissions may
be obtained in consultation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO), the KYOVA, using methodology similar to that used for
Transportation Conformity purposes. The WVDEP shall also continue to
operate the existing ozone monitoring stations in the areas pursuant to
40 CFR 58 throughout the maintenance period and submit quality-assured
ozone data to EPA through the AIRS system.
    (e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the Act requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the 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 Huntington to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOX
emissions in Huntington remaining at or below 2004 levels. The State's
maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX emissions to decrease
and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The State's
maintenance plan lays out two situations where the need to adopt and
implement a contingency measure to further reduce emissions would be
triggered. Those situations are as follows:
    (i) If the triennial inventories indicate emissions growth in
excess of 10 percent of the 2002 base-year inventory or if a monitored
air quality exceedance pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS violation
may be imminent--The maintenance plan states that an exceedance pattern
would include, but is not limited to, the measurement of three
exceedances or more occurring at the same monitor during a calendar
year. The plan also states that comprehensive tracking inventories will
also be developed every 3 years using current EPA-approved methods to
assure that its growth projections relative to emissions in Huntington
are sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS.
If the 2002 base-year inventory or a monitored air quality exceedance
pattern occurs, the following measure will be implemented:
     WVDEP will evaluate existing control measures to ascertain
if additional regulatory revisions are necessary to maintain the ozone
standard.
    (ii) In the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
occurs at either the Cabell County, West Virginia or the Boyd County,
Kentucky monitor--The maintenance plan states that in the event that a
violation of the ozone standard occurs at either the Cabell County,
West Virginia or the Boyd County, Kentucky ozone monitor, the State of
West Virginia, in consultation with EPA Region III, will implement one
or more of the following measures to assure continued attainment:
     Extend the applicability of 45CSR21 (VOC/RACT rule) to
include source categories previously excluded (e.g., waste water
treatment facilities);
     Revised new source permitting requirements requiring more
stringent emissions control technology and/or emissions offsets;
     NOX RACT requirements;
     Regulations to establish plant-wide emissions caps
(potentially with emissions trading provisions);
     Establish a Public Awareness/Ozone Action Day Program, a
two pronged program focusing on increasing the public's understanding
of air quality issues in the region and increasing support for actions
to improve the air quality, resulting in reduced emissions on days when
the ozone levels are likely to be high.
     Initiate one or more of the following voluntary local
control measures:
    (1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures--A series of measures designed
to promote bicycling and walking including both promotional activities
and enhancing the environment for these activities;
    (2) Reduce Engine Idling--Voluntary programs to restrict heavy duty
diesel engine idling times for both trucks and school buses;
    (3) Voluntary Partnership with Ground Freight Industry--A voluntary
program using incentives to encourage the ground freight industry to
reduce emissions;
    (4) Increase Compliance with Open Burning Restrictions--Increase
public awareness of the existing open burning restrictions and work
with communities to increase compliance; and
    (5) School Bus Engine Retrofit Program--Have existing school bus
engines retrofitted to lower emissions.
    The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the contingency measures concerning the option of
implementing regulatory requirements.
     Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of
occurrence;
     Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification
of a monitored ozone standard violation;
     Develop rule within 6 months of selection of measure;
     File rule with state secretary (process takes up to 42
days);
     Applicable regulation to be fully implemented within 6
months after adoption.
    The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the voluntary contingency measures.
     Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of
occurrence;
     Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification
of a monitored ozone standard violation;
     Initiation of program development with local governments
within Huntington by the start of the following ozone season.
    (f) An Additional Provision of the Maintenance Plan--The State's
maintenance plan for Huntington has an additional provision. That
provision states that based on the 2002 inventory data and calculation
methodology, it is expected that area and mobile source emissions would
not exhibit substantial increases between consecutive periodic year
inventories. Therefore, if significant unanticipated emissions growth
occurs, it is expected that point sources would be the cause. West
Virginia regulation 45 CSR 29 requires significant point source
emitters in six counties, including Cabell and Wayne, to submit annual
emission statements

which contain emission totals for VOCs and NOX. Any
significant increases that occur can be identified from these reports
without waiting for a periodic inventory. This gives West Virginia the
capability to identify needed regulations by source, source category
and pollutant and to begin the rule promulgation process, if necessary,
in an expeditious manner.
    The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components
of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. EPA believes that the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by West Virginia for Huntington meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act.

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified
in the Huntington Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable?

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)?

    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. In the maintenance plan the MVEBs are termed
``on-road mobile source emissions budgets.'' Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93
and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. An
MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
or reasonable progress towards the national ambient air quality
standards. If a transportation plan does not ``conform,'' most new
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to an 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 state implementation plan 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 an SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
    The MVEBs for Huntington 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 (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). 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: Huntington first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the
2002 to 2004 time period. The State used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for Huntington. The total emissions from
point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004
equaled 23.7 tpd of VOC and 37.4 tpd of NOX. The WVDEP
projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of 19.7
tpd of VOC and 27.0 tpd of NOX from all sources in
Huntington. The safety margin for 2018 would be the difference between
these amounts, or 4.0 tpd of VOC and 10.4 tpd of NOX. The
emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the safety
margins are projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent
with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions
reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated for
emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels are
maintained at or below the attainment levels. Table 7 shows the safety
margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

          Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Huntington
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Inventory year                    emissions   emissions
                                                     (tpd)       (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment.................................        23.7        37.4
2009 Interim....................................        20.6        31.5
2009 Safety Margin..............................         3.1         5.9
2004 Attainment.................................        23.7        37.4
2018 Final......................................        19.7        27.0
2018 Safety Margin..............................         4.0        10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WVDEP allocated 1.1 tpd NOX and 0.6 tpd VOC to the
2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection
and the 2009 interim NOX projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the WVDEP allocated 0.5 tpd NOX and 0.4 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 8 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Huntington.

           Table 8.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Huntington
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         VOC emissions    NOX emissions
            Inventory year                   (tpd)            (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source                4.0              7.6
 projected emissions..................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs.              0.6              1.1
2009 MVEBs............................              4.6              8.7
2018 projected on-road mobile source                2.6              3.6
 projected emissions..................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs.              0.4              0.5
2018 MVEBs............................              3.0              4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Huntington are approvable because the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC, including the allocated safety
margins, continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the
attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation
conformity regulations.

D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Huntington Maintenance Plan?

    The MVEBs for the Huntington 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 Huntington 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 Huntington
MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq
, (once there, click on the ``Conformity'' button,

then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Huntington-Ashland area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Huntington portion of the Huntington-Ashland area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has
evaluated West Virginia's redesignation request and determined that it
meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring
data demonstrate that the Huntington-Ashland area has attained the 8-
hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request
would change the designation of Huntington from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to
approve the associated maintenance plan for Huntington, submitted on
May 17, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve the maintenance plan for Huntington because it meets the
requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice.
EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by West Virginia
for Huntington 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 is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status
of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on
sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken
the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR
8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule
in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order. This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Huntington area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
    This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of Huntington to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

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

    Dated: July 6, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E6-11042 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 36512-36514]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-48]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341; FRL-8370-4]

Modification of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation
Program; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA will hold a public meeting to give the stakeholders in the
Voluntary Childrens Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) and interested
members of the public an opportunity to comment on the modifications
the Agency intends to make to VCCEP. The modifications are based on the
responses the Agency received to its request for comment on the
implementation of the VCCEP pilot. The modifications will primarily
address the timeliness and efficiency issues of the program in order to
increase its productivity and ability to provide information to the
public on the potential risks to children of exposure to certain
chemicals. The meeting will also provide the public with an opportunity
to comment on the use of the modified VCCEP approach to address certain
data and assessment needs identified in EPA's review of high production
volume (HPV) and mid production volume (MPV) chemicals under its
Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP).

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 22, 2008, from 9 a.m.
to 11 a.m.
    Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or
before July 17, 2008.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Rm. 1153, Washington, DC 20460.
    Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341, may be submitted to
the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Catherine Roman, Chemical
Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of particular interest to those chemical manufacturers
(including importers) who produce or import chemical substances that
are subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), in particular
those chemical manufacturers (including importers) that are sponsoring
chemicals in VCCEP, individuals or groups concerned with chemical
testing and childrens health, and animal welfare groups. Because other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0341. All documents in the docket are
listed in the docket's index available at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

    VCCEP was designed to collect health effects, exposure, and risk
information on chemicals to which children are likely to be exposed,
and to make that information available to the public so the public may
better understand the potential health risks to children associated
with certain chemical exposures, and to allow EPA and others to
evaluate the risks of these chemicals so that mitigation measures may
be taken as appropriate. EPA announced VCCEP in December 2000 (Ref. 1)
and requested chemical manufacturers and importers to participate in a
pilot of the program by voluntarily sponsoring their chemical if it
were among those selected by EPA. The pilot began in 2001 when
companies volunteered to sponsor their chemicals in response to EPAs
request.
    In 2006, at what was approximately the midpoint in the
implementation of the pilot phase of VCCEP, EPA sought to evaluate how
well the pilot was meeting the objectives of VCCEP. To that end, EPA
requested that the public submit comments on their experience with the
pilot phase of VCCEP and its opinions on the progress of the pilot
phase to date (Ref. 2). Additionally, EPA developed a list of questions
in order to focus comments on certain features of the VCCEP pilot on
which the Agency particularly wanted input. The comments EPA received
were summarized and made available to the public on the VCCEP website
(http://www.epa.gov/oppt/vccep). Some of the main comments concerned
the timeliness and efficiency of the program, the chemicals selected
for the pilot program, the use of a tiered approach to testing, and the
use of a Peer Consultation process to review chemical assessments.
Based on those comments and also internal Agency discussions, EPA has
developed a list of modifications that it believes will improve the
future performance of VCCEP. Although the VCCEP program will continue
to operate primarily as described in the Federal Register notice
launching the program (Ref. 1), certain modifications to address the
main concerns of the Agency, stakeholders and the public are being
contemplated by EPA. EPA wants to share and discuss the contemplated
modifications with the VCCEP stakeholders and the public and listen to
any additional comments. Therefore, EPA will hold a public meeting on
July 22, 2008, at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC. The modifications
which will be the basis for the discussions at the public meeting are
as follows:
    1. Chemical selection. To address the concern that the chemicals
covered in the VCCEP Pilot were a set of particularly well-studied
chemicals for which, in most cases, little additional assessment was
needed, future VCCEP chemicals will primarily be selected from
chemicals that, when assessed as part of ChAMP, are identified as being
of special concern and as presenting hazard/exposure data needs that
are relevant to characterizing risks to children. (A more detailed
description of ChAMP is provided in this unit as well as at (http://
www.epa.gov/ChAMP). Chemicals that also meet the original VCCEP
chemical selection criteria which were evidence of presence in human
tissues and in relevant environmental media (e.g., indoor air, drinking
water, and food) will be a particular focus of future VCCEP activity.
    2. Changes to the assessment approach.
     To ensure timely completion of chemical assessments,
specific due dates for sponsor assessment submissions and peer
consultations will be established in sponsor commitments, including
timelines for responding to follow-up actions/requests.
     To bring concerns for potential chemical risks to prompt
resolution, EPA will indicate in its Tier 1 Data Needs Decision when it
believes it is reasonable to combine Tiers 2 and 3 as used in the VCCEP
Pilot into a single tier. EPA recognizes that a three tier approach may
be acceptable when the sponsor can demonstrate that it is sound
scientifically and that a delay in the public availability of Tier 3
data would not have potential public health impacts.
    3.Peer consultation modifications. Under the modified approach
envisioned by EPA, the following points would be agreed to in advance
by EPA and the sponsoring company or the VCCEP approach will not be
used for purposes of obtaining needed information.
     The peer consultation process will remain the mechanism to
review sponsor-generated assessments and the sponsor will be
responsible for contracting with an independent third party to manage
the peer consultation and will bear the associated financial burdens.
     Distinguishing between ``data needs'' and ``data gaps,''
which was a useful outcome of the VCCEP Pilot, will be used in VCCEP
peer consultations.
     So that sponsors can better address concerns identified in
the peer consultation before EPA develops a Data Needs Decision, the
sponsor will promptly develop revised assessments that respond to
issues identified in the Peer Consultation Meeting Report and make them
publicly available. The sponsor will amend its assessments within 90
days after the Peer Consultation Meeting Report is made available to
them. EPA will use the amended assessments and the Peer Consultation
Meeting Report to make its Data Needs Decision within 90 days of
receipt of the revised assessments. The sponsor will then have 4 months
after the receipt of the Data Needs Decision, as is current practice in
the VCCEP Pilot, to decide whether to commit to the next tier of
assessment, if necessary.
    The meeting on July 22, 2008, will also provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on the use of the modified VCCEP approach to
address certain data and assessment needs identified in EPA's review of
HPV and MPV chemicals under ChAMP, including environmental toxicity,
environmental fate, and aspects that may go beyond mammalian toxicity.
ChAMP was established by EPA as a mechanism to partially address the
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) commitments announced by the
United States, Canada, and Mexico in Montebello, Canada in August 2007.
These commitments included a number of national and regional
commitments to trilateral cooperation in the assessment and management
of chemicals in North America. The United States has committed, by
2012, to assess and initiate needed actions on chemicals produced above
25,000 pounds per year (lb./yr.) in the country. High production volume
(HPV) chemicals are manufactured and imported in quantities greater
than 1,000,000 lb./yr. and moderate production volume (MPV) chemicals
are manufactured and imported in quantities greater than

25,000 lb./yr. but less than 1,000,000 lb./yr. EPA's ongoing efforts
under ChAMP to screen and prioritize the risks of chemicals will be a
major component of EPA's efforts to meet its SPP commitments.
    EPA believes that an adaptation of the modified VCCEP approach
could provide a flexible framework to further evaluate certain
chemicals identified by EPA in its ChAMP screening-level assessments as
presenting special concerns and associated follow-up action involving
hazard/exposure data development or assessment.
    EPA believes that in most instances, the detailed evaluation of SPP
follow-up cases under the modified VCCEP approach should generally
begin at Tier 1. Sponsor-developed assessments should build on EPA's
SPP screening-level assessments, consider EPA recommended follow-up
actions (including conducting higher tier tests specifically identified
as priorities by EPA on the basis of its initial assessment), and
include a more highly developed quantification of exposures.

III. How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not
submit any information in your request that is considered CBI. Requests
to participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2006-0341, must be received on or before July 17, 2008.

IV. References

    1. EPA. Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program; Notice.
Federal Register (65 FR 81699, December 26, 2000) (FRL-6758-5).
Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
    2. EPA. Implementation of the Pilot Voluntary Children's
ChemicalEvaluation Program; Request for Comment; Notice. Federal
Register (71 FR 67121, November 20, 2006) (FRL-8057-1). Available on-
line at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Child Health.

    Dated: June 20, 2008.
James B. Gulliford
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
[FR Doc. E8-14528 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S