[Federal Register: April 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 70)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18434-18446]
[DOCID:fr12ap07-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8298-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area To Attainment and Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the Richmond-Petersburg ozone nonattainment area
(``Richmond Area'' or ``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is
comprised of the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and
Richmond, and the Counties of Prince George, Chesterfield, Hanover,
Henrico, and Charles City. EPA is proposing to approve the ozone
redesignation request for the Richmond Area. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that provides
for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination
that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon
three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring
data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its determination that the Richmond
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Virginia has
also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area, and
EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Richmond Area as a
SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Richmond Area 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 and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0917 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0917. 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.
    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 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

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

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?

    On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. On September 25, 2006 Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for the Richmond Area as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment in the Area over the next 11 years. VADEQ also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area as a SIP
revision on September 18, 2006 and supplements to the base-year
inventory submittal on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007. The
Richmond Area is comprised of the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial
Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of Prince George,
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. It is currently
designated a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to
approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the
Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Richmond maintenance plan
as a SIP revision for the Area (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed to ensure continued

attainment in the Richmond Area for the next 11 years. Concurrently,
the Commonwealth is requesting that this 8-hour maintenance plan
supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is also proposing
to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area as a SIP
revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy
process for the MVEBs identified in the Richmond maintenance plan, and
proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the Richmond
Area for transportation conformity purposes.

II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

A. General

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of 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 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 Richmond
Area was designated a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-
based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. On April 30, 2004,
EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Richmond Area (as well as most other areas of the country)
effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30,
2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (hereafter ``South Coast.''). The Court held that certain
provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were inconsistent with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under Subpart 1
in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held
that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity
requirements for certain types of federal. The Court upheld EPA's
authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate
anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly in
section VI. B. ``The Richmond 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 discusses its rationale why the
decision in South Coast is not an impediment to redesignating the
Richmond Area to attainment of 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The CAA, title I, part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In
2004, the Richmond Area was classified a marginal 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.
Therefore, the Richmond Area is subject to the requirements of subpart
2 of part D.
    Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Richmond Area has a design value of
0.082 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete, quality-
assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Richmond Area
indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B. The Richmond Area

    Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Richmond Area consisted of the
Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. Under the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, the Richmond Area was expanded to also include the City of
Petersburg and Prince George County. Prior to its designation as an 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area, the Richmond Area was a maintenance area
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ See November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS the Richmond Area consisted of
the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, the Counties
of Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City. See November 6,
1991 (58 FR 56694).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 20, 2006 the VADEQ requested that the Richmond Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Richmond Area. The data satisfies the
CAA requirements that 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), must be 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 redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA 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 (TSDs) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on
or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
     Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
     ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
     ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    On September 20, 2006, the VADEQ requested redesignation of the
Richmond Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On September
25, 2006, VADEQ submitted a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area as a
SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
over the next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, Virginia is
requesting that 8-hour maintenance plan submittal supersede the 1-hour
maintenance plan requirements already in place and that the 8-hour
maintenance plan meet the requirement of CAA section 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
the area 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 the 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.
    VADEQ also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP revision
on September 18, 2006 and supplements to that submittal on November 17,
2006 and February 13, 2007, which is an applicable requirement for the
Richmond Area for purposes of redesignation. EPA has determined that
the Richmond Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 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 official
designation of the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the Virginia SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a
maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Richmond Area for the next 11 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
NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for
the years 2011 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following
table:

     Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                            VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011..............................................     32.343     43.661
2018..............................................     23.845     26.827
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Richmond 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 VADEQ's
September 20, 2006 (redesignation request), September 25, 2006
(maintenance plan and MVEBs), September 18, 2006 (base-year emissions
inventory) and November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007 (supplements to
base-year inventory) submittals satisfy the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

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

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Richmond 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 Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of
the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
    There are four ozone monitors in the Richmond Area. As part of its
redesignation request, Virginia referenced ozone monitoring data for
the years 2003-2005 for the Richmond Area. This data has been quality
assured and is recorded in the AQS. The fourth-high 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations, along with the three-year averages are
summarized in Table 2. The Hanover County monitoring site had the
highest 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average and are therefore used to make air quality determinations.

    Table 2.--Richmond Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values, Richmond Monitors, Parts per Million (PPM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AQS ID                                     3-Year
                         Monitor                                 2003      2004      2005      average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesterfield County.....................................     510410004     0.079     0.075     0.078       0.077
Henrico County..........................................     510870014     0.083     0.074     0.084       0.080
Hanover County..........................................     510850003     0.086     0.078     0.083       0.082
Charles City County.....................................     510360002     0.079     0.077     0.083      0.079
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.082 ppm.

    The air quality data for 2003-2005 indicate that the Richmond Area
has attained the standard with a design value of 0.082 ppm. The data
collected at the Richmond 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
VADEQ's request for redesignation for the Richmond Area indicates that
the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. The VADEQ uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain
its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for
accuracy. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, VADEQ has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Virginia indicates that the Richmond Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. The Richmond Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA

    EPA has determined that the Richmond Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations,
EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Richmond 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
at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of
the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which includes 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 requirements (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 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the State.
    Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA believes that the other
section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Richmond Area will
still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The
section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular
area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is
consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
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 redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
53099, 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(1) 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.
As explained later in this notice, two part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due
prior to the submission of the redesignation request.
    Because the Virginia SIP satisfies all of the applicable general
SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), EPA
concludes that Virginia has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    The Richmond Area was classified a Subpart 2, marginal
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 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.
    The Richmond Area is classified as a Subpart 2, marginal
nonattainment area. We do not believe that any part of the Court's
opinion would require that this subpart 2 classification be changed
upon remand to EPA. However, even assuming for present purposes that
the Richmond Area would become subject to a different classification
under a classification scheme created in a future rule in response to
the court's decision, that would not prevent EPA from finalizing a
redesignation for this area. For the reasons set forth below, we
believe that any additional requirements that might apply based on that
different classification would not be applicable for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request.
    This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of
evaluating redesignation requests in accordance with only the
requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
area was classified under Subpart 2 and was required to meet the
Subpart 2 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment'', Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division) See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17,
1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g, also 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). At the time the
redesignation request was submitted, the Richmond Area was classified
as a marginal area under Subpart 2 and thus only Subpart 2 marginal
area requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted, but which might later become applicable. The D.C. Circuit
has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. See Sierra
Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive
an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due
date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of
additional requirements on the area. The Court stated: ``Although EPA
failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory
time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation
worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the
States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air
pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice
at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation any
additional requirements that were not in effect at the time it
submitted its redesignation request, but that might apply in the
future.
    Two Subpart 2 requirements became due for the Richmond Area under
section 182(a) of the CAA prior to redesignation--a 2002 base-year
inventory, and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B). The Virginia SIP has an approved emissions statement rule
for the 1-hour standard covering those

portions of the 8-hour nonattainment area that was part of the previous
1-hour attainment area, which satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard. See 65 FR 21315 (April 21, 2000).
Virginia recently submitted a rulemaking to expand the VOC and
NOX Richmond Emissions Control Area to include the City of
Petersburg and Prince George County. EPA approved this rulemaking on
March 2, 2007 (72 FR 9441) and will be effective on April 2, 2007.
Today, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the
Richmond Area, which was submitted on September 18, 2006, and
supplemented on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, concurrently
with its maintenance plan, into the Virginia SIP. A detailed evaluation
of Virginia's 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area can be
found in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this
rulemaking. EPA has determined that the emission inventory and
emissions statement requirements for the Richmond Area have been
satisfied. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general
conformity and NSR requirements of part D as not requiring approval
prior to redesignation. With respect to section 176, Conformity
Requirements, section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish
criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded
projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title
23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'')
as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects
(``general conformity''). State conformity revisions must be consistent
with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required 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 (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 position 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.'' Virginia has
demonstrated that the Richmond Area will be able to maintain the
standard without Part D NSR in effect in the Richmond Area, and
therefore, Virginia need not have a fully approved Part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation request. Virginia's SIP-approved
PSD program will become effective in Richmond upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21, 1996).
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the City of
Petersburg and the Prince George County portions of the Richmond Area
were designated Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1-hour standard and
were never designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard. Therefore,
there are no outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area requirements these
portions of the Richmond Area would be required to meet. Thus, we find
that the Court's ruling does not result in any additional 1-hour
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    The portion of the Richmond Area consisting of the Cities Colonial
Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the Counties of Chesterfield,
Hanover, Henrico, and Charles City was an Attainment area subject to a
Clean Air Act section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard.
The Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these
types of areas.
    First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests for any standard, including the requirement to
submit a transportation conformity SIP.\2\ Under longstanding EPA
policy, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390.
See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly
retained, this portion of the Richmond Area is an attainment area
subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR,
contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and
fee provision requirements no longer apply to an area that has been
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard.
    Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
4. Richmond Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
    EPA has fully approved the 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 at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Richmond Area was a 1-
hour ozone maintenance area at the time of its designation as a
marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 2004. As stated
previously, two subpart 2 part D requirements became due for the
Richmond Area prior to redesignation a 2002 base-year inventory, and
the emissions statement requirement. VADEQ has submitted concurrently
with its maintenance plan, a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP
revision. In this action, EPA is proposing approval of this inventory.
The emissions statement requirement for the entire Richmond Area was
recently fulfilled on March 2, 2007 (72 FR 9441). Because there are no
outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable for the purposes of
the redesignation of the Richmond Area, the applicable implementation
plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Richmond Area Is Due to Permanent
and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation
of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvement in the Richmond Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.

                  Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2005 in Tons per Day (TPD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Year                             Point      Area *      Nonroad     Mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................      31.228      51.364      23.278      50.200     156.070
2005................................................      32.705      54.760      20.438      43.518     151.421
Diff (02-05)........................................      +1.477      +3.396      -2.840      -6.682      -4.649
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................     119.750      27.067      17.792      74.130     238.739
2005................................................      77.281      26.501      16.862      67.155     187.799
Diff (02-05)........................................     -42.469      -0.566      -0.930      -6.975    -50.940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Area source category includes emissions from motor vehicle refueling.

    Between 2002 and 2005, VOC emissions decreased by 4.649 tpd and
NOX emissions decreased by 50.940 tpd because of permanent
and enforceable measures implemented by the Commonwealth and the
federal government. These reductions, and anticipated future
reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures.
Programs Currently in Effect
    (a) Tier 1;
    (b) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program; and
    (c) NOX SIP Call
    EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of the Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

D. The Richmond Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Richmond Area to
attainment status, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years
after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA approve
this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A and 175A(b).
Section 175A(a) was met with the September 25, 2006 submission of the
maintenance plan, because it states that Richmond will maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section
175A(b) was met with the September 25, 2006 submission of the
maintenance plan, because it will replace the 1-hour maintenance plan
update requirement that was due 8 years after redesingation of the
Richmond Area to attainment. Once approved, the maintenance plan for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Richmond Area
meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the
applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A(a), 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. Section 175A(b) states that
eight years after redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10-year period
following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni 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 Richmond Area Maintenance Plan
    (a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. VADEQ determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2005. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the three-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to
date. The 2005 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based
on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX
during 2005 and consists of a list of sources and their associated
emissions.
    To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, VADEQ used the following approaches:
    (i) Point source emissions were developed using the latest version
of

EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS 5.0).
    (ii) Area source emissions were also developed using growth factors
from EGAS 5.0 and then applied to the 2002 Area source inventory.
    (iii) Mobile nonroad emissions were developed using EPA's NONROAD
2005 model. The NONROAD 2005 model estimates fuel consumption and
emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, and particulate matter for all nonroad mobile source
categories except for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine
vessels (CMV).
    (iv) Mobile on-road source emissions were calculated using EPA's
MOBILE6.2 mobile source inventory model. The Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) provided daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT),
average speed data for each road type by jurisdiction, and annual
growth rates that were used to forecast DVMT into the future. Also, the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles provided registration data that
was specific to each jurisdiction. Mobile source emission projections
include the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV), the 2004 Tier
2 and Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, the 2004 and 2007 Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicle Rules, and the 2006 Low Sulfur Diesel Rule. In addition,
Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial Heights, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico,
and Charles City were modeled with Phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
while Prince George and Petersburg were modeled with conventional
gasoline fuel.
    More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2005,
2011, and 2018 inventories can found in the Technical Appendices, which
are part of VADEQ's September 25, 2006 submittal.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration--On September 25, 2006, the VADEQ
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Richmond maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOC and NOX
will not exceed the attainment year 2005 emissions levels throughout
the Richmond Area through the year 2018. A maintenance demonstration
need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v.
EPA, supra. See also 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32.
    Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Richmond Area for 2005, 2011, and 2018. The VADEQ chose 2011 as an
interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2005 attainment level during the time of the maintenance
period.

            Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2005-2018 (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2005 VOC      2011 VOC      2018 VOC
        Source category           emissions     emissions     emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................        32.705        36.074        39.900
Area \1\......................        54.760        60.315        68.331
Mobile \2\....................        43.518        32.343        23.845
Nonroad.......................        20.438        15.898        15.515
    Total.....................       151.421       144.630      147.591
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes vehicle refueling emissions and the benefits of selected
  local controls (Stage I, CTG RACT, and open burning). Also includes
  site/project specific emissions estimates and projections.
\2\ Includes transportation provisions.

            Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions for 2005-2018 (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2005 NOX      2011 NOX      2018 NOX
        Source category           emissions     emissions     emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................        62.536        69.333        75.241
Area \1\......................        55.207        56.974        60.105
Mobile \2\....................        78.169        50.387        31.890
Non-road......................        30.208        29.116        23.093
                               -----------------------------------------
    Total.....................       226.120       205.810      190.329
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes selected local controls (open burning).
\2\ Includes transportation provisions.

    Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
    Currently in Effect:
     The National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program;
     Open burning restrictions for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles City;
     Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACT) requirements for Richmond, Hopewell, Colonial
Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles City;
     Non-CTG VOC RACT requirements for Richmond, Hopewell,
Colonial Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles
City;
     Reformulated gasoline requirements for Richmond, Hopewell,
Colonial Heights, Hanover, Henrico, Chesterfield, and western Charles
City;
     Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the
Tier 2 standards; and
     Low sulfur gasoline.
    Additionally, the following programs are in place and either
effective or are due to become effective.
     Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low sulfur on-
road (2006); 66 FR 5002, (January 18, 2001).
     Non-road emission standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel 2007/2010); 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
    Lastly, to further improve air quality and to provide room for
industrial and population growth while maintaining emissions in the
area to less than 2005 levels, the Commonwealth of Virginia has
initiated rulemaking to implement the following programs:

     Implement the Stage I requirements of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40,
Article 37 in Prince George, Petersburg, and eastern Charles City;
     Implement open burning restriction requirements of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Article 40 in Prince George, Petersburg, and eastern
Charles City; and
     Implement existing source CTG RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Articles 5-6, 24-36, and 39 in Prince George, Petersburg,
and eastern Charles City.
    Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that VADEQ has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the Richmond Area.
    (c) Monitoring Network--There are three monitors measuring ozone in
the Richmond Area. VADEQ will continue to operate its current air
quality monitors (located in the Richmond Area), in accordance with 40
CFR part 58.
    (d) Verification of Continued Attainment--In addition to
maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the
Commonwealth will acquire ambient and source emission data to track
attainment and maintenance. The Commonwealth will track the progress of
the maintenance demonstration by periodically updating the emissions
inventory. This tracking will consist of annual and periodic
evaluations. The annual evaluation will consist of checks on key
emissions trend indicators such as the annual emission update of
stationary sources, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
vehicle miles traveled data reported to the Federal Highway
Administration, and other growth indicators. These indicators will be
compared to the growth assumptions used in the plan to determine if the
predicted versus the observed growth remains relatively constant. The
Commonwealth will also develop and submit periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A), beginning in 2005.
    (e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth 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
timeframe by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    The ability of the Richmond Area to stay in compliance with the 8-
hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and
NOX emissions in the Area remaining at or below 2005 levels.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX
emissions to decrease and stay below 2005 levels through the year 2018.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur.
    The Commonwealth's maintenance plan lays out situations where the
need to adopt and implement a contingency measure to further reduce
emissions would be triggered. Those situations are as follows:
    (i) An actual increase of the VOC or NOX emissions
exceed the regional emissions budgets, which would be identified or
predicted through the development of the comprehensive periodic
tracking inventories--The maintenance plan states that the VADEQ will
monitor the observed growth rates for VMT, population, and point source
VOC and NOX emissions on a yearly basis which will serve as
an early warning indicator of the potential for a violation. The plan
also states that comprehensive tracking inventories will also be
developed every 3 years using current EPA-approved methods to estimate
emissions, concentrating on areas identified in the less rigorous
yearly evaluations as being potential problems. If the regional
emissions budget for VOC or NOX is exceeded, the following
control strategies will be implemented as follows:
     Preparation of a complete VOC and NOX emission
inventory; and
     The expanded implementation of one or more of the control
strategies, listed in Table 6, that have not already been implemented
in the Richmond Area.

         Table 6.--Maintenance Plan Contingency Measure Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Control strategy                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article    Emissions Standards for Portable Fuel
 42.                            Container Spillage.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article    Emissions Standards for Solvent Metal
 47.                            Cleaning Operations.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article    Emissions Standards for Mobile Equipment
 48.                            Repair and Refinishing Operations.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article    Emissions Standards for Architectural and
 49.                            Industrial Maintenance Coatings.
9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article    Emissions Standards for Consumer
 50.                            Products.
9 VAC 5-40-310 of 9 VAC 5      General Process Operations--Standard for
 Chapter 40, Article 4.         Nitrogen Oxides (non-CTG RACT for major
                                sources).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs--The
maintenance plan states that if a violation (any 3-year average of each
annual fourth highest 8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08
ppm occurs at a monitor located in the Richmond monitoring network, the
VADEQ will implement two of the following control strategies as
follows:
     The expanded implementation of one or more of the
following control strategies, listed in Table 6, that have not already
been implemented in the Richmond Area.
    (iii) A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm in any subsequent
ozone season--The maintenance plan states that if a violation (any 3-
year average of each annual fourth highest 8-hour average) of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs in the Richmond monitoring network
following the implementation of the requirements listed in the previous
section (section e(ii)) and in any subsequent ozone season, two
additional control strategies from Table 6 will be implemented.
    The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the contingency measures concerning non-CTG RACT
requirements. It would

also apply to the imposition of the area source VOC regulations if
those regulations had not already been implemented due to other
triggers or provisions of the maintenance plan.
     Notification received from EPA that a contingency measure
must be implemented, or three months after a recorded violation;
     Applicable regulation to be adopted 6 months after this
date;
     Applicable regulation to be implemented 6 months after
adoption; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the event of implementation of the RACT contingency
measure, Virginia would amend its current RACT regulations to apply
them to non-CTG sources in the Richmond Area within 6 months after
(a) notification received from EPA that the contingency measure must
be implemented, or (b) three months after a recorded violation. The
newly subject non-CTG RACT sources would need to develop source-
specific RACT plans and comply with their plans no later than 12
months from the date of Virginia's adoption of the amended
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Compliance with regulation to be achieved within 12 months
of adoption.
    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 Virginia for the Richmond area meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act.

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

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These
control strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed
``on-road mobile source emission 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 NAAQS. If a transportation plan does
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic
steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and 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 consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    The MVEBS for the Richmond Area are listed in Table 1 of this
document for 2011 and 2018, 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 2011 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: Richmond first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2003
to 2005 time period. The Commonwealth used 2005 as the year to
determine attainment levels of emissions for Richmond. The total
emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources
in 2005 equaled 151.421 tpd of VOC and 187.799 tpd of NOX.
The VADEQ projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a
total of 147.591 tpd of VOC and 154.158 tpd of NOX from all
sources in Richmond. The safety margin for 2018 would be the difference
between these amounts, or 3.830 tpd of VOC and 33.641 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 2011 and 2018 years.

           Table 7.--2011 and 2018 Safety Margins for Richmond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      VOC emissions      NOX emissions
          Inventory year                  (tpd)              (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Attainment...................            151.421            187.799

2011 Interim......................            144.630            168.492
2011 Safety Margin................              6.791             19.307
2005 Attainment...................            151.421            187.799
2018 Final........................            147.591            154.158
2018 Safety Margin................              3.830             33.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VADEQ allocated 1.000 tpd VOC and 3.000 tpd NOX to
the 2011 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions
projection and the 2011 interim NOX projected on-road mobile
source emissions projection to arrive at the 2011 MVEBs. For the 2018
MVEBs the VADEQ allocated 1.000 tpd VOC and 3.000 tpd NOX
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
the Richmond Area.

            Table 8.--2011 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Richmond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      VOC emissions      NOX emissions
          Inventory year                  (tpd)              (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 projected on-road mobile                  31.343             40.661
 source projected emissions.......
2011 Safety Margin Allocated to                 1.000              3.000
 MVEBs............................
2011 MVEBs........................             32.343             43.661
2018 projected on-road mobile                  22.845             23.827
 source projected emissions.......
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to                 1.000              3.000
 MVEBs............................
2018 MVEBs........................             23.845             26.827
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2011 and 2018 MVEBs for the Richmond Area are approvable
because the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 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
Richmond Maintenance Plan?

    The MVEBs for the Richmond Area maintenance plan are being posted
to EPA's conformity Web site concurrently 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 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 Richmond 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 Richmond Area
MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm
 (once there, click

on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Richmond Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Richmond Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated 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 Richmond
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of the Richmond Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for the
Richmond Area, submitted on September 25, 2006, as a revision to the
Virginia SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Richmond Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A as
described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve
the 2002 base-year inventory for the Richmond Area, and the MVEBs
submitted by Virginia for the Richmond Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. 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 approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
    This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of the Richmond
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated
maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBS
identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: April 5, 2007.
Judith Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-7018 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24091-24092]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09519]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838; FRL-9932-80-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Assessment of
Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal
Procurement; Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has submitted the following information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA):
``Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for
Federal Procurement'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 2516.01 and OMB
Control No. 2070-NEW. The ICR is available in the docket along with
other related materials, including details of the pilot assessment
criteria for assessing volunteer standards and ecolabels, and the
assessment tool for conducting the assessments. The ICR provides a
detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden
estimate that is only briefly summarized in this document. EPA has
addressed the comments received in response to the previously provided
public review opportunity issued in the Federal Register on March 19,
2015 (80 FR 14372). With this submission, EPA is providing an
additional 30 days for public review. In addition, EPA is seeking
volunteer standards development organizations and ecolabel programs
applicable to paints/coatings, flooring, and/or furniture to be
assessed against the pilot criteria for potential EPA recommendation to
federal purchasers per Executive Order 13693.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
     To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     To OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address
comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    To volunteer a standard or ecolabel to be assessed, please email
the pilot effort's independent assessment entity under contract with
EPA, Industrial Economics, Inc. at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison Kinn Bennett, Chemistry,
Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division (7409M), Office of
Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8859; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: EPA is engaging in this collection pursuant to the
authority in the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(11)),
which requires EPA to ``[i]dentify opportunities to use Federal
procurement to encourage source reduction,'' and section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), which requires Federal agencies to ``use technical standards
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies,
using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy
objectives or activities.'' Federal agencies need this assessment per
the draft guidelines to determine which, among sometimes dozens of
private sector standards within a single purchase category, are
appropriate and effective in meeting Federal procurement goals and
mandates.
    Federal agencies must comply with multiple sustainability-related
purchasing mandates. While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the
several standards and eco-labels that are listed in statute,
regulation, or Executive Order, the lack of independently assessed
information about and Federal guidance on using other product
environmental performance standards and eco-labels often results in an
inconsistent approach by Federal purchasers and confusion and
uncertainty for vendors and manufacturers.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are standards development organizations, eco-labeling
programs, and environmental certification entities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Responses to the collection of
information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a
response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by
a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in
accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 20.
    Frequency of response: Once during the 2016 pilot and a to-be-
determined frequency depending upon learnings from the pilot.
    Estimated total burden: 340 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Estimated total costs: $ 24,711 (per year), includes no annualized
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    Changes in the estimates: This is a request for a new approval from
OMB.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09519 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P