We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.

On February 25, 2005, Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated applied for a type certificate for their new Javelin Model 100. The Javelin Model 100, is a two-place acrobatic airplane with two fuselage mounted turbofan engines.

Part 23 historically addressed fire protection on multiengine airplanes based on the assumption that the engines are sufficiently separated to essentially eliminate the possibility of an engine fire spreading to another engine. On traditional multiengine airplanes, this has been achieved by locating engines on the wings separated by the fuselage. This configuration ensures that an engine fire on one side does not migrate to the opposite engine. This configuration also protects the opposite engine from heat radiating from the engine fire. Prevention, identification, and containment are traditional means of fire protection. Prevention has been provided through minimizing the potential for ignition of flammable fluids and vapors. Identification has been provided by locating engines within the pilots' primary field of view and/or with the incorporation of fire detection systems. This has provided both rapid detection of a fire and confirmation when it was extinguished. Containment has been provided through the isolation of designated fire zones through flammable fluid shutoff valves and firewalls. This philosophy also ensures that components of the engine control system will function effectively to permit a safe shutdown of an engine. However, containment has only been demonstrated for 15 minutes. If a fire occurs in traditional Part 23 airplanes, the appropriate corrective action is to land as soon as possible. For a small, simple airplane originally envisioned by Part 23, it is possible to descend and land within 15 minutes. Thus, the occupants can safely exit the airplane before the firewall is breached. These simple airplanes normally have the engine located away from critical flight control systems and primary structure. This has ensured that, throughout a fire event, a pilot can continue safe flight, and it has made the prediction of fire effects relatively easy.

Title 14 CFR, part 23, did not envision the type of configuration of the Javelin Model 100 airplane. The Javelin Model 100 incorporates two turbofan engines located side-by-side in compartments in the aft fuselage. These engines are not in the pilots' field of view. Located forward of the engines is a 280 gallon fuel tank and associated components. Behind and above the engines are the horizontal and vertical tails. Passing through or near the engines are primary structure and systems to support these critical flight controls. With the location in the aft fuselage, the ability to visually detect a fire is minimal. The effects of a fire emanating from an enclosed engine installation are more varied, adverse, and more difficult to predict than an engine fire envisioned for typical part 23 airplanes.

Under 14 CFR 21.17, Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated must show that the Javelin Model 100 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-55 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations in 14 CFR part 23 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Javelin Model 100 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Javelin Model 100 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

The Javelin Model 100 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Javelin Model 100 incorporates two turbofan engines located side-by-side in compartments in the aft fuselage. These engines are not in the pilots' field of view. Located forward of the engines is a 280 gallon fuel tank and associated components. Behind and above the engines are the horizontal and vertical tails. Passing through or near the engines are primary structure and systems to support these critical flight controls. The effects of a fire in such a compartment are more varied and adverse than the typical engine fire in a simple Part 23 airplane. With the location in the aft fuselage, the ability to visually detect a fire is minimal. However, the ability to extinguish an engine fire becomes extremely critical with the Javelin engine location. The engines in the aft fuselage have the potential to affect the pitch and yaw primary flight controls and the fuselage and empennage structure.

While the certification basis for the Model 100 requires that a fire detection system be installed due to the engine location, fire extinguishing is also considered a requirement. A sustained fire could result in loss of control of the airplane and damage to primary structure before an emergency landing could be made. Because of the location of critical structures and flight controls, a means to minimize the probability of re-ignition from occurring is necessary. One acceptable method to minimize re-ignition is to install a two-shot system. The effects of a fire emanating from an enclosed engine installation are more varied, adverse, and more difficult to predict than an engine fire envisioned for typical part 23 airplanes.

The engines are side-by-side in the aft fuselage so there is a need to maintain isolation during a fire including heat transfer from the engine fire to the unaffected engine. There is also a need to prevent flammable vapors, flammable fluids, and flame from accumulating. Finally, there is a need to extinguish fires.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Javelin Model 100. Should Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated, apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Aviation Technology Group, Incorporated Javelin Model No. 100 airplanes.

The fire protection system of the airplane must include features to isolate each fire zone from any other zone and the airplane to maintain isolation of the engines during a fire. Therefore, these special conditions mandate that the firewall required by § 23.1191 be extended to provide firewall isolation between either engine. These special conditions require that heat radiating from a fire originating in any fire zone must not affect components, airframe structure, systems, or flight controls in adjacent compartments in a way that endangers the airplane.

Each fire zone should be ventilated to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors. It must also be designed such that it will not allow entry of flammable fluids, vapors, or flames from other fire zones. It must be designed such that it does not create an additional fire hazard from the discharge of vapors or fluids.

1. SC 23.1195 —Add the requirements of § 23.1195 while deleting “For commuter category,” adding the requirement to “minimize the probability of re-ignition,” and deleting +the statement “An individual ‘one-shot’ system may be used.”

(a) Fire extinguishing systems must be installed and compliance shown with the following:

(1) Except for combustor, turbine, and tailpipe sections of turbine-engine installations that contain lines or components carrying flammable fluids or gases for which a fire originating in these sections is shown to be controllable, a fire extinguisher system must serve each engine compartment;

(2) The fire extinguishing system, the quantity of extinguishing agent, the rate of discharge, and the discharge distribution must be adequate to extinguish fires and minimize the probability of re-ignition;

(3) The fire extinguishing system for a nacelle must be able to simultaneously protect each compartment of the nacelle for which protection is provided.

(b) If an auxiliary power unit is installed in any airplane certificated to this part, that auxiliary power unit compartment must be served by a fire extinguishing system meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

2. SC 23.1197 —Add the requirements of § 23.1197 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.”

The following applies:

(a) Fire extinguishing agents must—

(1) Be capable of extinguishing flames emanating from any burning fluids or other combustible materials in the area protected by the fire extinguishing system; and

(2) Have thermal stability over the temperature range likely to be experienced in the compartment in which they are stored.

(b) If any toxic extinguishing agent is used, provisions must be made to prevent harmful concentrations of fluid or fluid vapors (from leakage during normal operation of the airplane or as a result of discharging the fire extinguisher on the ground or in flight) from entering any personnel compartment, even though a defect may exist in the extinguishing system. This must be shown by test except for built-in carbon dioxide fuselage compartment fire extinguishing systems for which—

(1) Five pounds or less of carbon dioxide will be discharged under established fire control procedures into any fuselage compartment; or

(2) Protective breathing equipment is available for each flight crewmember on flight deck duty.

3. SC 23.1199 —Add the requirements of § 23.1199 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.”

The following applies:

(a) Each extinguishing agent container must have a pressure relief to prevent bursting of the container by excessive internal pressures.

(b) The discharge end of each discharge line from a pressure relief connection must be located so that discharge of the fire-extinguishing agent would not damage the airplane. The line must also be located or protected to prevent clogging caused by ice or other foreign matter.

(c) A means must be provided for each fire extinguishing agent container to indicate that the container has discharged or that the charging pressure is below the established minimum necessary for proper functioning.

(d) The temperature of each container must be maintained, under intended operating conditions, to prevent the pressure in the container from—

(1) Falling below that necessary to provide an adequate rate of discharge; or

(2) Rising high enough to cause premature discharge.

(e) If a pyrotechnic capsule is used to discharge the fire extinguishing agent, each container must be installed so that temperature conditions will not cause hazardous deterioration of the pyrotechnic capsule.

4. SC 23.1201 —Add the requirements of § 23.1201 while deleting “For commuter category airplanes.”

The following apply:

(a) No material in any fire extinguishing system may react chemically with any extinguishing agent so as to create a hazard.

(b) Each system component in an engine compartment must be fireproof.

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26725; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-161-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. TCCA has received reports of broken or damaged main landing gear (MLG) and nose landing gear (NLG) alternate release cables caused by rubbing and fraying at the cable-to-handle interface. If the normal gear extension fails, the failure of the alternate release system, if not corrected, could result in the inability to extend the MLG or NLG and consequent collapse of the landing gear during ground maneuvers or upon landing.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-32-146, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 7, 2003. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the MLG and NLG handle assemblies and the MLG retaining plate, doing a related investigative action, and doing corrective action if necessary. The modification involves machining the sharp edges of the MLG and NLG handle assemblies and the MLG retaining plate. The related investigative action is inspecting the cable for damage. The corrective action is replacing any damaged cable with a new or serviceable cable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the service bulletin and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-09, issued May 8, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26726; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-205-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

We have received a report of the AFT CARGO FIRE MSG message illuminating in the cockpit of a Boeing Model 747-400F series airplane, resulting in an air turn back. An investigation revealed no signs of actual fire. Investigation found water dripping onto and around the dripshield located over the M826 Card File in the main equipment center at station 400. Due to the amount of water, the dripshield was not able to prevent water from entering the card file and damaging a circuit card. Circuit cards subject to damage in that location are fire detection, fuel system, and electrical system cards. This condition, if not corrected, could result in water entering the card file and damaging a circuit card. Failure of one or more of the 15 fuel system circuit cards in the card file could cause loss of fuel management, which could cause unavailability of fuel. Failure of one or more of the 35 fire detection circuit cards could cause a false message of a fire, or no message of a fire when there is a fire.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3370, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2006. The alert service bulletin describes procedures for installing two drains and drain tubes in the dripshield above the M826 Card File. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

There are about 86 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-37-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD for the specified MDHI model helicopters was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47040). That proposal would have required removing all landing gear fairings; determining the number and location of rivets that attach the landing gear fairing support assembly to the landing gear strut; and if three rivets (fwd, aft and inboard) are present, replacing or reworking the landing gear assembly. If only the fwd and aft rivets are present, no rework would be required by the proposed AD. That proposal was prompted by five reports of strut failures. Operators of the helicopters with failed struts do not fall into any clear category of service. For example, one was a tour operator in Niagara Falls, New York and another was a police department operator in Calgary, Canada. In its original design, the fairing support was attached to the strut with three rivets (forward, aft, and outboard). In 1994, the manufacturer released a design change to attach the fairing support assembly with only forward and aft rivets because of the possibility of reduced service life of the strut if the third rivet was located on the inboard side of the strut. Some landing gear struts entered service with an additional rivet hole drilled on the inboard side of the strut. This additional rivet hole results in decreased fatigue strength of the strut and subsequent cracking. That condition, if not corrected, could result in cracking of the fwd and aft struts, failure of a strut, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter during landing.

Since issuing that proposal, we received several comments from 2 commenters and agree that we should make some changes to our proposed AD. We have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment since we are making changes that expand the scope of the originally proposed rule. Due consideration was given to all of the comments received.

One commenter, the manufacturer, states that we need to mandate the installation of the landing gear fairing inspection hole rather than specifically excluding it from the proposed requirements as we did in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The commenter also states that we should have the operators commence the periodic crack inspection per the maintenance manual. The commenter states that without these two critical additions the likelihood of a strut failure due to fatigue still exists.

After further consideration, we agree that having an inspection hole in the fairing would be preferable to removing the fairings every 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or annually in order to do the inspection of the inboard rivet hole. We have also determined that our decision not to propose to mandate the repetitive crack inspection in the NPRM was an error. Therefore, we are now proposing to mandate the drilling of the access hole as well as the repetitive crack inspections of the inboard rivet. We have also added Notes in this proposal that include information for doing the inspections.

The same commenter provided us with a marked-up proposal that contains suggested word changes or additional information, but did not provide justification for those changes. We have made only those changes that clarify or correct the proposal.

One of those suggested changes was a request to change the wording we use to describe the intent of the proposed actions. The commenter writes that the intent of the proposed AD is to detect cracks of the fwd and aft struts, remove cracked struts from service prior to failure, and preclude subsequent extensive damage to the helicopter during landing. Although we agree that the proposal is intended primarily to detect cracks, we maintain that such cracking could lead to fatigue failure of the strut and loss of control of the helicopter during landing; therefore we have not made any changes to the proposal.

Another requested change is that we change the number of work hours to determine the number of rivets from 7 to 2, that we include the fairing as a part that may need to be reworked, and that we reduce the cost impact of the proposed AD from $438,800 to $227,225. In the NPRM, we erroneously estimated that it would take 7 work hours to determine the number of rivets; we agree with the commenter's suggestion that 2 hours is more appropriate and have revised the proposal accordingly. Also, since we are now proposing to mandate these actions, we have added the work hours and costs associated with both drilling the inspection hole in the fairing and accomplishing the repetitive inspections.

The commenter also requests that we add the address for obtaining service information. It is not appropriate to include the manufacturer's address within the regulatory text of the AD and we have not done so; however, we have included that address in the ADDRESSES section of this proposal and will add the address in the Incorporation by Reference paragraph of the Final Rule when it is issued.

Also requested is that we more specifically identify the “three rivets” in the Discussion of the proposal and that part of the intent of the AD is to “clean up the inboard rivet hole (de-burr). We agree only to more specifically identify the “three rivets” and have modified the proposal accordingly.

Finally, the commenter requests that we change the proposal to mandate only the recording of the initial inspection in the logbook but not any subsequent periodic landing gear inspections. We do not agree with this comment; all required inspections must be recorded. For the subsequent landing gear inspections proposed by this action, a Part 91 operator, for example, would be required by 39.7 to comply with the requirements of the AD, would be required by 43.11 to make entries in the maintenance records after any required inspection is performed, and would be required by 91.417 to keep maintenance records of required inspections. Therefore, we have not made the requested change.

Another commenter, a manufacturer, suggests that operators who can verify that their helicopters have an Aerometals strut (P/N 369XH6001-41, -42, -51, -52) that was “installed” under STC No. SR00981LA should not have to take any further actions at the strut locations because those struts are only approved to have fairing supports attached with two rivets (forward and aft) and they have never been approved for a third, inboard rivet. The commenter states that excluding the struts that they manufactured will result in a substantial savings to operators because their landing gear fairings will not have to be removed from a strut to verify the number of rivets attaching the fairing support since their installation should be annotated in the maintenance records. We agree with the commenter and have excluded those struts from the applicability of this proposal.

Because some of these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed rule, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 651 helicopters of U.S. registry. Determining the number of rivets and initially inspecting each affected “3-hole” strut and fairing would take approximately 2 work hours, installing a new strut would take approximately 1.5 work hours, and reworking a strut would take 1 work hour. Each repetitive inspection would take 1/4 work hour per strut (1 hour per helicopter for each of 4 struts). The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts (new struts) would cost approximately $2,838 for each forward strut, $2,574 for each aft strut, and $97 for a modification kit to install an inspection hole. Assuming that each helicopter would get the initial inspection, that all 651 helicopters would be modified, that 325 helicopters would need two struts reworked, that 5 helicopters would require 2 new forward struts, and that 2 repetitive inspections would be required per year, the total estimated cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be about $353,047 ($248,887 for the initial inspections, modification, and parts, and $104,160 for the repetitive inspections).

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2006-26771, Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-07-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Management System (DMS) Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located at the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building in Room PL-401 at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

This document proposes adopting a new AD for Enstrom Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, TH-28, 280, 280C, 280F, 280FX, 480, and 480B helicopters. The proposed AD would require reviewing the helicopter maintenance records and determining the installation dates for the push-pull rods. If the dates cannot be determined from the maintenance records, using the “Date MFD”, which is located on the helicopter data plate, would be used as the installation date for the push-pull rods. The proposed AD would also require a visual inspection for corrosion on the exterior and interior of the three push-pull rods, part number (P/N) 28-16253-all dash numbers (for Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters) or P/N 4140532-all dash numbers (for Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters), using the compliance times stated in the following table. Replacing any push-pull rod that has corrosion that is severe enough to cause pitting or has moisture inside the rod, and repairing any push-pull rod that has corrosion but no pitting, would be required before further flight. Repairing a push-pull rod consists of cleaning the push-pull rod, applying a protective coating, and sealing the push-pull rod before reinstalling it on a helicopter.

This proposal is prompted by one reported incident in which severe in-flight vibrations required an emergency landing. Upon landing, the tail rotor, tail rotor gearbox, and horizontal stabilizer separated from the helicopter. A subsequent investigation revealed a rupture of the lower end of one of the three push-pull rods. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect corrosion on a push-pull rod and prevent failure of a push-pull rod, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We have reviewed the following service information:

• Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. 0096, dated September 10, 2003, which describes visually inspecting the push-pull rods for corrosion and internal moisture, provides for repairing light corrosion, and is applicable to Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters.

• Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Directive Bulletin No. T-019, dated September 10, 2003, which describes visually inspecting the push-pull rods for corrosion and internal moisture, provides for repairing light corrosion, and is applicable to Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters.

• Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Information Letter (SIL) No. T-019, dated December 9, 2003, applicable to Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters, which describes visually inspecting each push-pull rod for a crack, nick, scratch, dent, corrosion, damaged threads, bending, and contact wear. We are not proposing to require the inspections specified in the SIL.

• Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Service Information Letter No. 0156, dated December 9, 2005, applicable to Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, which describes visually inspecting each push-pull rod for a crack, nick, scratch, dent, corrosion, damaged threads, bending, and contact wear. We are not proposing to require the inspections specified in the SIL.

This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would require determining the installation date for the push-pull rods and inspecting each of the three push-pull rods for corrosion. If corrosion that is severe enough to cause pitting is found, or if moisture is visible on the inside of a push-pull rod, the AD would require replacing the push-pull rod. If there is corrosion without pitting on a push-pull rod, that push-pull rod may be repaired. Repairing a push-pull rod consists of cleaning the push-pull rod, applying a protective coating, and sealing the push-pull rod before remarking it and reinstalling it on a helicopter. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the specified portions of the Enstrom service directive bulletins described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 378 helicopters of U.S. registry, and that the required actions would take the following numbers of work hours to accomplish on each helicopter at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour:

• 8 work hours to remove, disassemble, and inspect the 3 push-pull rods;

• 9 work hours to repair corrosion without pitting, remark each push-pull rod, and reassemble each push-pull rod; and

• 3 work hours to reinstall 3 push-pull rods on the helicopter. Required parts would cost approximately $900 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $945,000 ($2,500 per helicopter), assuming 3 push-pull rods are replaced on each helicopter.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the DMS to examine the draft economic evaluation.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26693; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-90-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The Direction Ge ne rale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the aviation authority for France, has issued AD No. F-2005-065, dated April 27, 2005 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

There were two different landing gear actuator designs installed on the F406 airplanes. The actuators used different locking devices to retain the spherical rod-end to the actuator rod. Use of the incorrect locking device could allow the spherical rod-end to disconnect from the actuator rod and consequently the landing gear could collapse. This AD requires you to do a one time inspection of the landing gear actuators and, if an incorrect locking device is found, replace it with the correct locking device.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Reims Aviation S.A. has issued REIMS AVIATION INDUSTRIES Service Bulletin No. F406-56, dated April 12, 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $20 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,940, or $420 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26495; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-80-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/R2000/39 dated August 31, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

Alpha Aviation has issued Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-002, dated June 28, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $300 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,400, or $540 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26491; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-76-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/R2000/12, dated June 29, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Avions Pierre Robin (current type certificate responsibility with Alpha Aviation Design Limited) has issued Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 86, dated July 30, 1980. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,800, or $180 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-87-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The National Agency of Civil Aviation (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2006-10-01, dated October 25, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The MCAI requires:

Embraer—Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (EMBRAER) has issued Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, dated May 10, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 42 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 942 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,165,120 or $75,360 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Pursuant to section 777(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) (19 U.S.C. 1677f(c)(1)(A)), the Department must make available to interested parties, under an APO, all business proprietary information submitted to it during the course of an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding. Section 777(c)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Department to issue regulations governing the APO process. The Department's current regulations are codified at 19 CFR Part 351.

The Department last amended its APO regulations in 1998 ( see 63 FR 24391). The Department is always interested in reviewing its APO procedures and improving them through its regulations. Since the adoption of regulations in 1998, the Department has gained insight into how its APO procedures work in practice. The Department believes that it is appropriate to propose improvements to those procedures and provide clarification to them where necessary. Such clarifications include not only amendments to the regulations, but also amendments to the short form application for APO access (Form ITA-367).

In addition, since the publication of the 1998 APO regulations, the Department has transferred the function of receiving submissions from parties in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings from Import Administration's Central Records Unit to the APO Unit. The Department therefore is amending the regulations to reflect this change.

Section 351.102(b) defines terms that appear in the Act but are not defined in the Act, defines terms that appear in the Department's regulations but do not appear in the Act, and elaborates on the meaning of certain terms that are defined in the Act. Currently, this section of the regulations contains a list of terms in alphabetical order. The terms themselves are not sequentially numbered. For administrative purposes, the Department proposes setting forth the terms defined in section 351.102(b) in sequentially numbered paragraphs. Specifically, as discussed below, numbering the terms will allow the Department to administer the APO function in a more precise manner. Sequentially numbering the terms defined in section 351.102(b) creates no additional requirements on parties appearing before the Department.

Section 351.102(b) currently defines “Customs Service” as “the United States Customs Service of the United States Department of the Treasury.” Since the publication of the regulations, the Customs Service has been transferred to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and renamed U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Department therefore proposes amending this definition of “Customs Service” to reflect this change.

Section 351.102(b) currently does not contain a definition for the term “interested party.” This has created some confusion and difficulty in processing APO applications. Form ITA-367, the APO application, requires the applicant to disclose the interested party status of the party the applicant represents. The current version of the form allows the applicant to check “petitioner,” “respondent,” or “other.” If the applicant checks “other,” the form requires the applicant to identify the section of the Department's regulations that defines the party's interested party status.

The Department's experience with this version of Form ITA-367 is that the provision of the broad category “other” has led to some confusion. First, as stated above, the term “interested party” is not currently defined by the regulations. In addition, the Department, and other parties to the proceeding, have had difficulty in determining whether a party identifying itself as “other” qualifies as an importer of subject merchandise or one of the other categories of interested parties as defined by statute. This has led to difficulties in confirming the status of a party as an interested party as defined by the Act.

The Department proposes amending section 351.102(b), by including the definition of “interested party.” This definition does not differ from the definition of “interested party” as stated in section 771(9) of the Act, except that an importer of subject merchandise is defined in a different subparagraph from a manufacturer, producer and exporter of the subject merchandise. Defining “importer” in its own subparagraph is necessary to permit Department officials to readily identify when an applicant for APO access is an importer. Should this amendment be adopted, applicants would be required to indicate on Form ITA-367 the precise subparagraph of section 351.102(b) that applies to the party the applicant represents.

Sections 351.103(a), 351.103(b), 351.103(c), and 351.103(d) discuss the functions of Import Administration's Central Records Unit and APO Unit. Since the publication of the regulations, the Department has transferred the function of receiving submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings ( i.e. , the docket function) from the Central Record Unit to the APO Unit. The Department proposes amending these sections to reflect this change, and to change the name of the APO Unit to the APO/Dockets Unit.

Currently, section 351.103(b) provides that a document is not considered to be officially received by the Department unless it is stamped with the date and time of receipt. Upon review, the Department no longer believes that it is necessary to time-stamp every document submitted. In most instances, to be considered filed in a timely manner, a document need only be submitted by the close of business on the due date. Date stamping a document in such instance would be sufficient to establish that the document was submitted in a timely fashion. There are, however, a few instances where it is necessary to time-stamp a document to establish timeliness. In some instances, the Department may establish a time other than the close of business as the deadline for the submission. In other instances, such as when the Department exercises its discretion to accept voluntary respondents, it is necessary to establish the order in which the Department receives requests to be treated as a voluntary respondent. The Department proposes amending the regulations to remove the general requirement that all documents be time-stamped, and clarify that a document will only be time-stamped where necessary. Department officials and the APO/Dockets Unit will continue to coordinate with each other to determine whether it is necessary for a document to be time-stamped, and to communicate such necessity with interested parties. This proposed changed will not affect the filing requirements on outside parties, and only addresses internal Department procedure.

The Department also proposes amending the regulations to require an interested party to file a letter of appearance to request placement on the service lists of any segment of a proceeding. The letter of appearance should be a filing, separate from other filings, identifying the name of the interested party, how that party qualifies as an interested party, and the name of the firm representing that interested party if appropriate. If the interested party is a coalition or association as defined in sections 771(9)(A), ( E ), ( F ) or (G) of the Act, the letter of appearance must identify all members of the coalition or association. Because the letter of appearance includes factual information ( i.e. , the name of the interested party, how the party qualifies as an interested party), the certification requirements of section 351.303(g) would apply. Requiring the letter of appearance to be a separate document will help ensure that Department officials update the public service list when a party begins participating in an administrative proceeding. Currently, many parties already file a letter of appearance when they are participating in an administrative proceeding before the Department. Therefore, the burden on the public would be minimal.

Section 351.303(b) of the Department's regulations provide instructions on how to address and submit documents to the Secretary for consideration in an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding. Currently, the regulations require that submissions be addressed to the Central Records Unit and provides the room number. As stated above, the function of receiving submissions has been transferred to the APO/Dockets Unit. Accordingly, the Department proposes amending section 351.303(b) to reflect the transfer in function to the APO/Dockets Unit.

As provided in section 351.204(d) of the Department's regulations, if the Department limits the number of exporters or producers individually examined under section 777A(c)(2) or section 777A(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department will examine voluntary respondents in accordance with section 782(a) of the Act. In order to be able to clearly identify voluntary respondents, and discern the order in which requests for voluntary respondent treatment have been submitted, the Department proposes to require an interested party seeking voluntary respondent treatment to indicate its request clearly on the first page of the first submission. This will alert the APO/Dockets Unit to the fact that the submission should be time stamped.

This requirement of placing the words “Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment” in the title of the first page of the first submission will not create any undue burden on interested parties.

Under section 351.305(a) of the current regulations, the Department places an APO on the record of a segment of a proceeding within two days of the filing of a new petition or an initiation of an investigation on the Department's own initiative and within five days after the initiation of any segment other than an investigation. The Department proposes clarifying that the reference to “days” in this section of the regulations refers to business days.

With respect to new shipper reviews, an exporter or producer must first submit a request with certain certifications and documentation detailed in section 351.214(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. The Department decides whether to initiate a new shipper review by evaluating the certifications and other documentation submitted along with the request. At times, this evaluation includes the analysis of business proprietary information. Interested parties may wish to comment on this information before the Department decides whether to initiate the new shipper review. However, interested parties may only gain access to the business proprietary information under an APO. Under the current regulations, the Department does not issue an APO until after the new shipper review has been initiated. Therefore, to allow interested parties to have access to business proprietary information relevant to the potential initiation of a new shipper review, the Department proposes to amend its regulations by indicating that an APO will be placed on the record within five business days of the filing of a request for a new shipper review.

Similarly, section 351.225(c) of the Department's regulations permits an interested party to request a ruling as to whether a particular product is within the scope of an order or a suspended investigation. If the Secretary can make this determination based solely on the information contained in the application and the description of the merchandise contained in the original petition, the initial investigation, and the prior determinations of the Secretary and the International Trade Commission, then the Secretary will issue a final ruling without requesting further information. During this evaluation, the Secretary may be required to analyze business proprietary information submitted by the applicant, and interested parties may wish to comment on this information. However, like new shipper reviews, under the current regulations the Department issues the APO after the initiation of a scope inquiry. Under section 351.225(e), the Secretary will only initiate a scope inquiry if more information is required than that submitted with the application. To permit parties to have access to business proprietary information and comment on that information before the initiation of a scope inquiry, the Department proposes to amend its regulations by indicating that an APO will be placed on the record within five business days of the filing of an application for a scope ruling.

Finally, section 351.216(b) states that the Department will determine whether to initiate a changed circumstances review within forty-five days after the date on which a request is filed. The Department may also self-initiate a changed circumstances review. The request for the initiation of a changed circumstances review may contain business proprietary information. Under the current regulations, the Department issues an APO only after initiating a changed circumstances review. Because interested parties may wish to have access to the business proprietary information and to comment on this information before the initiation of a changed circumstances review, we propose amending section 351.305(a) to place an APO on the record within five business days of the filing of a changed circumstances request or the self-initiation of a changed circumstances review by the Department.

Prior to the adoption of the current regulations in 1998, when a party had already submitted business proprietary information to the Department and a new party applied for access to business proprietary information subject to APO, the Department required the first party to serve that information on the new party within two days of the Secretary's granting of access. The Department inadvertently deleted this requirement from the regulations adopted in 1998. We propose amending section 351.305(b) to restore the requirement that business proprietary information already on the administrative record be served on a party filing a timely application for access to business proprietary information under the APO within two business days of the approval of that application. The Department does not anticipate that this proposed requirement will increase any burden or cause undue hardship. In practice, parties have been serving information on a new party within two business days of that party's approval as an authorized applicant despite the absence of any regulatory requirement.

In addition, the current regulations state that in order to minimize any disruption caused by late applications, a party should file its APO application before the first response to a questionnaire has been submitted. Section 351.305(b)(3) of the current regulations indicates that all parties who have already submitted business proprietary information to the administrative record must serve that information on the new authorized applicant within five days of the approval of the application. This five- day time period was meant to apply when the application was filed after the submission of the first questionnaire response, as opposed to the two-day time period proposed above, which is meant to apply to parties who apply for APO access before the submission of the first questionnaire response. The Department proposes amending this regulation to clarify that the five-day time period only applies when the authorized applicant has filed its application for APO access after the submission of the first response to a questionnaire.

As stated, many parties already adhere to this practice. The regulations already contain a service requirement. This proposal merely addresses the timing of that service.

As discussed above, the Department and other interested parties have had difficulty in identifying whether a party who identifies itself as “other” on Form ITA-367 is an importer of the subject merchandise. Given the sensitive nature of the business proprietary information submitted to the Department, it is imperative that the Department be able to confirm that a party applying for APO access is indeed an “interested party” as defined by the Act. The Department proposes to require parties claiming to be importers of the subject merchandise to submit documentary evidence confirming their status as importers. The Department's preferred evidence is a copy of the Customs Form 7501 demonstrating that the party imported subject merchandise during the relevant period of investigation or period of review.

The Department recognizes that some segments do not necessarily involve a specific time period, such as a changed circumstances review or a scope inquiry. In such circumstances, where a representative of an importer of subject merchandise desires to apply for APO access, the importer need only show that it imported subject merchandise at some time since the beginning of the original period of investigation. Thus, the Department intends that in changed circumstances reviews and scope inquiries, it will only require that the importer submit documentary evidence, such as a Customs Form 7501, demonstrating that the party imported subject merchandise at any time since the beginning of the original period of investigation.

In other instances, such as where a party requests a scope ruling on a particular product it intends to import, a Customs Form 7501 may not be available. In such circumstances, the interested party may satisfy the proposed requirement by submitting any other credible documentary evidence demonstrating its intention to import the product subject to the scope inquiry.

Form ITA-367 requires the applicant to identify the specific segment of the proceeding covered by the APO. Applicants in a new shipper review currently check the box next to “other,” identifying the segment and citing the Federal Register notice wherein the Department initiated the proceeding. The Department can initiate separate new shipper reviews on the same day, however, covering the same merchandise and the same period of review but a different exporter or producer. For this reason, typically, new shipper reviews are identified based on the name of the exporter or producer being reviewed. In order to provide further clarity, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to provide for an option to check “new shipper review” and specifically identify the name of the exporter/producer that is covered by the new shipper review.

With respect to scope inquiries, there may be several scope inquiries during the existence of an order. Therefore, in order to provide further clarity, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to specifically identify the product that is covered by the scope review.

In the case of changed circumstances reviews, such a review may not necessarily be tied to a specific period of review. Thus, in order to provide further clarity, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to provide for an option to check “changed circumstances review” and require the applicant to identify the date on which the request for a changed circumstances review was filed.

To allow the Department to identify when an interested party applying for APO access is an importer, the Department proposes amending Form ITA-367 to require the applicant to identify the specific subsection of the Department's regulations that define its status as an interested party. This proposed amendment to Form ITA-367 correlates to the proposed changes to the regulations as set forth in this notice.

Section 351.305(c) states that the Secretary will provide, by the most expeditious means available, the APO service list to parties to the proceeding on the day the service list is issued or amended. The application is also being expanded to identify the “Lead Applicant,” and to request an e-mail address for the receipt of service lists in order to ensure timely notice of the issuance or amendment of the service list.

The Department would like to take this opportunity to remind those who practice before it, that the entire Form ITA-367 must be submitted to the Department in order to gain access to business proprietary information under the APO. If any portion of the form is not applicable, the applicant should so indicate on the form itself, and submit the entire application form to the Department. Form ITA-367 is available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo/index.html and may be reproduced using the applicant's word processor. The format of the application under items 8 and 9 must be exactly as provided in the printed form, with no deviation. The exact format under items 8 and 9 may be repeated to include additional applicants, as required ( e.g. , (2), (3), (4), etc.). Each applicant must sign and date the application in their own hand.

The Department would also like to remind authorized applicants that an acknowledgment for support staff is a requirement under item 2 of the APO. Failure by a firm to maintain an acknowledgment for support staff for each segment of each proceeding when APO access has been granted would be a violation of the APOs. Support staff do not apply separately for APO access, but they are required to sign the acknowledgment maintained by the firm.

The deadline for the submission of comments is February 28, 2007. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured.

Parties wishing to comment should submit a signed original and two copies of each set of comments, including reasons for any recommendations. To help simplify the processing and distribution of comments, the Department requests that a submission in electronic form accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be on CD-ROM in either WordPerfect format or a format that the WordPerfect program can convert into WordPerfect.

The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in connection with this request for comment.

Comments received on CD-ROM will be made available to the public on the Web at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ . In addition, upon request, the Department will make comments filed in electronic form available to the public on CD-ROMs (at cost) with specific instructions for accessing compressed data (if necessary). Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Web, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, IA Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866 or via e-mail at webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.

It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration that this rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Department proposes to amend its regulations in antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) proceedings governing information submitted to the Department and administrative protective orders in order to improve the Department's procedures and provide clarification to some aspects of the Department's regulations. Specifically, the Department proposes to amend its regulations as follows: (1) To reflect a transfer in the function of receiving submissions filed in AD/CVD proceedings from the Central Records Unit to the Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) Unit, and to change the name of the APO Unit to APO/Dockets Unit; (2) to reflect a transfer in the function of maintaining public service lists from the Central Records Unit to the APO/Dockets Unit; (3) to update the definition of “Customs Service” to reflect the reorganization of the Executive Branch; (4) to clarify that documents filed with the Department will only be time stamped when appropriate, for example, when an interested party submits a request for treatment as a voluntary respondent; (5) to clarify when an APO will be placed on the record with respect to new shipper reviews, applications for scope rulings and changed circumstances reviews; (6) to clarify when a party must serve business proprietary information already on the administrative record to new authorized applicants to the APO; (7) to require a formal letter of appearance to request being placed on the service list of any segment of an AD/CVD proceeding; and (8) to clarify when a party is to be considered an “interested party” for the purposes of the APO. Finally, the Department proposes amending its short form application for an APO (Form ITA-367).

The Department is unable to estimate the number of small entities that will be affected by this rule, as the Department does not collect this information. However, there is the possibility that this rule would impact some number of small entities. Although the number of small entities that may be impacted is unknown, this rule would not impose a significant economic impact.

If implemented, this rule is not expected to impose a significant economic impact on the affected entities. Most of the amendments are procedural in nature and would not impose any new requirements or result in a significant compliance cost. The proposed requirement to submit a formal letter of appearance to request being placed on the service list of any segment of an AD/CVD proceeding; the proposed amendment to require an importer to submit documentary evidence of its status as an importer; and the proposed amendment to its short form application for an APO (Form ITA-367) may result in a slight increase in recordkeeping and reporting burden hours. ITA anticipates that these requirements would result in $80 or 4 additional burden hours per respondent. Although this proposed rule may impact a substantive number of small entities, the cost to these entities would be minimal. For this reason, the Chief Counsel for Regulation at the Department of Commerce certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule does not contain a collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

This proposed rule does not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons stated, it is proposed that 19 CFR Ch. III be amended as follows:

In the Federal Register of October 25, 2006, FDA published a notice of public hearing with a 72-day comment period to request comments on the regulation of conventional foods marketed as “functional foods,” specifically the issues and questions presented in section III of the notice (see 71 FR 62400 at 62403). Comments will inform FDA's approaches to the regulation of conventional foods marketed as “functional foods.”

The agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the notice of public hearing. Each request conveyed concern that the current 72-day comment period, which closes 30 days subsequent to the public hearing held December 5, 2006, does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the request for comments on the issues and questions presented in section III of the notice.

FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice of public hearing for 60 days, until March 5, 2007. The agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments on the issues and questions presented in section III of the notice without significantly delaying the agency's consideration of how FDA should regulate conventional foods marketed as “functional foods” under its existing legal authority.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Consistent with the FOIA and Executive Order 13392, the CIA has undertaken and completed a zero-based review of its public FOIA regulations governing fees associated with the processing of FOIA requests. As a result of this review, the Agency proposes to revise its fee-related regulations to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on FOIA requesters and to simplify its fee schedule. The proposed regulations remove the unnecessary restrictions on the categories of FOIA requesters that are included in the CIA's current regulations. Under the proposed regulations, the CIA would not charge any FOIA requester, regardless of fee category, for a review fee in connection with the processing of a FOIA request.

The proposed regulations would not affect any requester submitting a request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility. Under both current CIA regulations and the proposed CIA regulations, the CIA will continue to place any requester submitting a request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility in the “All Other” fee category and will bill them for search fees and for duplication fees (with the first two hours of search and the first one hundred pages free of charge), unless the CIA grants a fee waiver.

Under the proposed regulations, the CIA would bill any requester not submitting a request from a federal, state, or local penitentiary or correctional facility, regardless of their fee category, only for the duplication costs (with the first one hundred pages free of charge) associated with the request, unless the CIA grants a fee waiver. The CIA would not bill these requesters for any search fee in connection with the processing of their request.

The proposed regulations would establish a maximum amount the CIA could bill for search fees and a maximum amount the CIA could bill for duplication fees.

The criteria the CIA would apply to fee waiver requests would remain unchanged.

As stated in the preamble, the CIA proposes to amend 32 CFR part 1900 as follows:

For further information on this rulemaking to add the boundaries of the PM2.5 nonattainment area to Virginia regulations, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD 102, “Definitions of Terms” and VCAPCD 74.17, “Solid Waste Disposal Sites.” In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving SCAQMD 102 and rescinding VCAPCD 74.17 in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

On December 18, 2006, EPA proposed the following revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). Both of these revisions relate to excess emissions provisions.

The proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. In response to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E., Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), submitted by letter on December 21, 2006, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 30 days.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass County, Michigan nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that these areas have met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve Michigan's request to change the legal designations of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve Michigan's maintenance plan SIP revisions for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2018. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2018 MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The adequacy comment period for the 2018 MVEBs began on August 4, 2006, with EPA's posting of the availability of these submittals on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm) . The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on September 5, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for these submittals, or adverse comments on these submittals during the adequacy comment period. Please see the Adequacy Section of this rulemaking for further explanation on this process. Therefore, we find adequate, and are proposing to approve, the State's 2018 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO X and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.

The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the current 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2005. At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour standard, the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas were all designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became effective June 15, 2004. The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.

The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the provisions of both subparts 1 and 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under Subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Muskegon and Cass County areas were designated as subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23911), based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. The Flint and Benton Harbor areas were designated by EPA as subpart 1, 8-hour nonattainment areas (69 FR 23910—23911), based on 2001-2003 monitoring data.

Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA EPA may adjust the classification of an ozone nonattainment area to the next higher or lower classification if the design value for the area is within five percent of the cut off for that higher or lower classification. On September 22, 2004, EPA adjusted the classification of several nonattainment areas which had been designated and classified under subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that time, EPA adjusted the classifications of the Muskegon and Cass County nonattainment areas from moderate to marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708-5670).

40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour ozone standard is attained 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 when rounded. The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3(d).

On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested that EPA redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. This submittal was supplemented on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. Michigan included complete, quality-assured air monitoring data for the 2004 through 2006 ozone season, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured air monitoring data are available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).

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

EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

“Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations”, Memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18, 1990;

“Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

“Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992;

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

“Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of 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;

“Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 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.

On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested redesignation of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Michigan supplemented its submittal on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. EPA believes that the areas have attained the standard and have met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan SIP plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plans include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 of 25.68 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NO X for the Flint area, 6.67 tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NO X for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC and 15.19 tpd NO X for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd NO X for the Cass County area.

EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that the areas have met all other applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's determinations is as follows:

EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone seasons. The MDEQ quality assured the ambient monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database, thus making the data publicly available. The data meets the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, which requires a minimum completeness of 75 percent annually and 90 percent over each three year period. Monitoring data is presented in Table 1, below. Data completeness information is presented in Table 2, below.

In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plans, MDEQ has committed to continue operating an EPA approved monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Michigan provide an adequate demonstration that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

We have determined that Michigan has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under Section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Michigan SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under Part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the Michigan SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained what SIP requirements are applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.

a. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).

General SIP requirements. Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants (NO X SIP Call, 1 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)(70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. When the transport SIP submittal requirements are applicable to a state, they will continue to apply to the state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, there are no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.

Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Michigan SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for the 8-hour ozone standard prior to submission of the redesignation request for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, which includes sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, which is found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. The Flint and Benton Harbor areas are both classified as subpart 1 nonattainment areas and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not apply. The Muskegon and Cass County areas are classified as subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas and, therefore, both subpart 1 and subpart 2 requirements apply.

Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for Flint, Benton Harbor, Muskegon, and Cass County areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (General Preamble 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).

Part D, Subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for the Muskegon and Cass County areas are contained in section 182(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 182(a) can be found in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13502-13507 (April 16, 1992)).

No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and, therefore, none is applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation. Since the State of Michigan has submitted complete ozone redesignation requests for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas prior to the deadline for any submissions required for purposes of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements do not apply to the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas for purposes of redesignation.

Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas redesignating need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that these areas demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Michigan has demonstrated that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect; and therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant CAA requirements.

EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must implement conformity under federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).

EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation conformity SIPs on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61 FR 66609, respectively). Michigan has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets of 25.68 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NO X for the Flint area, 6.67 tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NO X for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC and 15.19 tpd NO X for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd for NO X for the Cass County area based on the areas' projected 2018 emission levels. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. Thus, the areas have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

b. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, or Cass County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved.

EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.

In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change in emissions between 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Michigan and upwind areas have implemented in recent years. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas are all impacted, in varying degrees, by the transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind areas. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind counties are relevant to the improvement in air quality in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.

a. Permanent and enforceable controls implemented. The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been implemented in the areas:

NO X rules. In compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, Michigan developed rules to control NO X emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing NO X emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NO X emissions from EGUs have been capped at a statewide total well below pre-2002 levels. MDEQ expects that NO X emissions will further decline as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II NO X SIP call (69 FR 21604; April 21, 2004).

Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and NO X emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future as the State implements additional emission controls. Federal emission control measures include: the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule will reduce off-road diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in 2008.

Control Measures in Upwind Areas. Upwind ozone nonattainment areas in the Lake Michigan region, including Chicago, Illinois; Gary, Indiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin have continued to reduce emissions of VOC and NO X to meet their rate of progress obligations under the 1-hour ozone standard. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have all developed regulations to control NO X , Illinois and Indiana pursuant to the NO X SIP call and Wisconsin to meet rate of progress requirements. These upwind reductions in emissions have resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering Michigan. The emission reductions resulting from these upwind control programs are permanent and enforceable.

b. Emission reductions. Michigan is using 2002 for the nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. For 2002, MDEQ used the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002 base K inventory. This typical summer day inventory was developed by processing emissions data from the EPA final 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Nonroad emissions were estimated using the most current version of EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). For the 2005 inventory, Michigan interpolated between the 2002 LADCO base K inventory and the LADCO 2009 base K inventory to project emissions for the non-EGU point and area sectors. For EGU emissions, Michigan used 2004 actual emissions as a better representation of 2005 than interpolating from 2009. For nonroad emissions, Michigan used the most current version of NMIM. For onroad emissions, Michigan used the Mobile6.2 model.

Based on the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal documents changes in VOC and NO X emissions from 2002 to 2005 for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The emissions reductions for both VOC and NO X , by county and by source category are shown below in Tables 3 through 7.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

We are proposing to take several related actions for Jefferson County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine that Jefferson County has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a requested revision of the Ohio SIP. The maintenance plan is designed to keep Jefferson County and, in conjunction with a West Virginia ozone maintenance plan for Hancock and Brooke Counties, the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through 2018.

Third, we are proposing to find that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are, therefore, proposing to approve the July 31, 2006, and October 3, 2006, requests from the State of Ohio to change the designation of Jefferson County from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 1

Fourth, as supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NO X MVEBs for Jefferson County for conformity determination purposes.

These proposed actions pertain to the designation of Jefferson County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and to the VOC and NO X emission controls in this County related to attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC or NO X emissions source in this County or live in this County, this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may impact you if you are involved in transportation planning or implementation of emission controls in this area. Finally, it may also impact you if you breathe the air in Jefferson County or the air which has passed through Jefferson County or the Steubenville-Weirton area as a whole.

EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human health. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856) of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm) (80 parts per billion (ppb)). 2 This 8-hour ozone standard replaced a prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which was promulgated on February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202) and revoked on June 15, 2005.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emitted NO X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone along with other secondary compounds. NO X and VOC are referred to as “ozone precursors.”

The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The three most recent years of ozone data at the time (2001-2003 when the 8-hour ozone designations were initially established) were considered to establish the ozone designations. The Federal Register notice making these designations was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).

The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and emission control requirements for nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D of the CAA). Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS, and applies to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 contains more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas, and applies to ozone nonattainment areas classified under section 181 of the CAA.

In the April 30, 2004, designation rulemaking, EPA divided 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas into the categories of subpart 1 nonattainment (“basic” nonattainment) and subpart 2 nonattainment (“classified” nonattainment) based on their 8-hour ozone design values (i.e., on the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at the worst-case monitoring sites in the designated areas) and on their 1-hour ozone design values (i.e., on the fourth-highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations over the three-year period at the worst-case monitoring sites in the designated areas). 3 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1-hour ozone design values equaling or exceeding 121 ppb were designated as subpart 2, classified nonattainment areas. Classification of the subpart 2 nonattainment areas were based on the levels of the monitored 8-hour ozone design values for each nonattainment area. All other 8-hour nonattainment areas were designated as subpart 1, basic nonattainment areas, which have no area-specific classifications.

Emission control requirements for classified nonattainment areas are linked to area classifications. Areas with more serious ozone pollution problems are subject to more prescribed requirements. The requirements are designed to bring areas into attainment by their specified attainment dates, which also depend on the area classifications. For example, marginal nonattainment areas are subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest attainment deadline. Severe nonattainment areas are required to meet more mandated emission controls than marginal areas, including tighter restrictions on the sizes of existing VOC and NO X sources required to install emission controls, tighter restrictions on mandated emission controls, and offsetting of new sources. Severe nonattainment areas also have a later attainment deadline. In contrast, the attainment deadline for basic nonattainment areas does not depend on the magnitude of the area 8-hour ozone design values.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than or equal to 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb based on data rounding conventions specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) over the most recent three-year period at all monitors in an area and in its impacted downwind environs (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). Such supporting data must meet a minimum data completeness requirement. The completeness requirement (specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) for ozone data supporting a determination of attainment and a redesignation to attainment is met when the annual average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent for the ozone seasons during the three-year period, with no single year with less than 75 percent data completeness during the ozone season.

In the April 30, 2004, designation/classification rulemaking, the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, including Jefferson County, was designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The designation was based on ozone data collected during the 2001-2003 period.

On July 31, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a draft request for redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on ozone data collected in the Steubenville-Weirton WV-OH area during the 2003-2005 period. On October 3, 2006, the State of Ohio completed the ozone redesignation request by submitting documentation of the public hearing conducted by the State for the redesignation request and ozone maintenance plan. The information contained in the State's July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's public review process (summarized in the October 3, 2006, submittal). The State of West Virginia has also submitted an ozone redesignation request for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area (for Hancock and Brooke Counties). A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905), addresses this request.

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA 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 of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 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;

“Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, 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.

EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that Jefferson County has attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance plan for this County and the VOC and NO X MVEBs supported by the ozone maintenance plan; and, (3) approve the redesignation of this County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our proposed determination and approvals are as follows:

Analyses of the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I. These analyses use the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the area and in its impacted downwind environs. To attain this standard, the average of the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each monitor (the monitoring site's ozone design value) within the area and in its impacted downwind environs over the most recent three-year period must not exceed the ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained if the area's ozone design value  4 is 0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or less. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitors generally should have remained at the same locations for the duration of the monitoring period required to demonstrate attainment (for three years or more).

As part of the July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the Ohio EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top four daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area during the 2002-2005 period. These summarized worst-case ozone concentrations are part of the quality-assured ozone data collected in this area and recorded in the AQS. The annual fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations for each year during the 2003-2005 period, along with the three-year averages, are summarized in Table 1 for Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County, West Virginia. All monitoring sites achieved at least 99% data completeness.

The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to a site 1/3 mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA lost access to the original site. The new site meets all citing criteria described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix E. The original and final sites are sufficiently close to each other, and removed from sources of ozone precursors such that the two sites represent the same air quality. Therefore, the data from the two sites can be combined when calculating the three-year average ozone concentration in Table 1.

The monitored ozone concentrations for 2003-2005 show that the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The current three-year average (2003-2005) for Jefferson County, Ohio is 0.078 ppm. The current three-year average (2003-2005) for Hancock County, West Virginia is 0.075 ppm. The data collected at the Jefferson County and Hancock County, West Virginia monitoring sites show that the area satisfies the CAA requirement that the ozone standard must be attained at all sites in and around the ozone nonattainment area. The three-year ozone design value for the nonattainment area is less than 0.085 ppm. Furthermore, available (non-quality assured) ozone monitoring data from 2006 indicates that this area continues to attain the ozone NAAQs.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection have committed to continue ozone monitoring in this area as part of the State's ozone maintenance plan. This commitment meets a redesignation requirement, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, that ozone monitoring will be continued to assure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection will consult with EPA prior to altering the existing monitoring network if changes become necessary in the future. The two states will continue to quality assure the data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58 and all other federal requirements. The data will be available in real time on the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Web site and will be entered into AQS on a timely basis and in accordance with federal guidelines.

We find that the ozone monitoring data submitted by the States of Ohio and West Virginia provide an adequate demonstration that the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to determine that Jefferson County, Ohio, as part of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

We have determined that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Jefferson County under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have determined that the Ohio SIP meets the currently applicable SIP requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that all applicable requirements are approved into the Ohio SIP. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, we determined the CAA requirements which are applicable to Jefferson County, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA, which in this case are those CAA requirements applicable to Jefferson County at the time the State submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for this area, on October 3, 2006.

a. Jefferson County has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation to attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that apply at the time of the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum, and 66 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved, but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).

General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques; provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These SIP elements and requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d) provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e) criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g) provisions for public and local agency participation.

SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA documents: “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 1993. See also other guidance documents listed above.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants (NO X SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted SIPs under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR 21147, April 25, 2005). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant measures to evaluate when 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.

We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-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, Ohio ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting; and otherwise satisfies the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).

Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, an area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment area plan requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification.

Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and 176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, a notice of proposed rulemaking for an ozone redesignation for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section 172 requirements.

No requirements for 8-hour ozone under part D of the CAA came due for Jefferson County prior to the State's submittal (October 3, 2006) of a complete ozone redesignation request for this area. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D requirements are applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of redesignation.

Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.

In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due prior to Ohio's submission of a complete ozone redesignation request for Jefferson County, and, therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be applicable for redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation of areas to attainment of a NAAQS and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).

EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a New Source Review (NSR) program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR, since Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Ohio is not relying on reductions from NSR to attain the ozone standard, and so the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in Jefferson County upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. In its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio included the on-highway motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 and 2018 that Table 2 outlines. EPA reviewed the budgets for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905).

The area must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. We conclude that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA to the extent that these requirements apply for purposes of reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request for this area.

b. Jefferson County has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Jefferson County under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner , 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of redesignation. No Jefferson County SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of reviewing the State's redesignation request. EPA has also noted that it may conclude that the section 110 SIP submission approved under the 1-hour standard will be adequate for purposes of attaining and maintaining the 8-hour standard. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements for the eight-hour ozone standard did not become due prior to Ohio's submission of a final, complete redesignation request for Jefferson County, they also are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

In making this demonstration, the States of West Virginia  5 and Ohio have documented changes in VOC and NO X emissions from all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based) sources in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area occurring between 2002, an ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in which the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The States have also discussed permanent and enforceable emission reductions that have occurred elsewhere in these two States and in other upwind areas that have contributed to the air quality improvement in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NO X emissions totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. 6 From the Table, it can be seen that VOC emissions have decreased slightly between 2002 and 2004, whereas NO X emissions have significantly declined between 2002 and 2004.

The States of Ohio and West Virginia conclude that the differences in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements.

The significant decline in NO X emissions in this area between 2002 and 2004 occurred primarily at Electric Generating Units (EGU) as the result of the implementation of the States' NO X emission control rules (resulting from the implementation of EPA's NO X SIP call and acid rain emission controls under title IV of the CAA). NO X reductions also resulted from tighter federal standards on new vehicles.

We concur with the States that NO X emissions have been significantly lowered in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We also concur with the States that these emission reductions have contributed to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. Therefore, the State of Ohio has met this criterion for redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

Besides implementation of the NO X emission control rules, additional implemented, or soon to be implemented, emission control rules include several Federal rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur standards (promulgated by EPA in February 2000 and currently being implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel engine emission control rules (promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 and currently being implemented; and, (3) clean air non-road diesel rule (promulgated by the EPA in May 2004 and currently being phased in through 2009). All of these rules have contributed to reducing NO X emissions throughout the States of Ohio and West Virginia and will contribute to future emission reductions in these States.

The State of Ohio commits to continuing the existing VOC and NO X emission controls after the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area is redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

In conjunction with its request to redesignate Jefferson County to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted a SIP revision request to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County and in the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area through 2018, exceeding the minimum 10 year maintenance period required by the CAA.

a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of air quality maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that maintenance of the standard will continue for 10 years following the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future NAAQS violations. The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum, address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC and NO X emissions inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the first 10 years of the maintenance period; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to prevent and/or correct a future violation of the NAAQS.

b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Jefferson County? Ohio EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and NO X emission inventories for Jefferson County, including EGU and non-EGU point (significant stationary sources), other (smaller and widely-distributed stationary sources that are also called area sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Rail mobile (MAR), mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources for 2002 (the base year). To develop the attainment year (2004) and projected maintenance years (2009 and 2018) emissions, the Ohio EPA projected the 2002 emissions applying various source category-specific growth factors and emission control factors.

The State has thoroughly documented how the 2002 base year emissions were derived. The following summarizes the procedures and sources of data used by the Ohio EPA to derive the base year emissions.

i. Point Sources. The primary source of point source information was facility-specific information collected annually by the State for sources covered by Title V source permits. This information includes emissions, process rates, operating schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU emission inventory, maintained to support the NO X SIP call emissions trading program and the acid rain control program. The sources included in the 2002 point source inventory were identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database. The emissions included in this database are facility-reported actual emissions.

Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those that occur at a Title V facility with an identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive emissions. Facility-specific fugitive emissions are also reported by each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database.

Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) 3.0 format. LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in the Emissions Modeling System (EMS) and applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July weekday emissions rates. The Jefferson County emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split into EGU emissions and non-EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year emissions inventory used to support the Jefferson County ozone redesignation request.

ii. Area (Other) Sources. Area sources are those sources which are generally small, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. The emissions for these sources are calculated and grouped by source type and are estimated using various surrogates, such as population, energy usage, estimates of employees in various occupational groups and facility-types. The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level.

To estimate the area source emissions, Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other methodologies typically used by other states. Area source categories include: Various stationary combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point source portion of the emissions inventory); human cremation; agricultural pesticides; architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and commercial solvents; degreasing and solvent cleaning (not included in point source emissions); fuel marketing; graphic arts (the emissions from the smaller facilities not included in the Title V STARS database); hospital sterilizers; small industry surface coating; small industry rubber and plastics coating; landfills; portable fuel containers; traffic markings; and Privately Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). The State has documented the data sources and emission factors or calculation procedures used for each of these area source categories.

iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources. The non-road mobile source emissions inventory was generated regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). The NMIM output was converted to the NIF format and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain spatially and temporally allocated summer emission rates. The basic non-road algorithm for calculating emissions in NMIM uses base year equipment populations, average load factors, available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors to calculate the emissions.

iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources. Due to the significance of the emissions from these source types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat these source categories separately from other non-road mobile sources. The MAR emissions include emissions from commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive sources.

Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types, emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by vessel type, along with the spatial range of each vessel type.

Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; consumer lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations are expected to be the most significant rail operations in most areas, including Jefferson County, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and emissions-related information for each railroad line. Class I activity levels were provided by county in terms of ton-miles of freight movement and estimated fuel consumption. This approach provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. Class I railroads, however, could not provide information about their switching rail activity. Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per employee fuel consumption estimates.

EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO) rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of Ohio. The LTO-engine information was combined with engine type-specific emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and, through use of a FAA Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), which calculates aircraft-specific emissions.

LADCO processed all of the MAR emissions data through the EMS to calculate July 2002 summer day emissions for VOC and NO X .

v. On-Road Mobile Sources. A regional transportation model operated by the Brooke, Hancock, Jefferson Transportation Study (BHJTS), West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), and Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT) was used to estimate traffic levels, vehicle age and type distributions, vehicle speeds, and other emissions-related vehicle parameters for the roadways in Jefferson County and elsewhere in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This vehicle travel information, along with the MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission factor model, was used to estimate mobile source VOC and NO X emissions for Jefferson County and the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.

vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year. Ambient air quality data showed that the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area met the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004. Ohio EPA projected point source emissions from the 2002 baseline to 2004 with the statewide EGU NO X budgets from the Ohio NO X rule. Mobile source emission projections were based on the MOBILE6.2 model. Ohio EPA also used growth and control files for point, area, and non-road categories that LADCO developed in determining 2004 emissions of NO X and VOCs for Jefferson County. The State of West Virginia estimated 2004 VOC and NO X emissions for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 emissions to demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. See Table 3 above for the 2004 attainment level emissions.

c. Demonstration of Maintenance . As part of the July 31, 2006, redesignation request submittal, Ohio EPA included a requested revision to the Ohio SIP to incorporate an ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County. This plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 by documenting current and projected VOC and NO X emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and NO X will remain at or below the attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).

The State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia projected the VOC and NO X emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area for the years of 2009 and 2018 to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the expected redesignation dates for this area. For Jefferson County, Ohio EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile source growth estimates generated using the regional transportation model and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Jefferson County VOC and NO X emissions. The methods used by the State of West Virginia are described in West Virginia's ozone redesignation request (reviewed by EPA on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905)).

Table 4 summarizes the VOC emissions projected to occur in Jefferson County, Ohio and in Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. Similarly, Table 5 summarizes the NO X emissions projected to occur in the same area during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. The State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia chose 2018 as a projection year to meet the 10-year maintenance demonstration requirement, allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation rulemaking process. The States also chose 2009 as an interim year to demonstrate that VOC and NO X emissions will remain below the attainment year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period.

The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NO X emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NO X SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented beyond 2006, will further lower NO X emissions in upwind areas, resulting in decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This will also support maintenance of the ozone standard in this area, which particularly benefits from the NO X SIP call and CAIR. These two regulations focus on utility emissions in the Eastern United States and impose a permanent cap on overall emissions from affected sources. This cap is likely to minimize growth of this very important component of emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton area.

The emission projections for Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area as a whole coupled with the expected impacts of the States' EGU NO X rules and CAIR lead to the conclusion that Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area should maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the required 10-year maintenance period and through 2018. The projected decreases in local VOC and local and regional NO X emissions indicate that peak ozone levels in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area may actually further decline during the maintenance period.

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions, we conclude that Ohio EPA has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard can be maintained in Jefferson County and in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We believe that this is especially likely given the expected impacts of the NO X SIP call and CAIR. As noted by Ohio EPA, this conclusion is further supported by the fact that other states in the eastern portion of the United States are also expected to further reduce regional NO X emissions through implementation of their ozone NO X emission control rules for EGUs and other NO X sources through the implementation of the NO X SIP call and CAIR.

d. Contingency Plan. The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are designed to result in prompt correction or prevention of violations of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the contingency measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were included in the SIP before the redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.

As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency plan to address a possible future ozone air quality problem in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The contingency plan has two levels of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action Level Response).

A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs within the ozone maintenance area (within the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area). A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine whether the ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations and/or whether emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend. This would involve taking into consideration ease and timing for implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level Response will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone season.

An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area. A violation of the 8-hour ozone standard (three-year average fourth-high value of 85 ppb or greater) will also prompt an Action Level Response. In the event that an Action Level Response is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or rule requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional emission control measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season that prompted the Action Level Response. Any new emission control measure that is selected for implementation will be given a public review. If a new emission control measure is already promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State level and that emission control measure is determined to be sufficient to address the upper trend in peak ozone concentrations, additional local measures may be unnecessary. Ohio EPA will submit to the EPA an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed emission control measures are adequate to reverse the upward trend in peak ozone concentrations and to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The selection of emission control measures will be based on cost-effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that the Ohio EPA and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) deem to be appropriate. Selected emission control measures will be subjected to public review and the States will seek public input prior to selecting new emission control measures.

The State of Ohio ozone redesignation request lists the following possible emission control measures as contingency measures in the ozone maintenance portion of the State's submittal:

• Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program;

• Tighten RACT on existing sources covered by U.S. EPA Control Technique Guidleines issued in response to the 1990 CAA;

• Extension of Reasonably Available Control Techniques (RACT) requirements to include source categories previously excluded. New VOC RACT rules could be adopted for the following source categories:

• Revision of new source permitting requirements to require more stringent emissions control technology and/or greater emissions offsets;

• NO X RACT, with the following being potential source categories covered by such RACT requirements:

• Transportation measures such as trip reduction programs, traffic flow and transit improvements. The selected transportation measure would need to achieve at least a half a percent reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions.

• Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations.

• Require VOC or NO X emissions offsets for new and modified major and/or minor sources.

• Increase the ratio of emissions offsets required for new sources.

• Require VOC or NO X controls on new minor sources (less than 100 tons).

No contingency measure will be implemented without the State providing the opportunity for full public participation and review.

e. Provisions for a Future Update of the Ozone Maintenance Plan. As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State commits to submit to the EPA an update of the ozone maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The updated maintenance plan will provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area for an additional 10 years beyond the period covered by the initial ozone maintenance plan.

We find Ohio's ozone maintenance demonstration and contingency plan acceptable.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for applicable areas (for ozone nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the ozone standard or revising existing ozone maintenance plans). These emission control SIP revisions (e.g. reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration SIP revisions), including ozone maintenance plans, must create MVEBs based on on-road mobile source emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

Under 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment of the NAAQS are established for the last year of the maintenance plan (for the maintenance demonstration year). The MVEBs serve as ceilings on mobile source emissions from an area's planned transportation system and are used to test planned transportation system changes or projects to assure compliance with the emission limits assumed in the SIP. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs if needed.

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from cars, trucks, and other on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality standard violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects that would expand the capacity of the roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA's policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation activities to a SIP.

When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs are “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs are used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIPs as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of MVEBs are specified in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

EPA's process of determining adequacy of MVEBs consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEBs during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy. The process of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.

The Transportation Conformity Rule, in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides for adequacy findings through two mechanisms. First, 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) provides for posting a notice to the EPA conformity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm and providing a 30-day public comment period. Second, a mechanism is described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that EPA can review the adequacy of an implementation plan submission simultaneously with its review of the implementation plan itself. In this notice, EPA is reviewing the adequacy of the Jefferson County motor vehicle emission budgets as part of the review and proposal on the overall ozone maintenance plan. The State of Ohio had previously requested parallel processing and the expediency of this review process is best suited to following the 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) mechanism.

Ohio and West Virginia are managing mobile source emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton area by establishing separate MVEBs for their respective portions of this area. EPA has proposed approval of the NO X and VOC MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area in the Federal Register (71 FR 57905) on October 2, 2006. The Jefferson County ozone maintenance plan contains VOC and NO X MVEBs for 2009 and 2018. EPA has reviewed these MVEBs for Jefferson County and finds that they meet the adequacy criteria in the Transportation Conformity Rule. Furthermore, EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in Jefferson County. EPA has determined that the budgets are consistent with the control measures and future emissions projected in the SIP and that Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant required 10-year period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. Table 2 contains the 2009 and 2018 VOC and NO X MVEBs for Jefferson County. Ohio EPA decided to include 15 percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth not anticipated in the projected 2018 emissions.

Ohio EPA has demonstrated that Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total source emissions, even with the increased mobile source emissions, will remain under the attainment year levels in both Jefferson County and the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area.

A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan for a future maintenance year. As noted in Tables 4 and 5 above, Jefferson County VOC and NO X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 2.6 tons per day for VOC and 112.6 tons per day for NO X in 2018 (the differences between the 2004, attainment year, and 2018 VOC and NO X emissions for all sources in Jefferson County).

The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA contain safety margins (selected by the State) significantly smaller than the safety margins reflected in the total emissions for Jefferson County. The State is not requesting allocation of the entire available safety margins actually reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the State is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected on-road mobile source emissions for 2018 contained in the demonstration of maintenance, the increase in on-road mobile source emissions considered for transportation conformity purposes is well within the safety margins of the ozone maintenance demonstration.

The VOC and NO X MVEBs for Jefferson County including the additional safety margin are approvable because they maintain the total emissions for Jefferson County at or below the attainment year emission inventory levels, as required by the transportation conformity regulations.

Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation of Jefferson County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. It would also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining the ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plan includes a list of potential contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It establishes NO X MVEBs of 4.10 tons per day and 1.67 tons per day for 2009 and 2018, respectively. The plan establishes VOC MVEBs of 2.63 tons per day and 1.37 tons per day for 2009 and 2018, respectively.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

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 action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

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

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

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Worldwide Web (WWW) . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

We received several requests to extend the public comment period to February 8, 2007. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment period will now end on February 8, 2007, rather than January 8, 2007.

The proposed rule amendments for the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, published on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65302). EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section.

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

We received a request to extend the public comment period to February 8, 2007. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment period will now end on February 8, 2007, rather than January 8, 2007.

The proposed rule National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities was published on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66064). EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section.