Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Determination, Redesignation of the Franklin County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory, 29914-29928 [E7-10351]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
29914
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule also
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
it have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Reading Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and
the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–10356 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0174; FRL–8320–1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment
Determination, Redesignation of the
Franklin County Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment and Approval of the
Area’s Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base Year Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Franklin
County ozone nonattainment area
(Franklin County Area) be redesignated
as attainment for the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve
the ozone redesignation request for
Franklin County Area. In conjunction
with its redesignation request, PADEP
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a
maintenance plan for Franklin County
Area that provides for continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for at least 10 years after redesignation.
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Franklin County
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, based upon three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality ozone monitoring data for 2003–
2005. EPA’s proposed approval of the 8hour ozone redesignation request is
based on its determination that the
Franklin County Area has met the
criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In
addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base
year inventory for the Franklin County
Area which EPA is proposing to
approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also
providing information on the status of
its adequacy determination for the
motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the
Franklin County Area maintenance plan
for purposes of transportation
conformity, which EPA is also
proposing to approve. EPA is proposing
approval of the redesignation request,
and the maintenance plan and the 2002
base year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the
CAA. EPA is also proposing to issue a
determination that the area has attained
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and to find
that the requirements of section
172(c)(1) concerning the submission of
the ozone attainment demonstration and
reasonably available control measure
requirements, the requirements of
section 172(c)(2) concerning reasonable
further progress (RFP), and the
requirements of section 172(c)(9)
concerning contingency measures for
RFP or attainment do not apply to the
area for so long as it continues to attain
the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2007–0174 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0174,
Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2007–
0174. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O.
Box 8468, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or
by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation
to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
Maintenance Plan for the Franklin
County Area Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To
Take?
On December 14, 2006, PADEP
formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Franklin County Area
from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently,
on December 14, 2006, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the
Franklin County Area as a SIP revision
to ensure continued attainment for at
least 10 years after redesignation.
PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year
inventory as a SIP revision on December
14, 2006. The Franklin County Area is
currently designated as a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Franklin County Area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has
met the requirements for redesignation
pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to
approve the redesignation request to
change the designation of the Franklin
County Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the Franklin County Area
maintenance plan as a SIP revision,
such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment
status. The maintenance plan is
designed to ensure continued
attainment in the Franklin County Area
for the next ten years. EPA is also
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29915
proposing to approve the 2002 base year
inventory for the Franklin County Area
as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy
process for the MVEBs identified in the
Franklin County Area maintenance
plan, and proposing to approve the
MVEBs identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for transportation conformity
purposes. EPA is also proposing to issue
a determination that the area has
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and
to find that the requirements of section
172(c)(1) concerning the submission of
the ozone attainment demonstration and
reasonably available control measure
requirements, the requirements of
section 172(c)(2) concerning reasonable
further progress (RFP), and the
requirements of section 172(c)(9)
concerning contingency measures for
RFP or attainment do not apply to the
area for so long as it continues to attain
the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOC react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
The air pollutants NOX and VOC are
referred to as precursors of ozone. The
CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA
designated, as nonattainment, any area
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the air quality data for the
three years of 2001–2003. These were
the most recent three years of data at the
time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Franklin County Area was designated as
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status
in a Federal Register notice signed on
April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its
exceedance of the 8-hour health-based
standard for ozone during the years
2001–2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA
issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996)
to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in
the Franklin County Area (as well as
most other areas of the country)
effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004);
and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
29916
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(D.C.Cir. 2006) (hereafter ‘‘South
Coast.’’). The Court held that certain
provisions of EPA’s Phase 1 Rule were
inconsistent with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8hour standard in nonattainment areas
under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also
held that EPA improperly failed to
retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the
certain conformity requirements for
certain types of federal actions. The
Court upheld EPA’s authority to revoke
the 1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in
section VI. B. ‘‘The Franklin County
Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA,’’ EPA discusses its rationale
why the decision in South Coast is not
an impediment to redesignating the
Franklin County Area to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two
sets of provisions—subpart 1 and
subpart 2—that address planning and
control requirements for nonattainment
areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as
‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains
general, less prescriptive requirements
for nonattainment areas for any
pollutant—including ozone—governed
by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8hour ozone nonattainment areas are
subject only to the provisions of subpart
1. Other areas are also subject to the
provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA’s 8hour ozone implementation rule, signed
on April 15, 2004, an area was classified
under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour
ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year
average annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest
1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas
are covered under subpart 1, based upon
their 8-hour design values. In 2004,
Franklin County Area was designated a
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
based upon air quality monitoring data
from 2001–2003, and therefore, is
subject to the requirements of subpart 1
of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further
information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness
requirements are met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50. The ozone monitoring data from
the 3-year period of 2003–2005
indicates that the Franklin County Area
has a design value of 0.075 ppm.
Therefore, the ambient ozone data for
the Franklin County Area indicates no
violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Franklin County Area
The Franklin County Area consists
solely of Franklin County, Pennsylvania
and was designated as basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment status in an April
30, 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 23857). Prior
to its designation as an 8-hour basic
ozone nonattainment area, the Franklin
County Area was designated an
incomplete data nonattainment area for
the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at
56822, November 6, 1991.
On December 14, 2006, PADEP
requested that the Franklin County Area
be redesignated to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The redesignation
request included 3 years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period of
2003–2005, indicating that the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in
the Franklin County Area. The data
satisfies the CAA requirements when
the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration (commonly
referred to as the area’s design value) is
less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is
considered). Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated
if sufficient complete, quality-assured
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
data is available to determine that the
area has attained the standard and the
area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for
redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and Part D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations’’,
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990;
• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
• ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November
30, 1993;
• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On December 14, 2006, PADEP
requested redesignation of the Franklin
County Area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. On December 14,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan
for the Franklin County Area as a SIP
revision to assure continued attainment
at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA
has determined that the Franklin
County Area has attained the standard
and has met the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the designation of the
Franklin County Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR
part 81. It would also incorporate into
the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year
inventory and a maintenance plan
ensuring continued attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Franklin
County Area for the next 10 years. The
maintenance plan includes contingency
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
29917
measures to remedy any future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should
they occur), and identifies the MVEBs
for NOX and VOC for transportation
conformity purposes for the years 2004,
2009 and 2018. These motor vehicle
emissions (2004) and MVEBs (2009 and
2018) are displayed in the following
table:
years 2003–2005 (the most recent three
years of data available as of the time of
the redesignation request) for the
Franklin County Area. This data has
been quality assured and is recorded in
AQS. PADEP uses the AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data
and quality assures the data transfers
and content for accuracy. The fourthhigh 8-hour daily maximum
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS concentrations, along with the threeBUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY— year average, are summarized in Table
ROUNDED UPWARD TO ONE DEC- 2A.
IMAL
PLACE
Year
NOX
2009 ......................................
2018 ......................................
12.7
6.7
VOC
7.3
5.1
TABLE 2A.—FRANKLIN COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA FOURTH HIGHEST
8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES; FRANKLIN COUNTY MONITOR, AQS ID 42–
055–0001
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
State’s Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
Franklin County Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and the 1-hour
standard if that standard is reinstated
and that all other redesignation criteria
have been met. The following is a
description of how PADEP’s December
14, 2006, submittal satisfies the
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.
A. The Franklin County Area Has
Attained the Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Franklin County Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an
area may be considered to be attaining
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no
violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of
part 50, based on three complete and
consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the design value,
which is the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations, measured
at each monitor within the area over
each year must not exceed the ozone
standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard
is attained if the design value is 0.084
ppm or below. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should
have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
In the Franklin County Area, there is
one monitor that measures air quality
with respect to ozone. As part of its
redesignation request, Pennsylvania
submitted ozone monitoring data for the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
Annual 4th
High Reading (ppm)
0.080
0.071
0.074
0.066
The average for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.075 ppm.
The average for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.070 ppm.
The air quality data for 2003–2005
show that the Franklin County Area has
attained the standard with a design
value of 0.075 ppm. The data collected
at the Franklin County Area monitor
satisfies the CAA requirement that the
3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm. EPA believes this
conclusion remains valid that after
review of the available 2006 data
because the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration was 0.066 ppm which
equates to a design value 0.070 ppm for
the period 2004–2006. PADEP’s request
for redesignation for the Franklin
County Area indicates that the data was
quality assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. In addition, as discussed
below with respect to the maintenance
plan, PADEP has committed to continue
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA has
determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and taken from AQS
indicates that Franklin County Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Based upon the ozone monitoring
data for the years 1996–1998, EPA
believes that the Franklin County Area
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
continued to attain the 1-hour NAAQS
to present. For the 1-hour ozone
standard, an area may be considered to
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
29918
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if
there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and
Appendix H of part 50, based on three
complete and consecutive calendar
years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. Compliance is
determined on a monitor-by-monitor
basis within the area. To demonstrate
attainment, i.e., compliance with this
standard, the annual average of the
number of expected exceedances of the
1-hour standard over a 3-year period
must be less than or equal to 1. (To
account for missing data, adjustment of
the actual number of monitored
exceedances of the standard yields the
annual expected number of exceedances
at an air quality monitoring site.) Table
2B provides a summary of the number
of expected exceedances for each of the
years 1996 through 2006.
TABLE 2B.—FRANKLIN COUNTY AREA
NUMBER
OF
EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCES OF THE 1-HOUR
OZONE STANDARD; FRANKLIN COUNTY MONITOR, AQS ID 42–117–4000
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
expected
exceedances
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
The
average
number
of
expected
exceedances for any three-year period to
date is 0.0.
In summary, EPA has determined that
the data submitted by Pennsylvania and
taken from AQS indicates that Franklin
County Area is maintaining air quality
that conforms to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to issue a
determination that the Franklin County
Area has attained the 1-hour NAAQS for
ozone. This proposed determination is
based upon the 1996 through 2006 air
quality data. While section 181(b)(2)(A)
specifies that EPA is to make the
statutorily required determinations of
attainment using the 1-hour ozone
‘‘design value,’’ EPA ‘‘has interpreted
this provision generally to refer to EPA’s
methodology for determining attainment
status.’’ See 60 FR 3349 at 3350, January
17, 1995. As noted previously, EPA
determines the attainment status under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
the 1-hour ozone standard on the basis
of the annual average number of
expected exceedances.
B. The Franklin County Area Has Met
All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and
Has a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has determined that the Franklin
County Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of
this redesignation under section 110 of
the CAA (General SIP Requirements)
and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of
the CAA, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained what requirements are
applicable to the area, and determined
that the applicable portions of the SIP
meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the
CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
with respect to the timing of applicable
requirements. Under this interpretation,
to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also, Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–66, (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
Applicable requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the area’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
This section also sets forth EPA’s
views on the potential effect of the
Court’s ruling in South Coast on this
redesignation action. For the reasons set
forth below, EPA does not believe that
the Court’s ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from finalizing this redesignation.
EPA believes that the Court’s decision,
as it currently stands or as it may be
modified based upon any petition for
rehearing that has been filed, imposes
no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment,
because in either circumstance
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which include enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the State after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirement
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a State from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another State. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
States to establish programs to address
transport of air pollutants in accordance
with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX
SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However,
the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a State are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that State. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a State regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the State.
Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The Franklin County
Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated.
The section 110 and Part D
requirements, which are linked with a
particular area’s designation and
classification, are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This policy is consistent with
EPA’s existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings, (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also, the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65
FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules,
EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an
’applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(l) because the NOX rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour
(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951,
23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Any
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the Part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are not yet
due, because, as we explain later in this
notice, no Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under the 8-hour standard became due
prior to submission of the redesignation
request.
Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies
all of the applicable general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in
section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that
Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section
110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final
rule (69 FR 23951), the Franklin County
Area was designated a basic
nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Sections 172–176 of the CAA,
found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
for all nonattainment areas. Section 182
of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part
D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification. With
respect to the 8-hour standard, the
court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons for
classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the
8-hour standard, and remanded that
matter to the Agency. Consequently, it
is possible that this area could, during
a remand to EPA, be reclassified under
Subpart 2. Although any future decision
by EPA to classify this area under
subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes
that this does not mean that
redesignation of the area cannot now go
forward. This belief is based upon (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance
with the requirements due at the time
the request is submitted; and, (2)
consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the Franklin
County Area was classified under
Subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to
qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division). See
also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation; 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29919
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking, see
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63
(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court’s ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP
requirements under Subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request.
With respect to subpart 2
requirements, if the Franklin County
Area initially had been classified under
subpart 2 the first two part D subpart 2
requirements applicable to the Franklin
County Area under section 182(a) of the
CAA would be: A base-year inventory
requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, the emissions
statement requirement pursuant to
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.
As we have stated previously in this
document, these requirements are not
yet due for purpose of redesignation of
the Franklin County Area, but
nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has
in its approved SIP an emissions
statement rule for the 1-hour standard
that covers all portions of the designated
8-hour nonattainment area, and that
satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard. See
25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 40
CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12,
1995. With respect to the base year
inventory requirement, in this notice of
proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing
to approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for the Franklin County Area, which
was submitted on December 14, 2006,
concurrently with its maintenance plan,
into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2002 base year
inventory as fulfilling the requirements,
if necessary, of both section 182(a)(1)
and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A
detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania’s
2002 base-year inventory for the
Franklin County Area can be found in
a Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
29920
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
EPA has determined that the emission
inventory and emissions statement
requirements for the Franklin County
Area have been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation did not become due prior
to submission of the redesignation
request, EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the general conformity and
NSR requirements as not requiring
approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176,
Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires States to
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that Federally supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as
well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (‘‘general
conformity’’). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required
EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) since State
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where State rules have not
been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438–440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also,
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
In the case of the Franklin County
Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Franklin
County Area need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation. EPA
has determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without
Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for
this position is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Normally, State’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program will become effective in
the area immediately upon
redesignation to attainment. See the
more detailed explanations in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
following redesignation rulemakings:
Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467–12468 (March
7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH
(61 FR 20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61
FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21, 1996).
In the case of the Franklin County Area,
the Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations
in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40
CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the
requirements for NSR in section 184 of
the CAA to ozone attainment areas
within the OTR. The OTR NSR
requirements are more stringent than
that required for a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. On October 19,
2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision
consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations that cover
the Franklin County Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including the
NSR program, as not being applicable
for purposes of redesignation. The
rational for this is based on two factors.
First, the requirement to submit SIP
revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT,
even after redesignation. Second, the
section 184 control measures are regionwide requirements and do not apply to
the Franklin County Area by virtue of
the area’s designation and classification.
Rather, section 184 measures are
required in the Franklin County Area
because it is located in the OTR. See 61
FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–32 (May
7, 1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the Franklin
County Area was designated an
incomplete data nonattainment area for
the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at
56822, November 6, 1991.
In its December 22, 2006 decision in
South Coast, the Court addressed EPA’s
revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard.
The current status of the revocation and
associated anti-backsliding rules is
dependent on whether the Court’s
decision stands as originally issued or is
modified in response to any petition for
rehearing or request for clarification that
has been filed. As described more fully
below, EPA believes that the area has
attained the 1-hour standard and has
met all of the requirements applicable
for redesignation under the 1-hour
standard that would apply even if the 1-
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hour standard is deemed to be
reinstated and those requirements are
viewed as applying under the statute
itself. Thus, the Court’s decision, as it
currently stands, imposes no
impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of the area to attainment.
Further, even if the Court’s decision
were modified based upon any petition
for rehearing that has been filed, such
that the ultimate decision requires
something less than compliance with all
applicable 1-hour requirements, because
the area meets all such requirements, as
explained below, it would certainly
meet any lesser requirements and thus
redesignation could proceed.
The conformity portion of the Court’s
ruling does not impact the redesignation
request for the Franklin County Area
because there are no conformity
requirements that are relevant to
redesignation request for any standard,
including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP.1 As we
have previously stated in this
document, EPA believes it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved.
With respect to other requirements
under the 1-hour standard, in our April
16, 1992 General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR
13498 at 13524–13527) EPA concluded
that the Clean Air Act provides no
specific guidance concerning applicable
requirements for certain unclassifiable
nonattainment areas including
incomplete data areas. We observed that
subpart 1 contains general SIP planning
requirements, and, we concluded that
subpart 2 is not applicable to
incomplete data areas.
Under the approach laid out in our
April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR
13498 at 13524–13527) EPA concluded
that because incomplete areas are
designated nonattainment some aspects
of Subpart 1 necessarily apply. See 57
FR 13498 at 13525 (April 16, 1992).
With regard to RACT/Reasonably
available control measures (RACM),
1 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently
requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to
reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from
the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are
established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
EPA’s position is that requiring all
RACT corrections for incomplete data
areas is unreasonable, but we required
that incomplete data areas must correct
any RACT deficiencies regarding
enforceability of existing rules in order
to be redesignated to attainment. Id. at
13525. With regard to the emission
inventory requirement, EPA believes
that because an emissions inventory is
specifically required under section
172(c)(3) and is not tied to an area’s
proximity to attainment an incomplete
data area was required to develop such
an inventory even if only to develop an
approvable maintenance plan under
section 175A. Id. at 13525.
Furthermore, with respect to the
attainment demonstration and RACM,
RFP, and contingency measure
requirements of part D, under EPA’s
Clean Data Policy, as embodied in 40
CFR 51.918, upon a finding that the area
is attaining the standard, requirements
for SIP submissions linked to attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further
progress (RFP) and contingency
measures are suspended for so long as
the area is attaining the standard. EPA
described its interpretation in a May 10,
1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, entitled ‘‘Reasonable
Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air
Quality Standard.’’ See also, the
discussion and rulemakings cited in
EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 8Hour Ozone NAAQS—Phase 2, 70 FR
71612, 71644–71646 (November 29,
2005). The Tenth, Seventh and Ninth
Circuits have upheld EPA rulemakings
applying the Clean Data Policy. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th
Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004) and Our Children’s
Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04–73032
(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) memorandum
opinion.
We are proposing to find that the
Franklin County Area has met the 1hour ozone standard, and thus the
requirements of section 172(c)(1)
concerning the submission of the ozone
attainment demonstration and
reasonably available control measure
requirements, the requirements of
section 172(c)(2) concerning RFP, and
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures
under the 1-hour standard are not
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.2
2 We note, however, that the maintenance plan
contains contingency measures required under
section 175A of the Clean Air Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
If, while this proposal is pending, the
1-hour ozone standard is reinstated and
a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
is monitored (consistent with the
requirements contained in 40 CFR part
58 and recorded in AQS) in this
nonattainment area the EPA would not
issue a final determination of attainment
for the affected area. If the area remains
in attainment and EPA issues a final
determination of attainment, a
subsequent monitored violation prior to
redesignation to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS would also mean
that the area would thereafter have to
address the requirements of sections
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2) and 172(c)(9), since
the basis for the determination that they
do not apply would no longer exist.
This proposal does not revoke the 1hour NAAQS for ozone in the Franklin
County Area.
With respect to NSR, EPA has
determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved
New Source Review program for the
same reasons discussed previously with
respect to the applicable part D
requirements for the 8-hour standard.
Therefore, the only 1-hour Part D
elements currently applicable to the
Franklin County Area by virtue of its
designation and classification as an
incomplete data nonattainment area
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS were
the corrections of any RACT
deficiencies regarding enforceability of
existing rules in order to be
redesignated to attainment, and the
emission inventory requirement. On
December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections
required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22,
1994). EPA believes that this
requirement applies only to incomplete
data and subpart 2 areas under the 1hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990
amendments to the CAA; therefore, this
is a one-time requirement. After an area
has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS,
there is no requirement under the 8hour NAAQS.
Section 173(c)(3) provided for the
submission of a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources, as described
in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with
guidance provided by the
Administrator. In this proposed rule,
EPA is proposing to approve a 2002 base
year emissions inventory for the
Franklin County Area as meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) as well
as section 182(a)(1). While EPA
generally required that the base year
inventory for the 1-hour standard be for
calendar year 1990, EPA believes that
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29921
Pennsylvania’s 2002 inventory fulfills
this requirement because it meets EPA’s
guidance and because it is more current
than 1990. EPA also proposes to
determine that, if the 1-hour standard is
deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 base
year inventory for the 8-hour standard
will provide an acceptable substitute for
the base year inventory for the 1-hour
standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional
control requirements under section 184
for the purpose of reducing interstate
transport of emissions that may
contribute to downwind ozone
nonattainment. The section 184
requirements include (RACT), NSR,
enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance, and Stage II vapor
recovery or a comparable measure.
In the case of the Franklin County
Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will be applicable
after redesignation. As discussed
previously, EPA has fully approved
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision which
applies the requirements for NSR of
section 184 of the CAA to attainment
areas within the OTR.
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including NSR,
as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. See 61 FR 53174, October
10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997
(Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation).
The rationale for this is based on two
considerations. First, the requirement to
submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT,
and I/M even after redesignation.
Second, the section 184 control
measures are region-wide requirements
and do not apply to the area by virtue
of the area’s nonattainment designation
and classification, and thus are properly
considered not relevant to an action
changing an area’s designation. See 61
FR 53174 at 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826 at 24830–24832
(May 7, 1997).
5. The Franklin County Area Has a Fully
Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the
Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo,
p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–
90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
29922
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. The Franklin County Area was
a 1-hour incomplete data area at the
time of its designation as a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the
Franklin County Area was a 1-hour
incomplete data area, the only previous
part D SIP submittal requirement was
the RACT corrections due under section
182(a)(2)(A) and the comprehensive
emissions inventory due under section
172(c)(3) for the 1-hour standard. The
RACT corrections are fully approved (59
FR 65971, December 22, 1994), and,
EPA is proposing to approve a
comprehensive inventory for the area in
this notice of proposed rulemaking. No
other Part D submittal requirements
have come due prior to the submittal of
the 8-hour maintenance plan for the
area. Therefore, all Part D submittal
requirements have been fulfilled.
Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for
the purposes of redesignation of the
Franklin County Area, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements. As
indicated previously, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected
with Part D nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. EPA also believes that no
8-hour Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation have yet
become due for the Franklin County
Area, and therefore they need not be
approved into the SIP prior to
redesignation.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Franklin County Area Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth
has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Franklin
County Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions
attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.
TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Year
Point
Area
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Year 2002 ................................................................................................
Year 2004 ................................................................................................
0.7
0.8
7.8
7.8
2.6
2.6
9.7
8.6
20.8
19.8
Difference (02–04) ...................................................................................
¥0.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.0
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Year 2002 ................................................................................................
Year 2004 ................................................................................................
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
4.2
4.0
18.3
16.5
23.6
21.8
Difference (02–04) ...................................................................................
¥0.2
0.0
0.2
1.8
1.8
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions were reduced by 1.1 tpd, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 1.8 tpd,
due to the following permanent and
enforceable measures implemented or in
the process of being implemented in the
Franklin County Area:
National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28,
1999).
Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (70
FR 58313, October 6, 2005).
1. Stationary Point Sources
Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69
FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions are the
cause of the long-term improvement in
ozone levels and are the cause of the
area achieving attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
Interstate Pollution Transport
Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21,
2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January
16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR
70893, December 8, 2004).
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs (FMVCP).
—Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
—Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000).
Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles
Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
4. Nonroad Sources
D. The Franklin County Area Has a
Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Franklin County Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision
to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Franklin County
Area for at least 10 years after
redesignation. Pennsylvania is
requesting that EPA approve this SIP
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
revision as meeting the requirement of
section 175A of the CAA. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that
the SIP for the Franklin County Area
meets the requirements of the CAA
regarding maintenance of the applicable
8-hour ozone standard.
1. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after approval of a redesignation of
an area to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the State must submit
a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the next
10-year period following the initial 10year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
29923
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memorandum dated September
4, 1992, provides additional guidance
on the content of a maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should
address the following provisions:
(1) An attainment emissions
inventory;
(2) A maintenance demonstration;
(3) A monitoring network;
(4) Verification of continued
attainment; and
(5) A contingency plan.
2. Analysis of the Franklin County Area
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. An attainment year
of 2004 was used for the Franklin
County Area since it is a reasonable year
within the 3-year block of 2002–2004
and accounts for reductions attributable
to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.
PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC
and NOX emissions inventories for the
Franklin County Area, including point,
area, mobile on-road, and mobile nonroad sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NOX and VOC base
year emissions inventories, PADEP used
the following approaches and sources of
data:
(i) Point source emissions—
Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit
annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data
are multiplied by emission factors from
Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data
System and EPA’s publication series
AP–42 and are based on Source
Classification Code (SCC). Each process
has at least one SCC assigned to it. If the
owners and operators of facilities
provide more accurate emission data
based upon other factors, these emission
estimates supersede those calculated
using SCC codes.
(ii) Area source emissions—Area
source emissions are generally
estimated by multiplying an emission
factor by some known indicator or
collective activity for each area source
category at the county level.
Pennsylvania estimates emissions from
area sources using emission factors and
SCC codes in a method similar to that
used for stationary point sources.
Emission factors may also be derived
from research and guidance documents
if those documents are more accurate
than FIRE and AP–42 factors.
Throughput estimates are derived from
county-level activity data, by
apportioning national and statewide
activity data to counties, from census
numbers, and from county employee
numbers. County employee numbers are
based upon North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes to
establish that those numbers are specific
to the industry covered.
(iii) On-road mobile sources—PADEP
employs an emissions estimation
methodology that uses current EPAapproved highway vehicle emission
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. The
Franklin County Area highway vehicle
emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of
vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by
vehicle type and roadway type.
(iv) Mobile nonroad emissions—The
2002 emissions for the majority of
nonroad emission source categories
were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model estimates emissions
for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from
aircraft or locomotives. For 2002
locomotive emissions, PADEP projected
emissions from a 1999 survey using
national fuel information and EPA
emission and conversion factors. There
are no commercial aircraft operations in
the Franklin County Area. For 2002
aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated
emissions using small aircraft operation
statistics from https://www.airnav.com,
and emission factors and operational
characteristics in the EPA-approved
model, Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS).
The 2004 attainment year VOC and
NOX emissions for the Franklin County
Area are summarized along with the
2009 and 2018 projected emissions for
this area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover
the demonstration of maintenance for
this area. EPA has concluded that
Pennsylvania has adequately derived
and documented the 2004 attainment
year VOC and NOX emissions for this
area.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
December 14, 2006, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision to supplement its December
14, 2006, redesignation request. The
submittal by PADEP consists of the
maintenance plan as required by section
175A of the CAA. The Franklin County
Area plan shows maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating
that current and future emissions of
VOC and NOX remain at or below the
attainment year 2004 emissions levels
throughout the Franklin County Area
through the year 2018. The Franklin
County Area maintenance
demonstration need not be based on
modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra;
Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also, 66
FR at 53099–53100; 68 FR at 25430–32.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and
NOX emissions for the Franklin County
Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP
chose 2009 as an interim year in the 10year maintenance demonstration period
to demonstrate that the VOC and NOX
emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during
the time of the 10-year maintenance
period.
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD)
2004 VOC
Emissions
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Source category
2009 VOC
Emissions
2018 VOC
Emissions
Mobile* .....................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................
Point .........................................................................................................................................................
8.6
2.6
7.8
0.8
7.3
2.2
7.8
0.6
5.1
1.8
8.0
0.8
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
19.8
17.9
15.7
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
29924
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS 2004–2018 (TPD)
2004 NOX
Emissions
Source category
2009 NOX
Emissions
2018 NOX
Emissions
Mobile* .....................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................
Point .........................................................................................................................................................
16.5
4.0
0.7
0.6
12.7
3.4
0.7
0.3
6.7
2.2
0.8
0.3
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
21.8
17.0
9.9
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
The following are permanent and
enforceable control measures to ensure
emissions during the maintenance
period are equal to or less than the
emissions in the attainment year:
1. Pennsylvania’s Portable Fuel
Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR
70893);
2. Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products
( December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895); and
3. Pennsylvania’s Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
(November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080).
Additionally, the following mobile
programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further
contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS:
1. FMVCP for passenger vehicles and
light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline
(2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 and Tier
2;
2. NLEV Program, which includes the
Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program
for passenger vehicles and light-duty
trucks (69 FR 72564, December 28,
1999);
3. Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/
2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006) (66
FR 5002, January 18, 2001); and
4. Non-road emissions standards
(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/
2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
In addition to the permanent and
enforceable measures, the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) should
have positive impacts on Pennsylvania’s
air quality. CAIR, which will be
implemented in the eastern portion of
the country in two phases (2009 and
2015) should reduce long range
transport of ozone precursors, which
will have a beneficial effect on the air
quality in the Franklin County Area.
Pennsylvania and other nearby states
are required to adopt a regulation
implementing the requirements of CAIR
or an equivalent program. On April 28,
2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to
reduce the interstate transport of NOX
and sulfur dioxides that contribute
significantly to nonattainment and
maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
NAAQS. Because Pennsylvania will not
adopt its own CAIR requirements and
obtain approval of the required SIP
revision by September 2006, the FIP
will become operative, imposing the
Federal program upon CAIR-affected
electric generating units in
Pennsylvania. Therefore, allowances for
CAIR-related sources will be limited to
no more than the allowances issued
pursuant to the FIP. The Franklin
County Area has no sources that are
directly regulated by CAIR, and
therefore is not showing an emission
reduction from this regulation.
However, the quality of air transported
from upwind sources into the county
would be improved.
Based upon the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional
measures, EPA concludes that PADEP
has successfully demonstrated that the
8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained in the Franklin County
Area.
(c) Monitoring Network—There is
currently one monitor measuring ozone
in the Franklin County Area.
Pennsylvania will continue to operate
its current air quality monitor in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—The Commonwealth will
track the attainment status of the ozone
NAAQS in the Franklin County Area by
reviewing air quality and emissions
during the maintenance period. The
Commonwealth will perform an annual
evaluation of two key factors, VMT data
and emissions reported from stationary
sources, and compare them to the
assumptions about these factors used in
the maintenance plan. The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the
periodic (every three years) emission
inventories prepared under EPA’s
Consolidated Emission Reporting
Regulation (40 CFR 51 Subpart A) to see
if the area exceed the attainment year
inventory (2004) by more than 10
percent. Based on these evaluations, the
Commonwealth will consider whether
any further emission control measures
should be implemented.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(e) The Maintenance Plan’s
Contingency Measures—The
contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
State will promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of the Franklin County
Area to stay in compliance with the 8hour ozone standard after redesignation
depends upon VOC and NOX emissions
in the area remaining at or below 2004
levels. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and
NOX emissions to decrease and stay
below 2004 levels through the year
2018. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan outlines the
procedures for the adoption and
implementation of contingency
measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur.
Contingency measures will be
considered if for two consecutive years
the fourth highest eight-hour ozone
concentrations at the Franklin County
Area monitor are above 84 ppb. If this
trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth
will evaluate whether additional local
emission control measures should be
implemented in order to prevent a
violation of the air quality standard.
PADEP will analyze the conditions
leading to the excessive ozone levels
and evaluate what measures might be
most effective in correcting the
excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of
Federal, state and local measure that
have been adopted but no yet
implemented at the time of excessive
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then
begin the process of implementing any
selected measures.
Contingency measures will be
considered in the event that a violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at
the Franklin County, Pennsylvania
monitor. In the event of a violation of
the 8-hour ozone standard, contingency
measures will be adopted in order to
return the area to attainment with the
standard. Contingency measures to be
considered for the Franklin County Area
will include, but not limited to the
following:
Regulatory measures:
—Additional controls on consumer
products
—Additional control on portable fuel
containers
Non-regulatory measures:
—Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip
reflash’’—installation software to
correct the defeat device option on
certain heavy duty diesel engines.
—Diesel retrofit, including replacement,
repowering or alternative fuel use, for
public or private local onroad or
offroad fleets.
—Idling reduction technology for Class
2 yard locomotives.
—Idling reduction technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses
and other freight-handling facilities.
—Accelerated turnover of lawn and
garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including
promotion of electric equipment.
—Additional promotion of alternative
fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating
and agricultural use.
The following schedule applies to the
implementation of the regulatory
contingency measures:
—Within 1 month of the trigger, submit
request to begin regulatory
development process.
—Within 3 months of the trigger, review
of regulation by Air Quality Technical
Advisory Committee (AQTAC),
Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) and
other advisory committees as
appropriate.
—Within 6 months of the trigger,
Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
meeting/action.
—Within 8 months of the trigger,
publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
for comment as proposed rulemaking.
—Within 10 months of the trigger,
public hearing takes place and
comment period on proposed rule
closes.
—Within 11 months of the trigger,
House and Senate Standing
Committees and Independent
Regulatory Review Commission
(IRRC) comment on proposed rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
—Within 13 months of the trigger,
AQTAC, CAC and other committees
review responses to comments and
draft final rulemaking.
—Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB
meeting/action.
—Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC
action on rulemaking.
—Within 18 months of the trigger,
Attorney General’s review/action.
—Within 19 months of the trigger,
publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and
submit to EPA as a SIP revision. The
regulation would become effective
upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.
The following schedule applies to the
implementation of non-regulatory
contingency measures:
—Within 2 months of the trigger:
Identify stakeholders for potential
non-regulatory measures.
—Within 3 months of the trigger, if
funding is necessary, identify
potential sources of funding and the
timeframe under which funds would
be available. In addition to non-Title
V Clean Air funds, the following
program may be able to provide
funding: For transportation projects,
the Federal Highway Administration,
as allocated to the Northern Tier Rural
Planning Organization; for projects
which will also have an energy
efficient co-benefit, the Pennsylvania
Energy Harvest program; for projects
which would be under taken by small
business and are pollution prevention
projects, the Small Business
Advantage Grant and Small Business
Pollution Prevention Loan programs;
for projects which will involve
alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling
operations, the Alternative Fuel
Incentive Grant program; for projects
involving diesel emissions, Federal
Energy Policy Act diesel reduction
funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for
which Pennsylvania or project
sponsors may apply under a
competitive process.
—Within 9 months of the trigger, enter
into agreements with implementing
organizations if state loans or grants
are involved. Quantify projected
emission benefits.
—Within 12months of the trigger,
submit a revised SIP to EPA.
—Within 12–24 months of the trigger,
implement strategies and projects.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29925
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the Maintenance Plan for the Franklin
County Area Adequate and
Approvable?
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e.
RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify
and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile
sources. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and
51.112, MVEBs must be established in
an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is
the portion of the total allowable
emissions that is allocated to highway
and transit vehicle use and emissions. A
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish and revise the MVEBs in
control strategy SIPs and maintenance
plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB budget
contained therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by State and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are set out in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4).
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
29926
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
Public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
The MVEBs for the Franklin County
Area are listed in Table 1 of this
document for the 2009, and 2018 years
and are the projected emissions for the
on-road mobile sources plus any portion
of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs. These emission budgets, when
approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity
determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2018
safety margin: The Franklin County
Area first attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time
period. The Commonwealth used 2004
as the year to determine attainment
levels of emissions for the Franklin
County Area.
The total emissions from point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources in 2004 equaled 19.8 tpd of
VOC and 21.8 tpd of NOX. PADEP
projected emissions out to the year 2018
and projected a total of 15.7 tpd of VOC
and 9.9 tpd of NOX from all sources in
the Franklin County Area. The safety
margin for Franklin for 2018 would be
the difference between these amounts.
This difference is 4.1 tpd of VOC and
11.9 tpd of NOX. The emissions up to
the level of the attainment year
including the safety margins are
projected to maintain the area’s air
quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the
attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long
as the total emission levels are
maintained at or below the attainment
levels. Table 6 shows the safety margins
for the 2009 and 2018 years.
TABLE 6.— 2009 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AREA
VOC Emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2004
2009
2009
2004
2018
2018
Attainment ...............................................................................................................................................
Interim .....................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .........................................................................................................................................
Attainment ...............................................................................................................................................
Final ........................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .........................................................................................................................................
2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs the
PADEP allocated 1.0 tpd of VOC and 0.7
tpd of NOX from the 2018 safety margins
to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once
allocated to the mobile source budgets
these portions of the safety margins are
PADEP allocated 0.7 tpd of VOC and
0.4 tpd of NOX emissions to the 2009
VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection and the 2009 NOX
projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection to arrive at the
NOX Emissions
(tpd)
19.8
17.9
1.9
19.8
15.7
4.1
21.8
17.0
4.8
21.8
9.9
11.9
no longer available, and may no longer
be allocated to any other source
category. Table 7 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for the Franklin
County Area.
TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AREA IN TONS PER DAY ROUNDED UP TO
NEAREST 0.1 TONS PER DAY
VOC Emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2009
2009
2009
2018
2018
2018
projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ..........................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................
MVEBs ....................................................................................................................................................
projected on-road mobile source projected emissions ..........................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................
MVEBs ....................................................................................................................................................
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the
Franklin County Area are approvable
because the MVEBs for NOX and VOC,
including the allocated safety margins,
continue to maintain the total emissions
at or below the attainment year
inventory levels as required by the
transportation conformity regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for the MVEBs in the Franklin
County Area Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the Franklin County
Area maintenance plan are being posted
to EPA’s conformity Web site
concurrent with this proposal. The
public comment period will end at the
same time as the public comment period
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6.6
0.7
7.3
4.1
1.0
5.1
NOX Emissions
(tpd)
12.3
0.4
12.7
6.0
0.7
6.7
for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA
is concurrently processing the action on
the maintenance plan and the adequacy
process for the MVEBs contained
therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate
and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan.
The MVEBs cannot be used for
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan update and associated
MVEBs are approved in a final Federal
Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds
the budgets adequate in a separate
action following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written
comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Franklin County Area
MVEBs, or any other aspect of our
proposed approval of this updated
maintenance plan, we will respond to
the comments on the MVEBs in our
final action or proceed with the
adequacy process as a separate action.
Our action on the Franklin County Area
MVEBs will also be announced on
EPA’s conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there,
click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then
look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions for Conformity’’).
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Franklin County Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the
Commonwealth’s December 14, 2006,
request for the Franklin County Area to
be designated to attainment of the 8hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request and determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that the
area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the
designation of the Franklin County Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan and the 2002 base
year inventory for the Franklin County
Area, submitted on December 14, 2006,
as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA is proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for the Franklin
County Area because it meets the
requirements of section 175A as
described previously in this notice. EPA
is also proposing to approve the MVEBs
submitted by Pennsylvania for the
Franklin County Area in conjunction
with its redesignation request. EPA is
also proposing to issue a determination
pursuant to section 181(b)(2) that the
area has attained the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS and to find that the
requirements of section 172(c)(1)
concerning the submission of the ozone
attainment demonstration and
reasonably available control measure
requirements, the requirements of
section 172(c)(2) concerning reasonable
further progress (RFP), and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
requirements of section 172(c)(9)
concerning contingency measures for
RFP or attainment do not apply to the
area for so long as it continues to attain
the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of
the Clean Air Act does not impose any
new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on sources. Redesignation
of an area to attainment under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does
not impose any new requirements on
small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new regulatory requirements on
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
it have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29927
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to affect the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any
new requirements on sources, or allow
the state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission;
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Franklin County
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and
the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
29928
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–10351 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter 1
[WT Docket No. 99–217; CC Docket No. 96–
98; DA 07–1485]
Parties Asked To Refresh Record
Regarding Promotion of Competitive
Networks in Local
Telecommunications Markets
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document invites
interested parties to update the record
pertaining to issues raised in the
Commission’s Competitive Networks
proceeding in light of marketplace and
industry developments.
DATES: Comments due on or before July
30, 2007, reply comments due on or
before August 28, 2007.
ADDRESSES: All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch , Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, Room
5–A266, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. Comments may be
submitted, identified by WT Docket No.
99–217 and CC Docket No. 96–98, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS): https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
• E-mail: To jeremy.miller@fcc.gov.
Include WT Docket No. 99–217 and CC
Docket No. 96–98 in the subject line of
the message.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Fax: To the attention of Jeremy
Miller at 202–418–1413. Include WT
Docket No. 99–217 and CC Docket No.
96–98 on the cover page.
• Mail: Parties should send a copy of
their filings to Jeremy Miller,
Competition Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 5–
B145, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554.
• Public inspection, purchase, or
download: The full text of the document
summarized here is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Portals II, 225 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20504.
The complete text of this document also
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, and may also be downloaded at:
https://www.fcc.gov.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Comment Filing Procedures’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremy Miller, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Competition Policy Division,
(202) 418–1580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document in WT Docket No. 99–217
and CC Docket No. 96–98, DA No. 07–
1485, released March 28, 2007. The full
text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The complete text of this document also
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be
downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov. By
this document, the Commission
establishes comment and reply
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comment filing dates for receiving
updated comments and refreshing the
record on a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking addressing the status of the
market for the provision of
telecommunications services in
Multiple Tenant Environments (MTEs),
and on whether the prohibition on
exclusive access contracts in
commercial MTEs should be extended
to residential MTEs. The filing dates
established replace filing dates
previously established in the
Competitive Networks Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, DA 01–750, 66
FR 2322, January 11, 2001, released by
the Commission on October 25, 2000.
The proceeding for which the
Commission seeks to refresh the record
is intended to enable the Commission to
undertake appropriate review of the
status of the deployment of competitive
and advanced telecommunications
services in MTEs, and to determine
whether additional action is necessary
to address the ability of premises
owners to discriminate unreasonably
among competing telecommunications
service providers.
Interested parties may file comments
on or before July 30, 2007 and reply
comments on or before August 28, 2007.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies. Comments filed through the
ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
via the Internet to https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of
an electronic submission must be filed.
If multiple docket or rulemaking
numbers appear in the caption of the
proceeding, commenters must transmit
one electronic copy of the comments to
each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing
the transmittal screen, commenters
should include their full name, U.S.
Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking
number, in this case, WT Docket No.
99–217 and CC Docket No. 96–98.
Parties may also submit an electronic
comment by Internet e-mail. To get
filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to
ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each
filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the
caption of this proceeding, commenters
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 30, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29914-29928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10351]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174; FRL-8320-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Determination, Redesignation of the Franklin
County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the
Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Franklin County ozone
nonattainment area (Franklin County Area) be redesignated as attainment
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA
is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for Franklin
County Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Franklin
County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to
make a determination that the Franklin County Area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed
approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its
determination that the Franklin County Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In
addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Franklin
County Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is
also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination
for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in
the Franklin County Area maintenance plan for purposes of
transportation conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA
is proposing approval of the redesignation request, and the maintenance
plan and the 2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with
the requirements of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to issue a
determination that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and to
find that the requirements of section 172(c)(1) concerning the
submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and reasonably
available control measure requirements, the requirements of section
172(c)(2) concerning reasonable further progress (RFP), and the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for
RFP or attainment do not apply to the area for so long as it continues
to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0174 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
[[Page 29915]]
B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0174. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or
by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Franklin County Area
Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
On December 14, 2006, PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to attainment
of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on December 14, 2006,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area as a
SIP revision to ensure continued attainment for at least 10 years after
redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory as a SIP
revision on December 14, 2006. The Franklin County Area is currently
designated as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Franklin County Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation
pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore,
proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the
designation of the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
the Franklin County Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision, such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status. The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment
in the Franklin County Area for the next ten years. EPA is also
proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the Franklin
County Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its
action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Franklin
County Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is also
proposing to issue a determination that the area has attained the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, and to find that the requirements of section
172(c)(1) concerning the submission of the ozone attainment
demonstration and reasonably available control measure requirements,
the requirements of section 172(c)(2) concerning reasonable further
progress (RFP), and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning
contingency measures for RFP or attainment do not apply to the area for
so long as it continues to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Franklin County Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
status in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of
the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Franklin County Area (as well as
most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August
3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour
[[Page 29916]]
Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (hereafter
``South Coast.''). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's
Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to
be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act,
on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity requirements for certain types of
federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour
standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The Franklin
County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA,'' EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast
is not an impediment to redesignating the Franklin County Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of
subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2.
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, Franklin County Area
was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air
quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore, is subject to
the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 indicates that the
Franklin County Area has a design value of 0.075 ppm. Therefore, the
ambient ozone data for the Franklin County Area indicates no violations
of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Franklin County Area
The Franklin County Area consists solely of Franklin County,
Pennsylvania and was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
status in an April 30, 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 23857). Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour basic ozone nonattainment area, the Franklin
County Area was designated an incomplete data nonattainment area for
the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6, 1991.
On December 14, 2006, PADEP requested that the Franklin County Area
be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Franklin County Area. The data satisfies
the CAA requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly
referred to as the area's design value) is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-
assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'',
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
[[Page 29917]]
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On December 14, 2006, PADEP requested redesignation of the Franklin
County Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On December
14, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area as
a SIP revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Franklin County Area has
attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation
of the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate
into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year inventory and a maintenance
plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Franklin County Area for the next 10 years. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-
hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for transportation conformity purposes for the
years 2004, 2009 and 2018. These motor vehicle emissions (2004) and
MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day--Rounded
Upward to One Decimal Place
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................... 12.7 7.3
2018.................................................... 6.7 5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that Franklin County Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and the 1-hour standard if that
standard is reinstated and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's December 14,
2006, submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.
A. The Franklin County Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Franklin County Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the
design value, which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor
within the area over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).
The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating
attainment.
In the Franklin County Area, there is one monitor that measures air
quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request,
Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005
(the most recent three years of data available as of the time of the
redesignation request) for the Franklin County Area. This data has been
quality assured and is recorded in AQS. PADEP uses the AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data
transfers and content for accuracy. The fourth-high 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average, are
summarized in Table 2A.
Table 2A.--Franklin County Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour
Average Values; Franklin County Monitor, AQS ID 42-055-0001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
High
Year Reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................... 0.080
2004....................................................... 0.071
2005....................................................... 0.074
2006....................................................... 0.066
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.075 ppm.
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.070 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Franklin County
Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.075 ppm. The
data collected at the Franklin County Area monitor satisfies the CAA
requirement that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid that after review
of the available 2006 data because the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration was 0.066 ppm which equates to a
design value 0.070 ppm for the period 2004-2006. PADEP's request for
redesignation for the Franklin County Area indicates that the data was
quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and
taken from AQS indicates that Franklin County Area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
Based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 1996-1998, EPA
believes that the Franklin County Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and continued to attain the 1-hour NAAQS to present. For the 1-hour
ozone standard, an area may be considered to
[[Page 29918]]
be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H of part 50,
based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data. Compliance is determined on a
monitor-by-monitor basis within the area. To demonstrate attainment,
i.e., compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number
of expected exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a 3-year period
must be less than or equal to 1. (To account for missing data,
adjustment of the actual number of monitored exceedances of the
standard yields the annual expected number of exceedances at an air
quality monitoring site.) Table 2B provides a summary of the number of
expected exceedances for each of the years 1996 through 2006.
Table 2B.--Franklin County Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-
Hour Ozone Standard; Franklin County Monitor, AQS ID 42-117-4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Year expected
exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996....................................................... 0.0
1997....................................................... 0.0
1998....................................................... 0.0
1999....................................................... 0.0
2000....................................................... 0.0
2001....................................................... 0.0
2002....................................................... 0.0
2003....................................................... 0.0
2004....................................................... 0.0
2005....................................................... 0.0
2006....................................................... 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average number of expected exceedances for any three-year period to
date is 0.0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicates that Franklin County Area is
maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to issue a determination that the Franklin
County Area has attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. This proposed
determination is based upon the 1996 through 2006 air quality data.
While section 181(b)(2)(A) specifies that EPA is to make the
statutorily required determinations of attainment using the 1-hour
ozone ``design value,'' EPA ``has interpreted this provision generally
to refer to EPA's methodology for determining attainment status.'' See
60 FR 3349 at 3350, January 17, 1995. As noted previously, EPA
determines the attainment status under the 1-hour ozone standard on the
basis of the annual average number of expected exceedances.
B. The Franklin County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has determined that the Franklin County Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations,
EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area, and
determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these
requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We
note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable
requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of
the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's
[[Page 29919]]
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do
not believe that these requirements should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The Franklin County Area will still be subject to
these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings, (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816,
May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR
20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its
Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the
NOX SIP Call rules are not ``an 'applicable requirement' for
purposes of section 110(l) because the NOX rules apply
regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-
hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2),
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the
Franklin County Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the
8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all
nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part
D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's
nonattainment classification. With respect to the 8-hour standard, the
court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under
Subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the
Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a
remand to EPA, be reclassified under Subpart 2. Although any future
decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger
additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this
does not mean that redesignation of the area cannot now go forward.
This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance with the requirements due at the
time the request is submitted; and, (2) consideration of the inequity
of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be
applied.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Franklin County Area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated
to meet Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation; 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here
it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes
of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
With respect to subpart 2 requirements, if the Franklin County Area
initially had been classified under subpart 2 the first two part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Franklin County Area under
section 182(a) of the CAA would be: A base-year inventory requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, the emissions statement
requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.
As we have stated previously in this document, these requirements
are not yet due for purpose of redesignation of the Franklin County
Area, but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all
portions of the designated 8-hour nonattainment area, and that
satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard.
See 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881,
January 12, 1995. With respect to the base year inventory requirement,
in this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the
2002 base-year inventory for the Franklin County Area, which was
submitted on December 14, 2006, concurrently with its maintenance plan,
into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base
year inventory as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both
section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A detailed
evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base-year inventory for the Franklin
County Area can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared
by EPA for this rulemaking.
[[Page 29920]]
EPA has determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement
requirements for the Franklin County Area have been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior
to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d)
since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and
Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995).
In the case of the Franklin County Area, EPA has also determined
that before being redesignated, the Franklin County Area need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation. EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need
not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position
is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR
Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.''
Normally, State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
will become effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to
attainment. See the more detailed explanations in the following
redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7,
1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand
Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of
the Franklin County Area, the Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the
Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply
the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment
areas within the OTR. The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than
that required for a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. On October
19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP
revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR
regulations that cover the Franklin County Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. The rational for this is based on two factors. First,
the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control
measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Franklin
County Area by virtue of the area's designation and classification.
Rather, section 184 measures are required in the Franklin County Area
because it is located in the OTR. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October
10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Franklin County Area was designated an incomplete data nonattainment
area for the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6,
1991.
In its December 22, 2006 decision in South Coast, the Court
addressed EPA's revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The current
status of the revocation and associated anti-backsliding rules is
dependent on whether the Court's decision stands as originally issued
or is modified in response to any petition for rehearing or request for
clarification that has been filed. As described more fully below, EPA
believes that the area has attained the 1-hour standard and has met all
of the requirements applicable for redesignation under the 1-hour
standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be
reinstated and those requirements are viewed as applying under the
statute itself. Thus, the Court's decision, as it currently stands,
imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the area
to attainment. Further, even if the Court's decision were modified
based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, such that
the ultimate decision requires something less than compliance with all
applicable 1-hour requirements, because the area meets all such
requirements, as explained below, it would certainly meet any lesser
requirements and thus redesignation could proceed.
The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the
redesignation request for the Franklin County Area because there are no
conformity requirements that are relevant to redesignation request for
any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation
conformity SIP.\1\ As we have previously stated in this document, EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements
as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request
under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state
rules have not been approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity.
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to other requirements under the 1-hour standard, in
our April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 at 13524-13527)
EPA concluded that the Clean Air Act provides no specific guidance
concerning applicable requirements for certain unclassifiable
nonattainment areas including incomplete data areas. We observed that
subpart 1 contains general SIP planning requirements, and, we concluded
that subpart 2 is not applicable to incomplete data areas.
Under the approach laid out in our April 16, 1992 General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (57 FR 13498 at 13524-13527) EPA concluded that because incomplete
areas are designated nonattainment some aspects of Subpart 1
necessarily apply. See 57 FR 13498 at 13525 (April 16, 1992). With
regard to RACT/Reasonably available control measures (RACM),
[[Page 29921]]
EPA's position is that requiring all RACT corrections for incomplete
data areas is unreasonable, but we required that incomplete data areas
must correct any RACT deficiencies regarding enforceability of existing
rules in order to be redesignated to attainment. Id. at 13525. With
regard to the emission inventory requirement, EPA believes that because
an emissions inventory is specifically required under section 172(c)(3)
and is not tied to an area's proximity to attainment an incomplete data
area was required to develop such an inventory even if only to develop
an approvable maintenance plan under section 175A. Id. at 13525.
Furthermore, with respect to the attainment demonstration and RACM,
RFP, and contingency measure requirements of part D, under EPA's Clean
Data Policy, as embodied in 40 CFR 51.918, upon a finding that the area
is attaining the standard, requirements for SIP submissions linked to
attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP) and
contingency measures are suspended for so long as the area is attaining
the standard. EPA described its interpretation in a May 10, 1995
memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' See also, the
discussion and rulemakings cited in EPA's Final Rule to Implement the
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Phase 2, 70 FR 71612, 71644-71646 (November 29,
2005). The Tenth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have upheld EPA
rulemakings applying the Clean Data Policy. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004) and Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th
Cir. June 28, 2005) memorandum opinion.
We are proposing to find that the Franklin County Area has met the
1-hour ozone standard, and thus the requirements of section 172(c)(1)
concerning the submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and
reasonably available control measure requirements, the requirements of
section 172(c)(2) concerning RFP, and section 172(c)(9) contingency
measures under the 1-hour standard are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note, however, that the maintenance plan contains
contingency measures required under section 175A of the Clean Air
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, while this proposal is pending, the 1-hour ozone standard is
reinstated and a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is monitored
(consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and
recorded in AQS) in this nonattainment area the EPA would not issue a
final determination of attainment for the affected area. If the area
remains in attainment and EPA issues a final determination of
attainment, a subsequent monitored violation prior to redesignation to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would also mean that the area
would thereafter have to address the requirements of sections
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2) and 172(c)(9), since the basis for the
determination that they do not apply would no longer exist. This
proposal does not revoke the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone in the Franklin
County Area.
With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved New Source Review program for
the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the applicable
part D requirements for the 8-hour standard.
Therefore, the only 1-hour Part D elements currently applicable to
the Franklin County Area by virtue of its designation and
classification as an incomplete data nonattainment area under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS were the corrections of any RACT deficiencies
regarding enforceability of existing rules in order to be redesignated
to attainment, and the emission inventory requirement. On December 22,
1994, EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections
required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December
22, 1994). EPA believes that this requirement applies only to
incomplete data and subpart 2 areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to
the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time
requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-
hour NAAQS.
Section 173(c)(3) provided for the submission of a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as
described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by
the Administrator. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a
2002 base year emissions inventory for the Franklin County Area as
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) as well as section
182(a)(1). While EPA generally required that the base year inventory
for the 1-hour standard be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes that
Pennsylvania's 2002 inventory fulfills this requirement because it
meets EPA's guidance and because it is more current than 1990. EPA also
proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be
reinstated, the 2002 base year inventory for the 8-hour standard will
provide an acceptable substitute for the base year inventory for the 1-
hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The
section 184 requirements include (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle
inspection and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable
measure.
In the case of the Franklin County Area, which is located in the
OTR, nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation. As
discussed previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP
revision which applies the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the
CAA to attainment areas within the OTR.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
See 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997
(Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation). The rationale for this is based
on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions
for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR
after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, and I/M even after
redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the area by virtue of the area's
nonattainment designation and classification, and thus are properly
considered not relevant to an action changing an area's designation.
See 61 FR 53174 at 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at
24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. The Franklin County Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes
of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d
[[Page 29922]]
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein. The Franklin County Area was a 1-hour
incomplete data area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the
Franklin County Area was a 1-hour incomplete data area, the only
previous part D SIP submittal requirement was the RACT corrections due
under section 182(a)(2)(A) and the comprehensive emissions inventory
due under section 172(c)(3) for the 1-hour standard. The RACT
corrections are fully approved (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994), and,
EPA is proposing to approve a comprehensive inventory for the area in
this notice of proposed rulemaking. No other Part D submittal
requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour
maintenance plan for the area. Therefore, all Part D submittal
requirements have been fulfilled. Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of
the Franklin County Area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies
all pertinent SIP requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes
that the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment
plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are
not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also
believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation have yet become due for the Franklin County Area, and
therefore they need not be approved into the SIP prior to
redesignation.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Franklin County Area Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvement in the Franklin County Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002...................................... 0.7 7.8 2.6 9.7 20.8
Year 2004...................................... 0.8 7.8 2.6 8.6 19.8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference (02-04)............................. -0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002...................................... 0.4 0.7 4.2 18.3 23.6
Year 2004...................................... 0.6 0.7 4.0 16.5 21.8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference (02-04)............................. -0.2 0.0 0.2 1.8 1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 1.1 tpd, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 1.8 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures implemented or in the process of
being implemented in the Franklin County Area:
1. Stationary Point Sources
Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21,
2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP).
--Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
--Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28,
1999).
Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005).
4. Nonroad Sources
Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
D. The Franklin County Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Franklin County
Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted a
SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the Franklin County Area for at least 10 years after redesignation.
Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as
meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP
for the Franklin County Area meets the requirements of the CAA
regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the
next 10-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain such
[[Page 29923]]
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
(1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) A maintenance demonstration;
(3) A monitoring network;
(4) Verification of continued attainment; and
(5) A contingency plan.
2. Analysis of the Franklin County Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
show
