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 Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 30485-30490 [E7-10582]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
tribal concerns. We have determined
that these special local regulations and
fishing rights protection need not be
incompatible. We have also determined
that this Rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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.
Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have
questions concerning the provisions of
this Proposed Rule or options for
compliance are encourage to contact the
point of contact listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we
believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2–
1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction,
from further environmental
documentation. This event establishes a
safety zone; therefore paragraph (34)(g)
of the Instruction applies.
A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ will be
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
I For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. A new temporary § 165.T09–025 is
added as follows:
I
§ 165.T09–025 Safety Zone Thunder on the
Niagara, Niagara River, North Tonawanda,
NY.
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: All waters and
the adjacent shoreline of the Upper
Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY
within two miles northeast of the Grand
Island Bridge (42° 03′36″ N, 078° 54′45″
W to 43° 03′09″ N, 078° 55′21″ W to 43°
03′00″ N, 078° 53′42″ W to 43° 02′42″ N,
078° 54′09″ W and return). All
geographic coordinates are North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
(b) Effective period. This regulation is
in effect from 11 a.m. on June 2 to 6
p.m. on June 3, 2007. This regulation
will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on June 2 and 3, 2007.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in section 165.23
of this part, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30485
Captain of the Port Buffalo, or the
designated on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his designated on-scene
representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port is any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
The on-scene representative of the
Captain of the Port or his designated onscene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or the on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all
direction given to them by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative.
Dated: May 18, 2007.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. E7–10500 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0917; FRL–8320–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Redesignation of the RichmondPetersburg 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and
Approval of the Area’s Maintenance
Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a
redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the RichmondPetersburg nonattainment area (herein
referred to as the ‘‘Richmond Area’’ or
the ‘‘Area’’) be redesignated as
attainment for the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
In conjunction with its redesignation
request, the Commonwealth submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for the Richmond Area that
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
30486
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
provides for continued attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11
years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is
approving the Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA is not taking final action
in this rulemaking on the
Commonwealth’s request that the 8hour maintenance plan supersede the
previous maintenance plan for the 1hour standard. EPA is also approving
the adequacy determination for the
motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the
Richmond 8-hour maintenance plan for
purposes of transportation conformity,
and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is
also approving the 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the Area. EPA is
approving the redesignation request, the
maintenance plan, and the 2002 base
year emissions inventory as revisions to
the Virginia SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on June 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0917. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection 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, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18434), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Virginia. On May 10,
2007 (72 FR 26581), EPA published a
correction to the NPR. The correction to
the NPR fixed Table 5 in the original
NPR. The NPR proposed approval of
Virginia’s redesignation request, a SIP
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
revision that establishes a maintenance
plan for the Richmond Area that sets
forth how the Richmond Area will
maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the next 11 years, and a
2002 base year emissions inventory. The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by
the VADEQ on September 18, 2006,
September 20, 2006, September 25, 2006
and supplements on November 17, 2006
and February 13, 2007. Other specific
requirements of Virginia’s redesignation
request SIP revision for the maintenance
plan and the rationales for EPA’s
proposed actions are explained in the
NPR and will not be restated here. On
May 14, 2007, EPA received a comment,
from Dominion Resources Services, Inc.,
in support of its April 12, 2007 NPR.
Also, On May 11, 2007, EPA received
adverse comments on the said April 12,
2007 NPR. A summary of the comments
submitted and EPA’s responses are
provided in Section II of this document.
II. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Responses
Comment: The commenter states that
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
supports EPA’s redesignation proposal
for the Richmond-Petersburg Area and
urges EPA to move forward with a final
redesignation rulemaking.
Response: EPA acknowledges the
comment of support for our final action.
Comment: We received comments
that claimed Virginia had not fulfilled
all applicable Part D requirements under
the 8-hour NAAQS. Specifically, the
comments claimed that because the
Richmond area was initially designated
as a moderate nonattainment area
Virginia was required to have provisions
in the SIP for the following three control
technique guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor
Processes and Distillation Processes
(notice of release: 58 FR 60197,
November 15, 1993); (2) Wood Furniture
manufacturing Operations (notice of
release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 1996);
and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair
Surface Coating Operations (notice of
release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
Response: EPA disagrees with the
comment. While the Richmond area was
initially classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule
(69 FR 23858), the area was reclassified
as marginal by a September 22, 2004
final rule (69 FR 56697) pursuant to the
authority of section 181(a)(4) of the
CAA. Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone
nonattainment area may be reclassified
‘‘if an area classified under paragraph
(1) (Table 1) would have been classified
in another category if the design value
in the area were 5 percent greater or 5
percent less than the level on which
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
such classification was based.’’ See 69
FR at 56700, September 22, 2004.
Under subpart 2 to Part D, the
classification of an ozone nonattainment
area has three main consequences: First,
certain control programs, required SIP
submissions and other requirements are
mandated by section 182; second, the
area receives a statutorily mandated
attainment date pursuant to section 181;
and, last, in the case of marginal areas,
certain requirements under section
172(c), such as an attainment
demonstration or contingency measures,
are not applicable. In addition, with
respect to Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), section
182(a)(2)(A), which sets forth the
specifics of the applicable Part D
requirements for marginal areas, only
requires states correct certain
deficiencies in their RACT SIP which
were required prior to enactment of the
1990 Amendments to the CAA on
November 15, 1990. With respect to
CTG RACT requirements, section
182(a)(2)(A) required correction of
deficiencies in rules to implement CTGs
issued before November 15, 1990. In
contrast, for moderate areas section
182(b)(2) of the CAA requires among
other things implementation of RACT
for any existing sources covered by any
CTG issued by EPA after November 15,
1990 until the date of attainment. The
CTGs specified in the comment were all
issued after November 15, 1990 and
therefore not subject to section
182(a)(2)(A).
Comment: We received comments
that claimed Virginia had not fulfilled
all applicable Part D requirements under
the 1-hour NAAQS. Specifically, the
comments claimed that because the
Richmond area was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area Virginia
was required to have provisions in the
SIP for the following three control
technique guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor
Processes and Distillation Processes
(notice of release: 58 FR 60197,
November 15, 1993); (2) Wood Furniture
manufacturing Operations (notice of
release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 1996);
and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair
Surface Coating Operations (notice of
release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
Response: EPA redesignated the
Richmond nonattainment area from
nonattainment for attainment for the 1hour NAAQS on November 17, 1997. In
that action, EPA made a final
determination that the area had fulfilled
all applicable Part D requirements. We
have not re-opened that issue in the
context of this rulemaking.
Comment: The commenter states that
the April 12, 2007 Federal Register
states that EPA ‘‘. . . notified Virginia
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
that it was required to implement the
contingency measures contained in the
SIP approved maintenance plan’’
(referring to the 1-hour ozone plan). The
commenter states that there were
violations of the 1-hour ozone standard
in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
and 2004. The commenter requests
clarification whether contingency
measures for the 1-hour ozone
violations were implemented.
Response: EPA asserts that
implementation of previous contingency
measures for the 1-hour ozone standard
is irrelevant to the approval of the 8hour ozone redesignation request. The
Richmond Area is currently in
attainment with the 8-hour ozone
standard. The redesignation of the
Richmond Area for the 1-hour ozone
standard (62 FR 61237, November 17,
1997) addressed the 1-hour ozone
requirements adequate for redesignation
of the 1-hour ozone standard. The status
of contingency measures for the 1-hour
maintenance plan is not an applicable
Part D requirement for implementation
of or redesignation for the 8-hour ozone
standard and therefore is not relevant to
this action.
However, in response to the request
for clarification, several inaccuracies in
the comment are of note. First, the
commenter incorrectly references the
April 12, 2007 Federal Register. The
statement quoted is not found in the
April 12, 2007 Federal Register notice
of proposed rulemaking, nor in any of
the supporting documents associated
with the proposed 8-hour ozone
redesignation request for the Richmond
Area. The statement is actually found in
an unrelated proposed rule dated
October 7, 2002, pertaining to revisions
to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan.
This proposed rule was not finalized.
Second, the commenter incorrectly
reports the violations of the 1-hour
standard. There were violations of the 1hour NAAQS only in the years 1998,
1999 and 2002.
Regarding the implementation of
contingency measures for these 1-hour
ozone violations, in response to the
1998 and 1999 violations, open burning
restrictions were implemented by a state
regulation as a contingency measure in
2000. Also, the Commonwealth
implemented additional control
measures, including the NOX SIP Call,
after the 2002 1-hour ozone violation.
Comment: The commenter states that
the Henrico County Monitor measured
exceedances of the 8-hour ozone
standard during the 2005 and 2006
ozone season and that EPA should
either delay final approval of the
redesignation request until the end of
the 2007 ozone season to determine if
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
30487
this monitor shows a violation of the 8hour ozone standard, or EPA should
conduct an evaluation on whether this
monitor is projected to have no more
than three exceedances during 2007.
Response: EPA acknowledges that
preliminary 2006 air quality data
indicates a fourth high value of 0.086
parts per million (ppm) at the Henrico
County monitor.1 However, in
accordance with Appendix I to 40 CFR
part 50, compliance with the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air
monitoring site when the 3-year average
of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number
of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone
standard. 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I.
The preliminary four highest 8-hour
ozone monitoring values at the Henrico
County, Virginia monitor (one of the
monitors located in the Richmond Area)
for 2006 were 0.097 ppm, 0.096 ppm,
0.086 ppm, and 0.086 ppm. The design
value at the Henrico County monitor for
monitoring years 2003–2005 shows
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a
design value of 0.080 ppm. In addition,
preliminary 2004–2006 air quality data
indicate that the Henrico County
monitor continues to show attainment
of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design
value of 0.081 ppm. Thus exceedances
at this monitor did not prevent the area
from reaching and continuing to show
attainment of the 8-hour standard.
Preliminary data from other monitors in
the area also showed attainment. See
Table 1 below for preliminary 2006 air
quality monitoring data.
County monitor would have an 8-hour
design value for 2004–2006 of 0.080.
These preliminary data and design
values show that the site-specific ozone
design values (average fourth-high daily
maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations
over the period of 2004–2006) for all
monitoring sites in the Richmond Area
are below 0.084 ppm. Therefore, the
EPA believes that the Richmond Area
continues to attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
With regard to delaying approval of
the Richmond Area redesignation
request and conducting an evaluation of
the monitor, EPA may redesignate an
Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if three years of quality assured
data indicate that the Area has attained
the standard. The most recent qualityassured air quality data indicates that
the Area is attaining the standard and
preliminary data for 2006 show that the
Area is still attaining the standard at the
time of the redesignation. EPA has
determined that the Richmond Area has
attained the 8-hour standard and has
met all of the applicable requirements
for redesignation pursuant to section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act.2 The
Commonwealth’s maintenance plan
demonstrates that the Area is projected
to maintain the standard. Consistent
with the requirements of section 175A
and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the
Commonwealth has submitted a
maintenance plan for the Richmond
Area for the 8-hour ozone standard
which shows continued maintenance
and continuing reductions in NOX and
VOC emissions through 2018 further
decreasing peak ozone levels and
TABLE 1.—RICHMOND MONITORS,
maintaining ozone attainment.
PRELIMINARY FOURTH HIGHEST 8- Furthermore, as demonstrated by the
HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
contingency measure provisions
[Parts per million (ppm)]
required by section 175A(d), the CAA
clearly anticipates and provides for
Monitor
AQS ID No.
2006
situations where an area might monitor
a violation of the NAAQS after having
Chesterfield
County ...........
510410004
0.077 been redesignated to attainment. The
Henrico County
510870014
0.086 Commonwealth has included
Hanover County
510850003
0.082 contingency measure provisions
Charles City
consistent with CAA requirements in its
County ...........
510360002
0.081
The Chesterfield County monitor
would have an 8-hour design value for
2004–2006 of 0.076 ppm. The Henrico
County monitor would have an 8-hour
design value for 2004–2006 of 0.081
ppm. The Hanover County monitor
would have an 8-hour design value for
2004–2006 of 0.081. The Charles City
1 It should be noted that the Hanover County
Monitor was the design value monitor during
monitoring years 2003–2005 having a design value
of 0.082 ppm.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2 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.
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
30488
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
maintenance plan to address any
possible future violation of the NAAQS.
EPA believes that the contingency
measures, which are a component of the
maintenance plan, set forth the steps
that the Commonwealth will undertake
to preserve attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard if air quality indicators
show that the air quality of the
Richmond Area has declined to the
point when contingency measures to
reverse that deterioration of air quality
should begin being implemented. Thus,
for all the above reasons, EPA sees no
reason to delay approval of the
Commonwealth’s redesignation request.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the Commonwealth
of Virginia’s redesignation request,
maintenance plan, and 2002 base year
emissions inventory because the
requirements for approval have been
satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia’s
redesignation request, submitted on
September 20, 2006, 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 will change the
designation of the Richmond Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA is approving
the associated maintenance plan for the
Richmond Area, submitted on
September 25, 2006, as a revision to the
Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the 8hour maintenance plan for the
Richmond Area because it meets the
requirements of section 175A. EPA is
not taking final action in this
rulemaking on the Commonwealth’s
request that the 8-hour maintenance
plan supersede the previous 1-hour
maintenance plan. EPA is approving the
MVEBs submitted by Virginia in
conjunction with its redesignation
request. EPA is also approving the 2002
base year emissions inventory,
submitted on September 18, 2006 and
supplemented by VADEQ on November
17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a
revision to the Virginia SIP. In this final
rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public
that we have found that the MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs in the Richmond Area
for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan
are adequate and approved for
conformity purposes. As a result of our
finding, the Cities of Petersburg,
Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and
Richmond, and the Counties of Prince
George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico,
and Charles City, Virginia must use the
MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
ozone maintenance plan for future
conformity determinations. The
adequate and approved MVEBs are
provided in the following table:
ADEQUATE AND APPROVED MOTOR
VEHICLE
EMISSIONS
BUDGETS
(MVEBS) IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Budget year
NOX
2011 ..................
2018 ..................
VOC
43.661
26.827
32.343
23.845
Richmond is subject to the CAA’s
requirements for marginal ozone
nonattainment areas until and unless it
is redesignated to attainment.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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 approves 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 final
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 approves preexisting 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 final 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 affects the
status of a geographical area, does not
impose any new requirements on
sources, or allow the state to avoid
adopting or implementing other
requirements, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This final 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 final 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.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
30489
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
This action, to approve the
redesignation request, maintenance
plan, adequacy determination for
MVEBs, and the 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the Richmond
Area, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2)).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by July 31, 2007.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action.
List of Subjects
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
40 CFR Part 52
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Subpart VV—Virginia
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry for
the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan,
Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area at the
end of the table to read as follows:
I
40 CFR Part 81
§ 52.2420
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
*
*
*
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and Richmond-Petersburg, VA
2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.
Area.
*
*
*
Additional explanation
EPA approval date
*
*
9/18/06; 9/20/06; 9/25/06;
11/17/06; 2/13/07.
4. In § 81.347 the table entitled
‘‘Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is
amended by revising the entry for the
I
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
State submittal date
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PART 81—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
as follows:
I
I
Applicable geographic
area
I
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
*
6/1/07 [Insert page number where the document begins].
*
Richmond-Petersburg, VA area to read
as follows:
§ 81.347
*
*
Virginia
*
*
*
VIRGINIA—OZONE
[8-hour standard]
Designation a
Category/classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
*
Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area
Charles City County ...........................................................................................
Chesterfield County ............................................................................................
Colonial Heights City ..........................................................................................
Hanover County .................................................................................................
Henrico County ...................................................................................................
Hopewell City .....................................................................................................
Petersburg City ...................................................................................................
Prince George County ........................................................................................
Richmond City ....................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
Date 1
Type
*
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
6/18/07
*
*
*
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted.
date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
a Includes
1 This
Type
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
30490
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–10582 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0919; FRL–8320–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Redesignation of the Hampton Roads
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area’s
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year
Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a
redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the Norfolk-Virginia
Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads)
nonattainment area (herein referred to
as the ‘‘Hampton Roads Area’’ or the
‘‘Area’’) be redesignated as attainment
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation
request, the Commonwealth submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for the Hampton Roads Area that
provides for continued attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11
years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is
approving the Commonwealth’s request
that the 8-hour maintenance plan
supersede the previous 1-hour
maintenance plan. EPA is also
approving the adequacy determination
for the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the
Hampton Roads 8-hour maintenance
plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, and is approving those
MVEBs. EPA is also approving the 2002
base year emissions inventory for the
Area. EPA is approving the
redesignation request, the maintenance
plan, and the 2002 base year emissions
inventory as revisions to the Virginia
SIP in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on June 1, 2007 pursuant to the
authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0919. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection 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, (215) 814–2156, or by
e-mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 13, 2007 (72 FR 18602), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR
proposed approval of Virginia’s
redesignation request, a SIP revision
that establishes a maintenance plan for
the Hampton Roads Area that sets forth
how the Hampton Roads Area will
maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the next 11 years, and a
2002 base year emissions inventory. The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by
the VADEQ on October 12, 2006,
October 16, 2006, October 18, 2006, and
supplemented on November 20, 2006
and February 13, 2007. Other specific
requirements of Virginia’s redesignation
request SIP revision for the maintenance
plan and the rationales for EPA’s
proposed actions are explained in the
NPR and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the
NPR.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the Commonwealth
of Virginia’s redesignation request,
maintenance plan, and 2002 base year
emissions inventory because the
requirements for approval have been
satisfied. EPA has evaluated Virginia’s
redesignation request, submitted on
October 16, 2006, 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 Hampton Roads
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard. The final approval of this
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
redesignation request will change the
designation of the Hampton Roads Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving the associated maintenance
plan for the Hampton Roads Area,
submitted on October 18, 2006, as a
revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for the
Hampton Roads Area because it meets
the requirements of section 175A. EPA
is approving the Commonwealth’s
request that the 8-hour maintenance
plan supersede the previous 1-hour
maintenance plan. EPA is approving the
MVEBs submitted by Virginia in
conjunction with its redesignation
request. EPA is also approving the 2002
base year emissions inventory,
submitted on October 12, 2006
supplemented by VADEQ on November
20, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a
revision to the Virginia SIP. In this final
rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public
that we have found that the MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs in the Hampton Roads
Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan are adequate and approved for
conformity purposes. As a result of our
finding, the Cities of Chesapeake,
Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk,
Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia
Beach, and Williamsburg, and the
Counties of Isle of Wight, James City,
and York, Virginia must use the MVEBs
from the submitted 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations. The adequate and
approved MVEBs are provided in the
following table:
ADEQUATE AND APPROVED MOTOR
VEHICLE
EMISSIONS
BUDGETS
(MVEBS) IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Budget year
2011 ..................
2018 ..................
NOX
VOC
50.387
31.890
37.846
27.574
Hampton Roads is subject to the
CAA’s requirements for marginal ozone
nonattainment areas until and unless it
is redesignated to attainment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30485-30490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10582]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8320-8]
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 Area's Maintenance
Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is
requesting that the Richmond-Petersburg nonattainment area (herein
referred to as the ``Richmond Area'' or the ``Area'') be redesignated
as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the
Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan
for the Richmond Area that
[[Page 30486]]
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is approving the
Commonwealth's maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
not taking final action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's
request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous
maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. EPA is also approving the
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the Richmond 8-hour maintenance plan for
purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs.
EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the
Area. EPA is approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan,
and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Virginia
SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection 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, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at caprio.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18434), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. On May 10, 2007 (72
FR 26581), EPA published a correction to the NPR. The correction to the
NPR fixed Table 5 in the original NPR. The NPR proposed approval of
Virginia's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a
maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that sets forth how the Richmond
Area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11
years, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP
revisions were submitted by the VADEQ on September 18, 2006, September
20, 2006, September 25, 2006 and supplements on November 17, 2006 and
February 13, 2007. Other specific requirements of Virginia's
redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the
rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. On May 14, 2007, EPA received a comment, from
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., in support of its April 12, 2007
NPR. Also, On May 11, 2007, EPA received adverse comments on the said
April 12, 2007 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and EPA's
responses are provided in Section II of this document.
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Comment: The commenter states that Dominion Resources Services,
Inc. supports EPA's redesignation proposal for the Richmond-Petersburg
Area and urges EPA to move forward with a final redesignation
rulemaking.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final
action.
Comment: We received comments that claimed Virginia had not
fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements under the 8-hour NAAQS.
Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was
initially designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was
required to have provisions in the SIP for the following three control
technique guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor Processes and Distillation
Processes (notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993); (2) Wood
Furniture manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May
20, 1996); and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating
Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. While the Richmond area
was initially classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858), the
area was reclassified as marginal by a September 22, 2004 final rule
(69 FR 56697) pursuant to the authority of section 181(a)(4) of the
CAA. Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone nonattainment area may be
reclassified ``if an area classified under paragraph (1) (Table 1)
would have been classified in another category if the design value in
the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on
which such classification was based.'' See 69 FR at 56700, September
22, 2004.
Under subpart 2 to Part D, the classification of an ozone
nonattainment area has three main consequences: First, certain control
programs, required SIP submissions and other requirements are mandated
by section 182; second, the area receives a statutorily mandated
attainment date pursuant to section 181; and, last, in the case of
marginal areas, certain requirements under section 172(c), such as an
attainment demonstration or contingency measures, are not applicable.
In addition, with respect to Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT), section 182(a)(2)(A), which sets forth the specifics of the
applicable Part D requirements for marginal areas, only requires states
correct certain deficiencies in their RACT SIP which were required
prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA on November 15,
1990. With respect to CTG RACT requirements, section 182(a)(2)(A)
required correction of deficiencies in rules to implement CTGs issued
before November 15, 1990. In contrast, for moderate areas section
182(b)(2) of the CAA requires among other things implementation of RACT
for any existing sources covered by any CTG issued by EPA after
November 15, 1990 until the date of attainment. The CTGs specified in
the comment were all issued after November 15, 1990 and therefore not
subject to section 182(a)(2)(A).
Comment: We received comments that claimed Virginia had not
fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements under the 1-hour NAAQS.
Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was
designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was required to
have provisions in the SIP for the following three control technique
guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor Processes and Distillation Processes
(notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993); (2) Wood Furniture
manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 20,
1996); and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating Operations
(notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
Response: EPA redesignated the Richmond nonattainment area from
nonattainment for attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS on November 17, 1997.
In that action, EPA made a final determination that the area had
fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements. We have not re-opened
that issue in the context of this rulemaking.
Comment: The commenter states that the April 12, 2007 Federal
Register states that EPA ``. . . notified Virginia
[[Page 30487]]
that it was required to implement the contingency measures contained in
the SIP approved maintenance plan'' (referring to the 1-hour ozone
plan). The commenter states that there were violations of the 1-hour
ozone standard in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The
commenter requests clarification whether contingency measures for the
1-hour ozone violations were implemented.
Response: EPA asserts that implementation of previous contingency
measures for the 1-hour ozone standard is irrelevant to the approval of
the 8-hour ozone redesignation request. The Richmond Area is currently
in attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation of the
Richmond Area for the 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 61237, November 17,
1997) addressed the 1-hour ozone requirements adequate for
redesignation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The status of contingency
measures for the 1-hour maintenance plan is not an applicable Part D
requirement for implementation of or redesignation for the 8-hour ozone
standard and therefore is not relevant to this action.
However, in response to the request for clarification, several
inaccuracies in the comment are of note. First, the commenter
incorrectly references the April 12, 2007 Federal Register. The
statement quoted is not found in the April 12, 2007 Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking, nor in any of the supporting documents
associated with the proposed 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the
Richmond Area. The statement is actually found in an unrelated proposed
rule dated October 7, 2002, pertaining to revisions to the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan. This proposed rule was not finalized. Second, the
commenter incorrectly reports the violations of the 1-hour standard.
There were violations of the 1-hour NAAQS only in the years 1998, 1999
and 2002.
Regarding the implementation of contingency measures for these 1-
hour ozone violations, in response to the 1998 and 1999 violations,
open burning restrictions were implemented by a state regulation as a
contingency measure in 2000. Also, the Commonwealth implemented
additional control measures, including the NOX SIP Call,
after the 2002 1-hour ozone violation.
Comment: The commenter states that the Henrico County Monitor
measured exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2005 and
2006 ozone season and that EPA should either delay final approval of
the redesignation request until the end of the 2007 ozone season to
determine if this monitor shows a violation of the 8-hour ozone
standard, or EPA should conduct an evaluation on whether this monitor
is projected to have no more than three exceedances during 2007.
Response: EPA acknowledges that preliminary 2006 air quality data
indicates a fourth high value of 0.086 parts per million (ppm) at the
Henrico County monitor.\1\ However, in accordance with Appendix I to 40
CFR part 50, compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an
ambient air monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less
than or equal to 0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number of days which
exceed the 8-hour ozone standard. 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I. The
preliminary four highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the Henrico
County, Virginia monitor (one of the monitors located in the Richmond
Area) for 2006 were 0.097 ppm, 0.096 ppm, 0.086 ppm, and 0.086 ppm. The
design value at the Henrico County monitor for monitoring years 2003-
2005 shows attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design value of 0.080
ppm. In addition, preliminary 2004-2006 air quality data indicate that
the Henrico County monitor continues to show attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS with a design value of 0.081 ppm. Thus exceedances at this
monitor did not prevent the area from reaching and continuing to show
attainment of the 8-hour standard. Preliminary data from other monitors
in the area also showed attainment. See Table 1 below for preliminary
2006 air quality monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that the Hanover County Monitor was the
design value monitor during monitoring years 2003-2005 having a
design value of 0.082 ppm.
Table 1.--Richmond Monitors, Preliminary Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone
Concentrations
[Parts per million (ppm)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor AQS ID No. 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesterfield County........................... 510410004 0.077
Henrico County................................ 510870014 0.086
Hanover County................................ 510850003 0.082
Charles City County........................... 510360002 0.081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chesterfield County monitor would have an 8-hour design value
for 2004-2006 of 0.076 ppm. The Henrico County monitor would have an 8-
hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081 ppm. The Hanover County
monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081. The
Charles City County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-
2006 of 0.080. These preliminary data and design values show that the
site-specific ozone design values (average fourth-high daily maximum 8-
hour ozone concentrations over the period of 2004-2006) for all
monitoring sites in the Richmond Area are below 0.084 ppm. Therefore,
the EPA believes that the Richmond Area continues to attain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
With regard to delaying approval of the Richmond Area redesignation
request and conducting an evaluation of the monitor, EPA may
redesignate an Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if three
years of quality assured data indicate that the Area has attained the
standard. The most recent quality-assured air quality data indicates
that the Area is attaining the standard and preliminary data for 2006
show that the Area is still attaining the standard at the time of the
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Richmond Area has attained
the 8-hour standard and has met all of the applicable requirements for
redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act.\2\
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area is
projected to maintain the standard. Consistent with the requirements of
section 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the Commonwealth has
submitted a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone
standard which shows continued maintenance and continuing reductions in
NOX and VOC emissions through 2018 further decreasing peak
ozone levels and maintaining ozone attainment. Furthermore, as
demonstrated by the contingency measure provisions required by section
175A(d), the CAA clearly anticipates and provides for situations where
an area might monitor a violation of the NAAQS after having been
redesignated to attainment. The Commonwealth has included contingency
measure provisions consistent with CAA requirements in its
[[Page 30488]]
maintenance plan to address any possible future violation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 believes that the contingency measures, which are a component
of the maintenance plan, set forth the steps that the Commonwealth will
undertake to preserve attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if air
quality indicators show that the air quality of the Richmond Area has
declined to the point when contingency measures to reverse that
deterioration of air quality should begin being implemented. Thus, for
all the above reasons, EPA sees no reason to delay approval of the
Commonwealth's redesignation request.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on September 20,
2006, 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 will change the designation of the Richmond Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving the associated maintenance plan for the Richmond Area,
submitted on September 25, 2006, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA
is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan for the Richmond Area because
it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is not taking final
action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour
maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is
approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year
emissions inventory, submitted on September 18, 2006 and supplemented
by VADEQ on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a revision to
the Virginia SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public
that we have found that the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs in the
Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and
approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the
Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the
Counties of Prince George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles
City, Virginia must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and
approved MVEBs are provided in the following table:
Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons
per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.......................................... 43.661 32.343
2018.......................................... 26.827 23.845
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richmond is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal ozone
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
final 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 approves 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 final
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 approves 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 final 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 affects the status of a geographical area, does
not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid
adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This final 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
final 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.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a
[[Page 30489]]
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.
This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance
plan, adequacy determination for MVEBs, and the 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the Richmond Area, may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
2. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Richmond-Petersburg, VA
Area at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State submittal
revision geographic area date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Richmond- 9/18/06; 9/20/06; 6/1/07 [Insert
and 2002 Base Year Emissions Petersburg, VA 9/25/06; 11/17/ page number
Inventory. Area. 06; 2/13/07. where the
document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.347 the table entitled ``Virginia--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Richmond-
Petersburg, VA area to read as follows:
Sec. 81.347 Virginia
* * * * *
Virginia--Ozone
[8-hour standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Category/classification
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles City County.............. 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Chesterfield County.............. 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Colonial Heights City............ 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Hanover County................... 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Henrico County................... 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Hopewell City.................... 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Petersburg City.................. 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Prince George County............. 6/18/07 Attainment...............
Richmond City.................... 6/18/07 Attainment...............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 30490]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-10582 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
