[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1956-1965]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0892; FRL-8269-3]

Redesignation of Washington County, OH To Attainment for the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted
a request on September 22, 2006, and supplemented it on November 17,
2006, for redesignation of Washington County, Ohio (the Ohio portion of
the Parkersburg-Marietta 8-hour ozone nonattainment area) to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing to approve the several
elements of this request. First, EPA is making a determination that
complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data indicate that the
Parkersburg-Marietta area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
Furthermore, preliminary monitoring data for the 2006 ozone season show
that the Parkersburg-Marietta area continues to attain the NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve, as revisions to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plans for maintaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2018. Third, EPA is proposing to redesignate
Washington County to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, based on
a finding that the requirements for this redesignation have been
satisfied. Fourth, EPA finds adequate and is proposing to approve the
State's 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Washington
County. Region 3 will address the West Virginia portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta area (Wood County) in a separate rulemaking
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0892, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0892. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless

you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steve Marquardt,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Marquardt, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
    A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
    B. Adequacy of Ohio's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Parkersburg-Marietta nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve
Ohio's maintenance plan SIP revision for Washington County. The
maintenance plan is designed to keep the Parkersburg-Marietta
nonattainment area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2018. EPA
is proposing the Ohio portion of this area (Washington County) has met
the requirements for redesignation under Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is thus proposing to approve Ohio's request to
change the legal determination of Washington County from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). Finally, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy
Process for the newly established 2018 MVEBs for the area. The adequacy
comment period for the 2018 MVEBs began on November 20, 2006, with
EPA's posting of the availability of these submittals on EPA's Adequacy
Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm
). The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on

December 20, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for these
submittals or adverse comments on these submittals during the adequacy
comment period. Therefore, we find adequate and are proposing to
approve the State's 2018 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

III. What Is the Background for These Actions?

    On September 22, 2006, and with supplemental information on
November 17, 2006, Ohio requested that EPA redesignate Washington
County to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation
request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the
periods of 2002 through 2004 and 2003 through 2005, indicating that the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Parkersburg-Marietta
area. Furthermore, preliminary monitoring data for the 2006 ozone
season show that the area continues to attain the NAAQS. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data are available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the standard, and the area meets
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment provided that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and
supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has
provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in
several guidance documents. A listing of pertinent documents is
provided in other redesignation actions including a September 9, 2005
notice; 70 FR 53606.

V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?

    On September 22, 2006, and with supplemental information provided
on November 17, 2006, Ohio requested redesignation of Washington County
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA believes that the area
has attained the standard and has met the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation requests would change the official
designation of Washington County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40
CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plans
include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 of 1.67 tons per day
(tpd) volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 1.76 tpd oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) for Washington County.
    These proposed actions pertain to the designation of Washington
County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to the emission controls in the
County related to the attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC or NOX emissions source
in this County or live in this County, this proposed rule may impact or
apply to you. It may also impact you if you are involved in
transportation planning or implementation of emission controls in this
area.

VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?

A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Parkersburg-
Marietta area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that
Washington County has met all other applicable section 107(d)(3)(E)
redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's determinations is as
follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
    EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Parkersburg-
Marietta 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 part
50, appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring data. For each monitor in the
area, EPA computes the 3-year average of each year's fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. The area is
attaining the standard if all monitors have average concentrations at
or below 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.
    Ohio submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2002-2004 and the
2003-2005 ozone seasons. This submittal included data from both the
Ohio and West Virginia portions of Parkersburg-Marietta. The Ohio EPA
and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection quality
assured the ambient monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part
58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database, thus making the data
publicly available. The data meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
50, Appendix I, which requires a minimum completeness of 75 percent
annually and 90 percent over each three year period. A summary of the
monitoring data is presented in Table 1 below.

      Table 1.--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and 3-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2002  4th   2003  4th   2004  4th   2005  4th   2002-2004   2003-2005
                     Area                                    Monitor                 high        high        high        high       average     average
                                                                                (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna...................  Washington......................        .095        .080        .077        .088        .084        .081
                                                39-167-0004.....................
                                                Wood (WV).......................        .095        .083        .069        .084        .082        .078
                                                54-107-1002.....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plans, Ohio has committed to continue operating an EPA-approved
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA
finds that the data submitted by Ohio provide an adequate demonstration
that the Parkersburg-Marietta area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    We have determined that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation for Washington County under
Section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have also
determined that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements currently
applicable for purposes of redesignation under Part D of Title I of the
CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1 nonattainment areas), in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have
ascertained what SIP requirements are applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the
SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k)
of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved
only

with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.
    a. Washington County has met all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements
that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation
request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro
memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the
state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a
redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    General SIP requirements. Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides
that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and
that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations
and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air
quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356), Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162)). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification.
    EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. When the
transport SIP submittal requirements are applicable to a state, they
will continue to apply to the state regardless of the attainment
designation of any one particular area in the state. Therefore, we
believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with
an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these
requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude
that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with
a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request.
This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa,
Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone redesignation (65 FR
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
    As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are
not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110
requirements linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, there are
no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under
the 8-hour standard.
    Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA, since no
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for
the 8-hour ozone standard prior to Ohio's submission of the
redesignation request for Washington County. Under part D, an area's
classification determines the requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment
areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D,
establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's
nonattainment classification. Parkersburg-Marietta, which includes
Washington County, Ohio, was classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment
area, and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not apply.
    Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
1 SIP requirements for Washington County are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9).
    No 8-hour ozone planning requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and, therefore, none are applicable to the area
for purposes of redesignation. Since Ohio has submitted complete ozone
redesignation requests for Washington County prior to the deadline for
any submissions required for purposes of redesignation, we have
determined that these requirements do not apply to Washington County
for purposes of redesignation.
    Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects,
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of
the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally-supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with federal
conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and

enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
    EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively. In summary, Washington County has satisfied all
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    b. Washington County has a fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA.
    EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Washington County under
section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation. In approving a redesignation request, EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action (See the September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio
has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions
addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to Washington
County under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Washington County SIP
provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air quality
improvement in the Parkersburg-Marietta area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.
    In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change
in emissions between 2002 and 2004, one of the years the Parkersburg-
Marietta area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the
corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be
attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Ohio has
implemented.
    a. Permanent and enforceable controls implemented.
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the area:
    NOX rules. In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP
call, Ohio developed rules to control NOX emissions from
Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and
major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing
NOX emissions in 2004. However, statewide NOX
emissions actually had begun to decline before 2004, as sources phased
in emission controls needed to comply with the State's NOX
emission control regulations. From 2004 on, NOX emissions
from EGUs in the Eastern United States have been capped at a level well
below pre-2002 levels, such that EGU emissions in the Parkersburg-
Marietta area and elsewhere in Ohio and West Virginia can be expected
to remain well below 2002 levels. Ohio expects that NOX
emissions will further decline as the State meets the requirements of
EPA's Phase II NOX SIP call (69 FR 21604 (April 21, 2004)).
    Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and
NOX emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal
emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future as the State implements additional emission
controls. Federal emission control measures include: Tier 2 emission
standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel
standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in
2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July
29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule to reduce off-road diesel emissions
through 2010, with emission reductions starting in 2008.
    b. Emission reductions.
    Ohio is using 2002 for the inventory and included area, mobile and
point source emissions. Area sources were taken from the Ohio 2002
periodic inventory submitted to EPA. These projections were made from
the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis
growth factors, with some updated local information. Mobile source
emissions were calculated from MOBILE6.2 produced emission factors.
Non-road emissions were generated using the EPA's National Mobile
Inventory Model (NMIM) 2002 application. Point source information was
compiled from Ohio's 2002 annual emission inventory database and the
2002 EPA Clean Air Markets Acid Rain database.
    Based on the inventories described above, Ohio's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2002 to
2004. Summaries of emissions data are shown in Tables 2 through 4.

 Table 2.--Washington County, Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment
                                                 Year 2002 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Washington                   Wood                      Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................         2.08        94.58         1.80         2.60         3.88        97.18
Area..............................         2.97         0.21         7.60         0.70        10.57         0.91
Nonroad...........................         1.25         5.33         2.80         4.90         4.05        10.23
Onroad............................         4.40         5.66         4.70         6.10         9.10        11.76
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................        10.70       105.78        16.90        14.30        27.60       120.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 3.--Washington County, Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment
                                                 Year 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Washington                   Wood                      Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................         2.06        71.87         2.10         2.60         4.16        74.47
Area..............................         2.92         0.22         7.80         0.70        10.72         0.92
Nonroad...........................         1.17         5.00         2.80         6.20         3.97        11.20

Onroad............................         3.40         4.85         4.00         5.70         7.40        10.55
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................         9.55        81.94        16.70        15.20        26.25        97.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Talbe 4.--Washington County, Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia: Comparison of 2002 and 2004 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2002            2004         (2002-2004)        2002            2004         (2002-2004)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            3.88            4.16           +0.28           97.18           74.47          -22.71
Area....................................................           10.57           10.72           +0.15            0.91            0.92           +0.01
Nonroad.................................................            4.05            3.97           -0.08           10.23           11.20           +0.97
Onroad..................................................            9.10            7.40           -1.70           11.76           10.55           -1.21
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           27.60           26.25           -1.35          120.08           97.14          -22.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows that the area reduced VOC emissions by 1.35 tpd, and
NOX emissions by 22.94 tpd, between 2002 and 2004.
    Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately
demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Washington County to
attainment status, Ohio submitted SIP revisions to provide for the
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area through 2018.

a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for
ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations.
    The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: The
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.

b. Attainment Inventory

    Ohio developed a baseline emissions inventory for 2004, one of the
years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The
attainment level of emissions is summarized in Table 5, below.

  Table 5.--Washington County, Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment
                                                 Year 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Washington                   Wood                      Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................         2.06        71.87         2.10         2.60         4.16        74.47
Area..............................         2.92         0.22         7.80         0.70        10.72         0.92
Nonroad...........................         1.17         5.00         2.80         6.20         3.97        11.20
Onroad............................         3.40         4.85         4.00         5.70         7.40        10.55
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................         9.55        81.94        16.70        15.20        26.25        97.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Demonstration of Maintenance

    Ohio submitted revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 12-year
maintenance plans for Washington County, in compliance with section
175A of the CAA. Information was also provided regarding the West
Virginia maintenance plan SIP revision. This demonstration shows
maintenance of

the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions
of VOC and NOX area remain at or below attainment year
emission levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on
modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100
(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
    Ohio is using projected inventories for the years 2009 and 2018.
These emission estimates are presented in Table 6.

 Table 6.--Washington County, Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia: Comparison of 2004-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions
                                                      (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC                                     NOX
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                                           Net Change                              Net Change
                                    2004     2009     2018    2004-2018     2004     2009     2018    2004-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................     4.16     3.68     4.40        +0.24    74.47    17.67    24.76       -49.71
Area............................    10.72    10.01    10.90        +0.18     0.92     0.94     1.05        +0.13
Nonroad.........................     3.97     3.36     2.77        -1.20    11.20     8.57     7.39        -3.81
Onroad..........................     7.40     5.59     3.57        -3.83    10.55     7.68     3.76        -6.79
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................    26.25    22.64    21.64        -4.61    97.14    34.86    36.96       -60.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission projections show that Ohio does not expect emissions
in the area to exceed the level of the 2004 attainment year inventory
during the maintenance period. In the area, Ohio projects that VOC and
NOX emissions will decrease by 4.61 tpd and 60.18 tpd,
respectively.
    As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a
``safety margin'' for the area. A ``safety margin'' is the difference
between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan
which continues to demonstrate attainment of the standard. The
attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of
the years in which the area met the NAAQS. Ohio used 2004 as the
attainment level of emissions for the area. In the maintenance plan,
Ohio projected emission levels for 2018. The emissions from point,
area, non-road, and mobile sources in 2004 equaled 26.25 tpd of VOC.
Ohio projected VOC emissions for the year 2018 to be 21.64 tpd of VOC.
The SIP submission demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain
the standard. The safety margin for VOC is calculated to be the
difference between these amounts or, in this case, 4.61 tpd of VOC for
2018. The safety margin, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any
of the source categories, as long as the total attainment level of
emissions is maintained.

d. Monitoring Network

    Ohio currently operates one ozone monitor in Washington County.
Ohio has committed to continue operating and maintaining an approved
ozone monitor network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. West Virginia
has also made a similar commitment with respect to its monitor.

e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the area depends, in
part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued
attainment during the maintenance period. The State's plan for
verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard in the area
consists of plans to continue ambient ozone monitoring in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and to consider monitoring data
that West Virginia will be collecting. In addition, Ohio will
periodically review and revise the VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for the area, as required by the Consolidated Emissions
Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 51), to track levels of emissions in the
future.

f. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are designed to result
in prompt correction or prevention of violations of the NAAQS that
might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS.
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the State
will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after
redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the contingency
measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The State should
also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were included in the SIP before the redesignation of the area to
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a
contingency plan to address possible future ozone air quality issues.
The contingency plan has two levels of actions/responses depending on
whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only threatened
(Warning Level Response) or has actually occurred or appears to be very
imminent (Action Level Response).
    A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-
year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs
within the ozone maintenance area (Parkersburg-Marietta area). A
Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the
ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations or
whether emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate
whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the
control measures necessary to reverse the trend, taking into
consideration ease and timing for implementation, as well as economic
and social consideration. Implementation of necessary controls in
response to a Warning Level Response triggering will take place as
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from
the conclusion of the most recent ozone season.
    An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year
average annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85
ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area

(Parkersburg-Marietta area). A violation of the 8-hour ozone standard
(three-year average fourth-high value of 85 ppb or greater) will also
prompt an Action Level Response. In the event that an Action Level
Response is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event,
malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or rule
requirement, Ohio will determine the additional emission control
measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will
be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of
the ozone season that prompted the Action Level Response. Any new
emission control measure that is selected for implementation will be
given a public review. If a new emission control measure is already
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State
level and that emission control measure is determined to be sufficient
to address the increase in peak ozone concentrations, additional local
measures may be unnecessary. Ohio will submit to the EPA an analysis to
assess whether the proposed emission control measures are adequate to
reverse the increase in peak ozone concentrations and to maintain the
8-hour ozone standard in the area. The selection of emission control
measures will be based on cost-effectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that
Ohio deems to be appropriate. Selected emission control measures will
be subject to public review and the State will seek public input prior
to selecting new emission control measures.
    The State's ozone redesignation request lists the following
possible emission control measures as contingency measures in the ozone
maintenance portion of the State's submittal:
    i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline requirements;
    ii. Tighten RACT on existing source covered by USEPA Control
Techniques Guidelines issued in response to the 1990 Clean Air Act;
    iii. Apply RACT to smaller existing sources;
    iv. One or more transportation control measures sufficient to
achieve at least half a percent reduction in actual area wide VOC
emissions. Transportation measures will be selected from the following,
based upon the factors listed above after consultation with affected
local governments;
    a. Trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to,
employer-based transportation management plans, area wide rideshare
programs, work schedule changes, and telecommuting;
    b. Traffic flow and transit improvements; and
    c. Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affects state and local governments deemed
appropriate.
    v. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle
operations.
    vi. Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted
elsewhere in the United States.
    vii. Require VOC and NOX emissions offsets for new and
modified major sources.
    viii. Require VOC or NOX emission offsets for new or
modified minor sources.
    ix. Increase the ratio of emission offsets required for new
sources.
    x. Require VOC or NOX controls on new minor sources
(less than 100 tons).

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan

    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit
to the EPA updated ozone maintenance plans eight years after
redesignation to cover an additional 10-year period beyond the initial
10-year maintenance period. Ohio has committed to retain the control
measures for VOC and NOX emissions that were contained in
the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment, as required by
section 175(A) of the CAA.
    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP
revision has met the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. Adequacy of Ohio's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and What Are the MVEBs for the Area?
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignation to attainment
of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad
mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors
to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the portions
of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in
the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance.
    Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan.
The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the
SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from cars
and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities
will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively find that the MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in
determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes,
the MVEBs are used by state and federal agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining
the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and (3) EPA's finding of adequacy. The process
of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially
outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This
guidance was codified in the

Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule
Change,'' published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this
guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    Conformity in the Parkersburg-Marietta area is managed by
establishing and adhering to separate budgets for Washington County,
Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia. This rulemaking is addressing a
budget that Ohio requested for its portion of the area. A separate
rulemaking will address the adequacy of West Virginia's requested
budget for the West Virginia portion of the area. The Washington County
maintenance plan contains new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year
2018. The availability of the SIP submissions with these 2018 MVEBs was
announced for public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web page on November 20,
2006, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
 The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2018

MVEBs closed on December 20, 2006. No requests for these submittals or
adverse comments on these submittals were received during the adequacy
comment period. In a letter dated, December 28 2006, EPA informed Ohio
that we had found the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use in
transportation conformity analyses.
    EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for
use in determining transportation conformity in Washington County
because the EPA has determined that the area can maintain attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with mobile
source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. Ohio has determined the
2009 MVEBs for Washington County to be 2.59 tpd VOC and 3.58 tpd of
NOX and the 2018 MVEBs for Washington County to be 1.67 tpd
for VOC and 1.76 tpd for NOX. Ohio decided to include 15
percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth
not anticipated in the projected 2018 emissions.
2. What Is a Safety Margin?
    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. As noted in Table 6, the
Parkersburg-Marietta area VOC and NOX emissions are
projected to have safety margins of 4.61 tpd for VOC and 60.18 tpd for
NOX in 2018 (the difference between the attainment year,
2004, emissions and the projected 2018 emissions for all sources in the
Parkersburg-Marietta 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Washington
County, Ohio and Wood County, West Virginia). Even if emissions reach
the full level of the safety margin, the counties would still
demonstrate maintenance since emission levels would equal those in the
attainment year.

VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Parkersburg-
Marietta area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and EPA is proposing
to approve Ohio's maintenance plan for assuring that the area will
continue to attain this standard. EPA is also proposing to find that
Washington County meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and on this basis, EPA is proposing to approve
the redesignation of Washington County from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard.
    Finally, EPA is finding adequate and proposing to approve the 2018
VOC and NOX MVEBs submitted by Ohio in conjunction with the
redesignation request.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources,
or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes,
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor
impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards
in tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA met
with interested tribes in Michigan to discuss the redesignation process
and the impact of a change in designation status of these areas on the
tribes.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources.
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air Pollution Control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: January 4, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E7-520 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33250-33252]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72307; File No. SR-NSCC-2014-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Modify Its Fee Schedule

June 4, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 28, 2014, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \3\
of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder. The proposed rule
change was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') of NSCC to modify its fee schedule, as more
fully described below.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

(i) Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to revise NSCC's fee
schedule (as listed in Addendum A of the Rules) in order to update the
fees related to processing voluntary reorganizations, and to update the
fees related to reporting certain Index Receipt Portfolio Composition
Files.
    NSCC has recently enhanced the system that applies corporate
actions to Members' open failed positions within its Continuous Net
Settlement (``CNS'') system (``CAD Enhancement'').\5\ In

connection with these enhancements, NSCC is proposing to charge a US
$500.00 fee each time a Member submits instructions to place a
``protect'' on an open fail position in CNS in order to participate in
an upcoming corporate action, or to add shares to a voluntary corporate
action either on ``protect'' expiration date or, when there is no
``protect'' for that corporate action, on the expiration date of the
corporate action (``Late Protect''). This fee will cover the costs
incurred by NSCC to enhance its corporate action system to process Late
Protects, and is intended to encourage Members to submit a ``protect''
by the earlier submission date. Under the Rules a lower fee of US
$15.00 is charged if Members submit a ``protect'' instruction either on
or prior to the business day prior to ``protect'' expiration date or,
when there is no ``protect'' for that corporate action, on the business
day prior to the expiration date of the corporate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Release No. 34-71725; File No. SR-NSCC-2014-03 (March
14, 2014), 79 FR 15780 (March 21, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC is also proposing to update the fees for the enhanced
Portfolio Composition File reports which contain information on the
Index Receipt portfolios that the subscribing Member requests
(``Subscription-Based Portfolio Composition File reports''). These
reports are available as a machine readable output (``MRO'') file, as
well as through a web-based interface from which Members may download
and print reports. The existing fees for these reports are charged in
relation to the number of portfolios received by the Member on an
average daily basis per month.\6\ Since NSCC introduced the
Subscription-Based Portfolio Composition File reports it has been able
to recover the costs of developing these reports earlier than it had
expected. As a result, NSCC is proposing to reduce the fees for the
Subscription-Based Portfolio Composition File reports, as reflected on
Exhibit 5, to more accurately reflect the costs of delivering this
service to subscribing Members. NSCC will also introduce a maximum and
minimum monthly fee related to this service. The minimum monthly fee
will cover the costs to NSCC of providing this service to Members on an
on-going basis; however, as the number of units being reported
increases over time with the growth of the market, NSCC will realize an
economies of scale, which it will pass on to its Members by capping the
monthly fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release No. 34-69596; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-06 (May 16,
2013), 78 FR 30362 (May 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Timeframe
    The implementation date of the fee change with respect to the Late
Protect will coincide with the implementation date of the CAD
Enhancement, and will be announced by an NSCC Important Notice. The fee
change with respect to Subscription-Based Portfolio Composition File
reports will be effective on June 2, 2014.
Proposed Rule Changes
    NSCC proposes to amend Addendum A as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto. No
other changes to the Rules are contemplated by this proposed rule
change.
(ii) Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule changes will be applied equitably to the NSCC
Members that submit a Late Protect or that subscribe for the
Subscription-Based Portfolio Composition File reports, respectively.
The proposed fee for Late Protects is reasonable as it will cover the
costs incurred by NSCC to enhance its corporate action system to
process Late Protects, and is intended to encourage Members to submit a
``protect'' by the earlier submission date. Furthermore, the maximum
and minimum monthly fees related to the Subscription-Based Portfolio
Composition File reports will ensure that NSCC is able to charge fees
that reflect the costs of providing this service, and will pass on to
NSCC Members any economies of scale. Therefore, the proposed rule
changes are each consistent with the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC, in particular Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, which requires that NSCC's Rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its participants.

 (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. As stated above, the
proposed changes will be applied equitably to NSCC Members that use the
respective services, and will not disproportionally impact any NSCC
Members.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The forgoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NSCC-2014-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2014-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official

business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NSCC and on its Web site (http://www.dtcc.com).
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2014-06 and
should be submitted on or before July 1, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13452 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46687-46688]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4547-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Michigan; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4547-DR), dated July 9, 2020,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued July 9, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 9, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Michigan resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of May 16 to May 22, 2020, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Michigan.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Waddy Gonzalez, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Michigan have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Arenac, Gladwin, Iosco, Midland, and Saginaw Counties for
Individual Assistance.
    Arenac, Gladwin, Iosco, Midland, and Saginaw Counties for Public
Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Michigan are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-16736 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P