Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory, 30521-30534 [E7-10585]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
the redesignation of the Cambria 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 oxides,
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 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–10584 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0323; FRL–8321–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle 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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle ozone
nonattainment area (‘‘Harrisburg Area’’
or ‘‘Area’’) be redesignated as
attainment for the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
The Area is comprised of the counties
of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and
Perry. EPA is proposing to approve the
ozone redesignation request for the
Harrisburg Area. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, the
Commonwealth submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for the Harrisburg Area that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 Harrisburg Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for
2003–2005. EPA’s proposed approval of
the 8-hour ozone redesignation request
is based on its determination that the
Harrisburg Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has
also submitted a 2002 base-year
inventory for the Harrisburg Area, and
EPA is proposing to approve that
inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a
SIP revision. EPA is also providing
information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that
are identified in the maintenance plan
for the Harrisburg Area for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is also
proposing to approve those MVEBs.
EPA is proposing approval of the
redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year
inventory SIP revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2007–0323 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0323,
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–
0323. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30521
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
https://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 https://
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
Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034, or by
e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to
Take?
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation
to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30522
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg
Area Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is
Proposing to Take?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Harrisburg Area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 8hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently,
Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance
plan for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP
revision to ensure continued attainment
in the Area over the next 11 years.
PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year
inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a
SIP revision. The Harrisburg Area is
comprised of the counties of
Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and
Perry, and is currently designated a
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
EPA is proposing to determine that the
Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the Harrisburg
Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision
for the Area (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in the Harrisburg Area for
the next 11 years. EPA is also proposing
to approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP
revision. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy
process for the MVEBs identified in the
Harrisburg Area maintenance plan, and
proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for the Harrisburg Area for
transportation conformity purposes.
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour standard. EPA
designated, as nonattainment, any area
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the air quality data for the
three years of 2001–2003. These were
the most recent three years of data at the
time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Harrisburg Area was designated a basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment area, in a
Federal Register notice signed on April
15, 2004 and published on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its
exceedance of the 8-hour health-based
standard for ozone during the years
2001–2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final
rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Harrisburg
Area (as well as in most other areas of
the country) effective June 15, 2005.
See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996
(April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August
3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). See, 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 CAA. 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 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 Harrisburg 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in South Coast is not an impediment to
redesignating the Harrisburg 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.
In 2004, the Harrisburg Area was
classified a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based upon air
quality monitoring data from 2001–
2003. Therefore, the Harrisburg Area 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
indicates that the Harrisburg Area has a
design value of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year
period of 2003–2005, using complete,
quality-assured data. Additionally,
certified 2006 ozone monitoring data
indicates that the Harrisburg Area
continues to attain the ozone NAAQS.
Therefore the ambient ozone data for the
Harrisburg Area indicates no violations
of the 8-hour ozone standard.
The Harrisburg Area
The Harrisburg Area consists of the
counties of Cumberland, Dauphin,
Lebanon, and Perry, Pennsylvania. Prior
to its designation as an 8-hour basic
ozone nonattainment area (69 FR 23857,
April 30, 2004), the Harrisburg Area was
a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment
Area, and therefore, was subject to
requirements for marginal
nonattainment areas pursuant to section
182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). EPA determined
that the Harrisburg Area has attained the
1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349,
January 17, 1995).
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
requested that the Harrisburg Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. The redesignation
requested included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the
period of 2003–2005, indicating that the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been
achieved in the Harrisburg Area. The
data satisfies the CAA requirements that
the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration (commonly
referred to as the area’s design value),
must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm
(i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is
considered). Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated
if sufficient complete, quality-assured
data is available to determine that the
area has attained the standard and the
area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements set forth in section
107(d)(e)(E).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for
redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990;
• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
• ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, October
28, 1992;
• ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November
30, 1993;
• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30523
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
requested redesignation of the
Harrisburg Area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. On March 27,
2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance
plan for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP
revision, to ensure continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the
next 11 years until 2018. PADEP also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory
concurrently with its maintenance plan
as a SIP revision. EPA has determined
that the Harrisburg Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the Harrisburg 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 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Harrisburg
Area for the next 11 years, until 2018.
The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy any
future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS
(should they occur), and identifies the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes for the years 2009
and 2018. These MVEBs (including
safety margins) are displayed in Table 1
below. Note that separate conformity
budgets are being established for each
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO). The transportation conformity
regulations (40 CFR 93.124(d)) allow a
SIP to establish MVEBs for each MPO if
a nonattainment area includes more
than one MPO, which is the case in the
Harrisburg Area. The responsible agency
for the counties of Cumberland,
Dauphin, and Perry is the Harrisburg
Area Transportation Study (HATS), and
the responsible agency for the county of
Lebanon is LEBCO (Lebanon County
MPO), both designated Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) under
Federal transportation planning
requirements. The Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation
(PENNDOT) has requested separate
budgets to allow the planning
organizations to move their
transportation conformity
determinations through the approval
process separately.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30524
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY (TONS PER DAY—ROUNDED)
Year
VOC
NOX
Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS)—Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry Counties
2009 .....................................................................................................................................................................
2018 .....................................................................................................................................................................
23,014 (25.4)
16,136 (17.8)
41,917 (46.2)
18,409 (20.3)
4,301 (4.7)
2,512 (2.8)
8,928 (9.8)
3,684 (4.1)
Lebanon County MPO (LEBCO)
2009 .....................................................................................................................................................................
2018 .....................................................................................................................................................................
* Note: Tons per day are informational only. Differences occur due to rounding.
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8hour ozone standard and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how
the PADEP’s March 27, 2007 submittal
satisfies the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The Harrisburg Area Has Attained
the 8-Hour NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area
may be considered to be attaining the 8hour ozone NAAQS if there are no
violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of
part 50, based on three complete,
consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 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 at every
monitor is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58, and recorded in the Air Quality
System (AQS). The monitors generally
should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
In the Harrisburg Area, there are three
monitors that measure air quality with
respect to ozone. There are two
monitors in Dauphin County, (the
Harrisburg monitor, and the Hershey
monitor), and one monitor in Perry
County, (the Little Buffalo State Park
monitor). As part of its redesignation
request, Pennsylvania referenced 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 Harrisburg
Area. This data has been quality assured
and is recorded in the 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 for the three monitors in
the Harrisburg Area, along with the
three-year average are summarized in
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2.—HARRISBURG NONATTAINMENT AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR OZONE VALUES
Annual 4th highest reading
(ppm)
Year
Harrisburg Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42–043–0401
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
0.074
0.076
0.084
0.077
The average for the 3-year period 2003–2005 is 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2004–2006 is 0.079
Hershey Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42–043–1100
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
0.079
0.072
0.085
0.081
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
The average for the 3-year period 2003–2005 is 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2004–2006 is 0.079
Little Buffalo State Park Monitor, Perry County, AQS ID 42–099–0301
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
0.084
0.069
0.082
0.077
30525
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—HARRISBURG NONATTAINMENT AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR OZONE VALUES—Continued
Annual 4th highest reading
(ppm)
Year
The average for the 3-year period 2003–2005 is 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2004–2006 is 0.076
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
The air quality data show that the
Harrisburg Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.078
ppm. The data collected at the Area
monitors 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 after a review
of the quality assured 2006 data because
the Area is still attaining the standard
with a design value at each monitor of
0.084 ppm or less for 2004 through
2006. The PADEP’s request for
redesignation for the Harrisburg Area
indicates that the data is complete and
was quality assured in accordance with
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 data taken from AQS
indicate that the Harrisburg Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The Harrisburg 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
Harrisburg Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of
this redesignation under section 110 of
the CAA (General SIP Requirements)
and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under part D of Title I of
the CAA, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Harrisburg 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:16 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
with respect to the timing of applicable
requirements. Under this interpretation,
to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also, Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–12466 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor). Applicable requirements of the
CAA that come due subsequent to the
area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable
until a redesignation is approved, but
are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. Section 175A( c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR at 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
This section also sets forth EPA’s
views on the potential effect of the
Court’s ruling in South Coast on this
redesignation action. For the reasons set
forth below, EPA does not believe that
the Court’s ruling alters any
requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and does not prevent
EPA from finalizing this redesignation.
EPA believes that the Court’s decision,
as it currently stands or as it may be
modified based upon any petition for
rehearing that has been filed, imposes
no impediment to moving forward with
the 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 1 of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which includes enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to
the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the State after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
transport of air pollutants in accordance
with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX
SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However,
the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a State are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that State. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the State.
Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30526
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
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 Harrisburg Area will
still be subject to these requirements
after it is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated
fuels requirement. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10,
1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996);
and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking
(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules,
EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an’’
‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(1) because the NOX rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour
(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951,
23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes
that section 110 elements not linked to
the area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. As we explain later in
this notice, no part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under the 8-hour standard became due
for the Harrisburg Area 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 Requirements
Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004 final
rule (69 FR 23951), the Harrisburg Area
was designated a basic nonattainment
area under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
ozone standard. Sections 172–176 of the
CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set
forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the
CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 Harrisburg
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 CAA, 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. See 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 8-hour subpart 2
requirements, if the Harrisburg Area
initially had been classified under
subpart 2, the first two part D subpart
2 requirements applicable to the
Harrisburg 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).
As stated previously, these
requirements are not yet due for
purposes of redesignation of the
Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area, which was
submitted on March 27, 2007,
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
Harrisburg Area can be found in a
Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking.
EPA has determined that the emission
inventory and emissions statement
requirements for the Harrisburg 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 that the general
conformity and NSR requirements do
not require approval prior to
redesignation.
With respect to section 176,
Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that Federally-supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as
well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (‘‘general
conformity’’). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) since State
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where State rules have not
been approved. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438–440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also,
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
In the case of the Harrisburg Area,
EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Harrisburg 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-AkronLorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469–
20470, 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
Harrisburg 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
stringent than that required for a
marginal or basic 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 Harrisburg Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including the
NSR program, as not being applicable
for purposes of 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 Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance programs even after
redesignation. Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the
Harrisburg Area by virtue of the Area’s
designation and classification. See 61
FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832
(May 7, 1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
In its December 22, 2006 decision in
South Coast, the Court also addressed
EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour ozone
standard. The current status of the
revocation and associated antibacksliding 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 determined that the Harrisburg
Area attained the 1-hour standard by its
attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17,
1995), continues to attain that standard,
and has fulfilled any requirements of
the 1-hour standard that would apply
even if the 1-hour standard is 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.
The conformity portion of the Court’s
ruling does not impact the redesignation
request for the Harrisburg Area because
there are no conformity requirements
that are relevant to a redesignation
request for any standard, including the
requirement to submit a transportation
conformity SIP.1 As we have previously
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30527
noted, under longstanding EPA policy,
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. 40
CFR 51.390. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL
redesignation).
With respect to the requirement for
submission of contingency measures for
the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does
not require contingency measures for
marginal areas, and, therefore, that
portion of the Court’s ruling does not
impact the redesignation request for the
Harrisburg Area.
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the
Harrisburg Area was designated a
marginal nonattainment area for the 1hour standard. With respect to the 1hour standard, the applicable
requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart
2 of part D (section 182) for the
Harrisburg Area are discussed in the
following paragraphs: Section
182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to
correct or amend RACT for sources in
marginal areas, such as the Harrisburg
Area, that were subject to control
technique guidelines (CTGs) issued
before November 15, 1990 pursuant to
CAA section 108. 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 marginal
and higher classified 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 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the
savings clause for vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M). It requires
marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M
programs. This provision was not
applicable to the Harrisburg Area
because this Area did not have and was
not required to have an I/M program
before November 15, 1990.
Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a
triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory
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\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30528
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
for the nonattainment area. The most
recent inventory for the Harrisburg Area
was compiled for 2002 and submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision with the
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg
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.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources
of VOCs and NOX in the nonattainment
area to submit annual Emissions
Statements regarding the quantity of
emissions from the previous year. As
discussed previously, Pennsylvania
already has in its approved SIP, a
previously approved emissions
statement rule for the 1-hour standard
which applies to the Harrisburg Area.
Section 182(a)(1) provides 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
Harrisburg Area as meeting the
requirement of section 182(a)(1). While
EPA generally required that the baseyear 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.
EPA has previously determined that
the Harrisburg Area attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by the November 15,
1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349,
January 17, 1995), and we believe that
the Harrisburg Area is still in attainment
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based
upon the ozone monitoring data for the
years 2003–2005. 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. Table
3 provides a summary of the number of
expected exceedances for each of the
years 2003 through 2005 and 3-year
annual average at each of the Harrisburg
Area monitors.
TABLE 3.—HARRISBURG AREA NUMBER OF EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES OF THE 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD
Number of expected
exceedances
Year
Harrisburg Monitor/AIRS ID 41–043–0401
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0
Hershey Monitor/AIRS ID 42–043–1100
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0
Perry County Monitor/AIRS ID 42–099–0301
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.0
In summary, EPA has determined that
the data submitted by Pennsylvania and
taken from AQS indicate that the
Harrisburg Area is maintaining air
quality that conforms to the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA believes this
conclusion remains valid after review of
the quality assured 2006 data because
no exceedances were recorded in the
Harrisburg Area in 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:16 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance, and Stage II vapor
recovery or a comparable measure.
In the case of the Harrisburg 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.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30529
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
As discussed previously in this
notice, 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).
5. Harrisburg Has a Fully Approved SIP
for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the
Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calgagni Memo,
p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–
990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein.
quality improvement in the Harrisburg
Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emission reductions
attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 4.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Harrisburg Area Is Due to Permanent
and Enforceable Reductions in
Emissions 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
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN TONS PER DAY (TPD)
Year
Point
Area
Mobile
Nonroad
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
2002 .........................................................................................................
2004 .........................................................................................................
Diff (02–04) ..............................................................................................
3.0
2.4
0.6
29.5
28.9
0.6
43.4
36.9
6.5
19.6
19.0
0.6
95.4
87.2
8.2
3.0
3.1
¥0.1
86.8
76.2
10.6
21.4
20.2
1.2
127.9
112.5
15.4
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
2002 .........................................................................................................
2004 .........................................................................................................
Diff (02–04) ..............................................................................................
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions decreased by 8.6 percent from
95.4 tpd to 87.2 tpd; NOX emissions
decreased by 12.1 percent from 127.9
tpd to 112.5 tpd. A comparison of the
2002 and 2004 emissions by county and
source type can be found in the
Technical Support Document prepared
for this rulemaking. The reductions
between 2002 and 2004, and anticipated
future reductions, are due to the
following permanent and enforceable
measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (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).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
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 Engine and Vehicle
Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6,
2000).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:16 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
16.7
12.9
3.8
National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/
Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (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 Harrisburg Area Has a Fully
Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Harrisburg Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 years
after redesignation. The Commonwealth
is requesting that EPA approve this SIP
revision as meeting the requirement of
section 175A of the CAA. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that
the SIP for the Harrisburg Area meets
the requirements of the CAA regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance of the applicable 8-hour
ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance
Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, 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 Commonwealth
must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memorandum dated September
4, 1992, provides additional guidance
on the content of a maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should
address the following provisions:
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30530
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued
attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Harrisburg Area
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined
that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year
establishes a reasonable year within the
3-year block of 2003–2005 as a baseline
and accounts for reductions attributable
to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date. The 2004
inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance and is based on actual ‘‘typical
summer day’’ emissions of VOC and
NOX during 2004 and consists of a list
of sources and their associated
emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data
was compiled from actual sources.
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
Systems and EPA’s publication series
AP–42, and are based on Source
Classification Codes (SCC).
The 2002 area source data was
compiled using county-level activity
data, from census numbers, from county
numbers, etc. The 2004 area source data
was projected from the 2002 inventory
using temporal allocations provided by
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source
inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) estimates
for VMT. The PADEP has provided
detailed data summaries to document
the calculations of mobile on-road VOC
and NOX emissions for 2002, as well as
for the projection years of 2004, 2009,
and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6
below).
The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the
majority of non-road emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model calculates emissions
for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled non-road equipment types and
includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from
locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and
2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and
conversion factors. Emissions from
commercial aircraft for 2002 are
estimated using the EPA-approved
Emissions & Dispersion Modeling
System (EDMS) 4.20, the latest version
available at the time the inventory was
developed. Commercial aircraft
operations were significant in the
Harrisburg Area and were modeled by
the EDMS model directly. Harrisburg
International Airport (HIA) accounts for
all commercial operations in the area.
Small aircraft emissions were calculated
by using small airport operation
statistics, which can be found at
https://www.airnav.com and the Federal
Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Area
Forecast Detailed Report.
More detailed information on the
compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009,
and 2018 inventories can be found in
the Technical Appendices which are
part of this submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
March 27, 2007, the PADEP submitted
a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA. The
Harrisburg maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour 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
Harrisburg Area through the year 2018.
A maintenance demonstration need not
be based on modeling. See, Wall v. EPA,
supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See
also, 66 FR at 53099–53100; 68 FR at
25430–25432.
Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and
NOX emissions for the Harrisburg Area
for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP
chose 2009 as an interim year in the tenyear 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 maintenance period. A
breakdown of the 2004, 2009, and 2018
VOC and NOX emissions by County and
Source Type can be found in the TSD
prepared for this rulemaking.
TABLE 5.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD)
2004 VOC
emissions
Source category
2009 VOC
emissions
2018 VOC
emissions
Point .........................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................
Mobile* .....................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................................................
2.4
28.9
36.9
19.0
3.0
27.4
30.1
16.0
3.8
29.4
20.6
13.4
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
87.2
76.5
67.2
* Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Totals may vary due to rounding.
TABLE 6.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD)
2004 NOX
emissions
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Source category
2009 NOX
emissions
2018 NOX
emissions
Point .........................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................
Mobile* .....................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................................................
12.9
3.1
76.2
20.2
19.8
3.2
56.0
17.1
23.8
3.4
24.4
12.3
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
112.5
96.2
63.9
* Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. Totals may vary due to rounding.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, the following programs
are either effective or due to become
effective and will further contribute to
the maintenance demonstration of the 8hour ozone NAAQS:
• The Clean Air Interstate Rule (71 FR
25328, April 28, 2006)
• The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001)
• Area VOC regulations concerning
portable fuel containers (69 FR 70893,
December 8, 2004)
• Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products
(December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895)
• 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:
• FMVCP for passenger vehicles and
light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline
(2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 (56 FR
25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR
6698, February 10, 2000).
• Federal NLEV (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
• PA Clean Vehicle Program
(December 9, 2006)—Pennsylvania will
implement this program in car model
year 2008.
• Heavy-duty diesel on road (2004/
2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006) (66
FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
• Non-road emissions standards
(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/
2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
• Vehicle emission/inspection/
maintenance program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
• Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel
Emissions Control Program (May 11,
2002)
• Truck Stop Electrification
Based on 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 Harrisburg Area.
(c) Monitoring Network—There are
currently three monitors in the
Harrisburg Area measuring ozone in the
Harrisburg Area. The PADEP will
continue to operate its current air
quality monitors (located in Dauphin
and Perry Counties), in accordance with
40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—In addition to maintaining
the key elements of its regulatory
program, the Commonwealth will track
the attainment status of the ozone
NAAQS in the Area by reviewing air
quality and emissions data during the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
maintenance period. The
Commonwealth will perform an annual
evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(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 they exceed the attainment year
inventory (2004) by more than 10
percent. The PADEP will also continue
to operate the existing ozone monitoring
stations in the Area pursuant to 40 CFR
part 58 throughout the maintenance
period and submit quality-assured
ozone data to EPA through the AQS
system. Section 175A(b) of the CAA
states that eight years following
redesignation of the Harrisburg Area,
PADEP will be required to submit a
second maintenance plan that will
ensure attainment through 2028. PADEP
has made that commitment to meet the
requirement of section 175A(b).
(e) The Maintenance Plan’s
Contingency Measures—The
contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
Commonwealth will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of the Harrisburg Area to
stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation
depends upon VOC and NOX emissions
in the Area remaining at or below 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 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the design value
monitor (the highest of the three area
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30531
monitors) 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 also analyze the conditions
leading to the excessive ozone levels
and evaluate which measures might be
most effective in correcting the
excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of
Federal, state, and local measures that
have been adopted but not yet
implemented at the time the excessive
ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then
begin the process of implementing any
selected measures.
Contingency measures will also be
considered in the event that a violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at
any one of the three monitors in the
Harrisburg Area. In the event of a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard,
PADEP will adopt additional emissions
reduction measures as expeditiously as
practicable in accordance with the
implementation schedule listed later in
this notice and in the Pennsylvania Air
Pollution Control Act in order to return
the Area to attainment with the
standard. Contingency measures to be
considered for Harrisburg will include,
but not be limited to the following:
Regulatory measures:
—Additional controls on consumer
products.
—Additional controls 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 on-road 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 plan lays out a process to have
any regulatory contingency measures in
effect within 19 months of the trigger.
The plan also lays out a process to
implement the non-regulatory
contingency measures within 12–24
months of the trigger.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30532
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the Harrisburg Maintenance Plan
Adequate and Approvable?
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e.,
RFP, SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify
and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile
sources. In the maintenance plan, the
MVEBs are termed ‘‘on road-mobile
source emission budgets.’’ Pursuant to
40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must
be established in an ozone maintenance
plan. An MVEB is the portion of the
total allowable emissions that is
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions. An MVEB serves as
a ceiling on emissions from an area’s
planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish and revise the MVEBs
in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and ensuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by state and federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are set out in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area are
listed in Table 1 of this document for
2009 and 2018, and are the projected
emissions for the on-road mobile
sources plus any portion of the safety
margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety
margin allocation for 2009 and 2018
only). These emission budgets, when
approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity
determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2018
safety margin. The Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area. The
total emissions from point, area, mobile
on-road, and mobile non-road sources in
2004 equaled 87.2 tpd of VOC and 112.5
tpd of NOX. PADEP projected emissions
out to the year 2018 and projected a
total of 67.2 tpd of VOC and 63.9 tpd of
NOX from all sources in the Harrisburg
Area. The safety margin for the
Harrisburg Area for 2018 would be the
difference between these amounts. This
difference is 20 tpd of VOC and 48.6 tpd
of NOX. The emissions up to the level
of the attainment year including the
safety margins are projected to maintain
the Area’s air quality consistent with the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety
margin is the extra emissions reduction
below the attainment levels that can be
allocated for emissions by various
sources as long as the total emission
levels are maintained at or below the
attainment levels. Table 7 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018
years for the Harrisburg Area.
TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGIN FOR THE HARRISBURG AREA
VOC emissions (tpd)
Inventory year
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
2004
2009
2009
2004
2018
2018
Attainment .......................................................................................................................................................
Interim .............................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .................................................................................................................................................
Attainment .......................................................................................................................................................
Final ................................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .................................................................................................................................................
PADEP allocated 1,803 kilograms per
day (2.0 tpd) VOC and 1,988 kilograms
per day (2.2 tpd) NOX to the 2009
interim VOC projected on-road mobile
source emissions projection and the
2009 interim NOX projected on-road
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
mobile source emissions projection to
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs for the portion
of the planning area covered by the
HATS. Likewise for the HATS portion,
for the 2018 MVEBs, the PADEP
allocated 2,497 kilograms per day (2.8
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
87.2
76.5
10.7
87.2
67.2
20.0
NOX emissions (tpd)
112.5
96.2
16.3
112.5
63.9
48.6
tpd) VOC and 2,035 kilograms (2.2 tpd)
of NOX from the 2018 safety margins to
arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. The PADEP
allocated 505 kilograms per day (0.6
tpd) VOC and 489 kilograms per day
(0.5 tpd) NOX to the 2009 interim VOC
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
30533
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
projected on-road mobile source
emissions projections and the 2009
interim NOX projected on-road mobile
source emissions projections to arrive at
the 2009 MVEBs for the portion of the
planning area covered by the LEBCO
MPO. Likewise for the LEBCO MPO
portion, for the 2018 MVEBs, the
PADEP allocated 565 kilograms per day
(0.6 tpd) VOC and 475 kilograms (0.5
tpd) NOX from the 2018 safety margins
to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once
allocated to the mobile source budgets,
these portions of the safety margins are
no longer available, and may no longer
be allocated to any other source
category. Table 8 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for Cumberland,
Dauphin, and Perry Counties, and table
9 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS
for Lebanon County.
TABLE 8.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR CUMBERLAND, DAUPHIN AND PERRY COUNTIES (HATS)
Inventory year
2009
2009
2009
2018
2018
2018
VOC emissions
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 ....................................................................................................................................................
21,212 (23.4)
1,803 (2.0)
23,014 (25.4)
13,639 (15.0)
2,497 (2.8)
16,136 (17.8)
NOX emissions
39,929 (44.0)
1,988 (2.2)
41,917 (46.2)
16,374 (18.0)
2,035 (2.2)
18,409 (20.3)
TABLE 9.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR LEBANON COUNTY (LEBCO)
Inventory year
2009
2009
2009
2018
2018
2018
VOC emissions
3,796
505
4,301
1,947
565
2,512
8,439
489
8,928
3,209
475
3,684
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 ....................................................................................................................................................
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the
Harrisburg Area are approvable because
the MVEBs for NOX and VOC continue
to maintain the total emissions at or
below the attainment year inventory
levels as required by the transportation
conformity regulations.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for the MVEBs in the Harrisburg
Area Maintenance Plan?
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
Harrisburg Area MVEBs will also be
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/traq,
(once there, click on ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).
VIII. Proposed Actions
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
NOX emissions
The MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area
maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity Website concurrently
with this proposal. The public comment
period will end at the same time as the
public comment period for this
proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
concurrently processing the action on
the maintenance plan and the adequacy
process for the MVEBs contained
therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate
and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan.
The MVEBs cannot be used for
transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan 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 Harrisburg Area MVEBs,
or any other aspect of our proposed
approval of this updated maintenance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the redesignation
of the Harrisburg Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. 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
Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard. The final approval of
this redesignation request would change
the designation of the Harrisburg Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the associated
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg
Area, submitted on March 27, 2007, as
a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA
is proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg
Area because it meets the requirements
of section 175A as described previously
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(4.2)
(0.6)
(4.7)
(2.1)
(0.6)
(2.8)
(9.3)
(0.5)
(9.8)
(3.5)
(0.5)
(4.1)
in this notice. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for the Harrisburg Area, and the MVEBs
submitted by Pennsylvania for the
Harrisburg Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
30534
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule also
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
it have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior
existing requirement for the State to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a
SIP submission for failure to use VCS.
It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place
of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any new
requirements on sources. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Harrisburg 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 oxides,
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 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–10585 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[I.D. 021607C]
Endangered and Threatened Species:
Extension of Public Comment Period
and Notice of Public Hearings on
Proposed Endangered Species Act
Listing of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Extension of public comment
period; notice of public hearings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On April 20, 2007, NMFS
proposed the listing of the Cook Inlet
beluga whale as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA), as amended. As part of that
proposal, NMFS announced a public
comment period to end on June 19,
2007. NMFS has received requests for
an extension to the comment period and
for public hearings on this issue. In
response to these requests, NMFS is
extending the public comment period
for the proposed listing action to August
3, 2007. Additionally, NMFS is
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
announcing that hearings will be held at
two locations in Alaska to provide
additional opportunities and formats to
receive public input.
DATES: The deadline for comments on
the April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19854)
proposed rule is extended from June 19,
2007, to August 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: We will hold two public
hearings on this issue: one in Homer
and one in Anchorage. The dates for
these hearings will be announced in a
forthcoming notice in the Federal
Register.
Send comments to Kaja Brix,
Assistant Regional Administrator,
Protected Resources Division, Alaska
Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian.
Comments may be submitted by:
• E-mail: CIB-ESAEndangered@noaa.gov. Include in the
subject line the following document
identifier: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale PR.
E-mail comments, with or without
attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
• Webform at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at that site for submitting
comments.
• Mail: P. O Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building : 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
• Fax: (907) 586–7557.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad
Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Anchorage, AK 99517, telephone (907)
271–5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS, (907) 586–
7235; or Marta Nammack, (301) 713–
1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 20, 2007, NMFS published
a proposed rule (72 FR 19854) to list the
Cook Inlet beluga whale as an
endangered species. This action
followed completion of a status review
of the Cook Inlet beluga whale which
found this population to be at risk of
extinction within the next 100 years.
The April 20, 2007, proposed rule also
describes NMFS’ determination that this
population constitutes a ‘‘species’’, or
distinct population segment, under the
ESA.
Extension of Public Comment Period
Several requests have been received to
extend the comment period for the
proposed listing. The comment period
for the proposed listing was to end on
June 19, 2007. NMFS is extending the
comment period until August 3, 2007, to
allow for adequate opportunity for
public comment and participation in
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30521-30534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10585]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323; FRL-8321-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle 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 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle ozone
nonattainment area (``Harrisburg Area'' or ``Area'') be redesignated as
attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). The Area is comprised of the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin,
Lebanon, and Perry. EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation
request for the Harrisburg Area. In conjunction with its redesignation
request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg 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
Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data
for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its determination that the Harrisburg
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
has also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area,
and EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Harrisburg Area
as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of
its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg
Area for purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing
to approve those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation
request and of the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory SIP
revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0323 by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323, 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-
2007-0323. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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
https://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 https://
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 Control, P.O. Box 8468,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by
e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
[[Page 30522]]
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg Area Adequate
and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment in the Area over the next 11 years. PADEP also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP
revision. The Harrisburg Area is comprised of the counties of
Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry, and is currently designated a
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
also proposing to approve the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan as a SIP
revision for the Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed
to ensure continued attainment in the Harrisburg Area for the next 11
years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the
MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) for the Harrisburg Area for transportation
conformity purposes.
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment,
any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data
for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three
years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Harrisburg
Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-
based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Harrisburg Area (as well as in
most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). See,
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 CAA. 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 Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg 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.
In 2004, the Harrisburg Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-
2003. Therefore, the Harrisburg Area 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 indicates that the Harrisburg Area has a design value
of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete,
quality-assured data. Additionally, certified 2006 ozone monitoring
data indicates that the Harrisburg Area continues to attain the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore the ambient ozone data for the Harrisburg Area
indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
The Harrisburg Area
The Harrisburg Area consists of the counties of Cumberland,
Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry, Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as
an 8-hour basic ozone nonattainment area (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004),
the Harrisburg Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment Area, and
therefore, was subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas
pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991). EPA determined that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by the November
[[Page 30523]]
15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995).
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested that the Harrisburg Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation requested included three years of complete, quality-
assured data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in the Harrisburg Area. The data
satisfies the CAA requirements that the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration
(commonly referred to as the area's design value), must be less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under
the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data is available to determine that the area
has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA
redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(e)(E).
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on
or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested redesignation of the
Harrisburg Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On March
27, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area as
a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS over the next 11 years until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002
base-year inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP
revision. EPA has determined that the Harrisburg Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and has met the requirements for redesignation
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area for the next 11 years, until 2018. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for
the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs (including safety margins) are
displayed in Table 1 below. Note that separate conformity budgets are
being established for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
The transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.124(d)) allow a
SIP to establish MVEBs for each MPO if a nonattainment area includes
more than one MPO, which is the case in the Harrisburg Area. The
responsible agency for the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry
is the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS), and the responsible
agency for the county of Lebanon is LEBCO (Lebanon County MPO), both
designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) under Federal
transportation planning requirements. The Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) has requested separate budgets to allow the
planning organizations to move their transportation conformity
determinations through the approval process separately.
[[Page 30524]]
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Kilograms Per Day (Tons per
Day--Rounded)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS)--Cumberland, Dauphin, and
Perry Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................. 23,014 (25.4) 41,917 (46.2)
2018.................................. 16,136 (17.8) 18,409 (20.3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon County MPO (LEBCO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................. 4,301 (4.7) 8,928 (9.8)
2018.................................. 2,512 (2.8) 3,684 (4.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Tons per day are informational only. Differences occur due to
rounding.
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria
have been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's March
27, 2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA.
A. The Harrisburg Area Has Attained the 8-Hour NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 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 at every monitor is 0.084 ppm
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The
monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the
duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating
attainment.
In the Harrisburg Area, there are three monitors that measure air
quality with respect to ozone. There are two monitors in Dauphin
County, (the Harrisburg monitor, and the Hershey monitor), and one
monitor in Perry County, (the Little Buffalo State Park monitor). As
part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced 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
Harrisburg Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in
the 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 for the three
monitors in the Harrisburg Area, along with the three-year average are
summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2.--Harrisburg Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone
Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year highest reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harrisburg Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42-043-0401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 0.074
2004.................................................. 0.076
2005.................................................. 0.084
2006.................................................. 0.077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hershey Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42-043-1100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 0.079
2004.................................................. 0.072
2005.................................................. 0.085
2006.................................................. 0.081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Buffalo State Park Monitor, Perry County, AQS ID 42-099-0301
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 0.084
2004.................................................. 0.069
2005.................................................. 0.082
2006.................................................. 0.077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30525]]
The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.076
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality data show that the Harrisburg Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm. The data collected at the
Area monitors 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 after a review of the quality assured 2006
data because the Area is still attaining the standard with a design
value at each monitor of 0.084 ppm or less for 2004 through 2006. The
PADEP's request for redesignation for the Harrisburg Area indicates
that the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with
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 data taken from AQS indicate that
the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations,
EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Harrisburg
Area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A( c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR
at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of
the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with the
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 1 of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which includes enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to
enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set
forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the
following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
[[Page 30526]]
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 Harrisburg Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with
respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1
Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX
SIP Call rules are not ``an'' `applicable requirement' for purposes of
section 110(1) because the NOX rules apply regardless of an
area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-
hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes that
section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are
not applicable for purposes of redesignation. As we explain later in
this notice, no part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for the Harrisburg
Area 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 Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23951), the
Harrisburg Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart
1 for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in
subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements
depending on the area's nonattainment classification.
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
Harrisburg 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 CAA, 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. See 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 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if the Harrisburg
Area initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two part
D subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Harrisburg 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).
As stated previously, these requirements are not yet due for
purposes of redesignation of the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area, which was submitted on March 27, 2007,
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 Harrisburg Area can be found in a Technical
Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has
determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement
requirements for the Harrisburg 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 that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to
[[Page 30527]]
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or
funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act
(``transportation conformity'') as well as to all other Federally
supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). State conformity
revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA
required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes
of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) since
State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and
Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been
approved. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995).
In the case of the Harrisburg Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Harrisburg 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, 20469-20470, 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
Harrisburg 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 marginal or basic 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 Harrisburg Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of
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 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs even
after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are
region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Harrisburg Area by
virtue of the Area's designation and classification. See 61 FR 53174,
53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7,
1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
In its December 22, 2006 decision in South Coast, the Court also
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
determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the 1-hour standard by its
attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), continues to attain
that standard, and has fulfilled any requirements of the 1-hour
standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is 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.
The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the
redesignation request for the Harrisburg Area because there are no
conformity requirements that are relevant to a redesignation request
for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation
conformity SIP.\1\ As we have previously noted, under longstanding EPA
policy, 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. 40 CFR 51.390. See, Wall v. EPA,
265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also,
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 the requirement for submission of contingency
measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require
contingency measures for marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion
of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the
Harrisburg Area.
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Harrisburg Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-
hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D (section 182) for
the Harrisburg Area are discussed in the following paragraphs: Section
182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for
sources in marginal areas, such as the Harrisburg Area, that were
subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November
15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. 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 marginal and higher
classified 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 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt
vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the
Harrisburg Area because this Area did not have and was not required to
have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.
Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a triennial Periodic Emissions
Inventory
[[Page 30528]]
for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the
Harrisburg Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision with the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg 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.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NOX in
the nonattainment area to submit annual Emissions Statements regarding
the quantity of emissions from the previous year. As discussed
previously, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, a previously
approved emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which applies
to the Harrisburg Area.
Section 182(a)(1) provides 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 Harrisburg Area as meeting
the requirement of 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.
EPA has previously determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the
1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR
3349, January 17, 1995), and we believe that the Harrisburg Area is
still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone
monitoring data for the years 2003-2005. 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. Table 3 provides a summary of the
number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005
and 3-year annual average at each of the Harrisburg Area monitors.
Table 3.--Harrisburg Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour
Ozone Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Year expected
exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harrisburg Monitor/AIRS ID 41-043-0401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 0.0
2004.................................................. 0.0
2005.................................................. 0.0
2006.................................................. 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hershey Monitor/AIRS ID 42-043-1100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 0.0
2004.................................................. 0.0
2005.................................................. 0.0
2006.................................................. 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry County Monitor/AIRS ID 42-099-0301
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 0.0
2004.................................................. 0.0
2005.................................................. 0.0
2006.................................................. 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.0
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicate that the Harrisburg Area is
maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the quality
assured 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the
Harrisburg Area in 2006.
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 Harrisburg 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.
[[Page 30529]]
As discussed previously in this notice, 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).
5. Harrisburg Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calgagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998),
Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See
68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Harrisburg Area Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions 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 Harrisburg Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures. Emission reductions attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 4.
Table 4.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Mobile Nonroad Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002........................................... 3.0 29.5 43.4 19.6 95.4
2004........................................... 2.4 28.9 36.9 19.0 87.2
Diff (02-04)................................... 0.6 0.6 6.5 0.6 8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002........................................... 16.7 3.0 86.8 21.4 127.9
2004........................................... 12.9 3.1 76.2 20.2 112.5
Diff (02-04)................................... 3.8 -0.1 10.6 1.2 15.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 8.6 percent from
95.4 tpd to 87.2 tpd; NOX emissions decreased by 12.1
percent from 127.9 tpd to 112.5 tpd. A comparison of the 2002 and 2004
emissions by county and source type can be found in the Technical
Support Document prepared for this rulemaking. The reductions between
2002 and 2004, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the
following permanent and enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (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 Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (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 Harrisburg Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Harrisburg Area
to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11
years after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA
approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of
the CAA. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
will ensure that the SIP for the Harrisburg Area meets the requirements
of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone
standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, 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 Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
[[Page 30530]]
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Harrisburg Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the 3-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The
2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual
``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX during 2004
and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual
sources. 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 Systems and EPA's
publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes
(SCC).
The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level activity
data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area
source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal
allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data
summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and
NOX emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years
of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6 below).
The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of non-road emission
source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied
petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road
equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not
estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004
locomotive emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and
conversion factors. Emissions from commercial aircraft for 2002 are
estimated using the EPA-approved Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System
(EDMS) 4.20, the latest version available at the time the inventory was
developed. Commercial aircraft operations were significant in the
Harrisburg Area and were modeled by the EDMS model directly. Harrisburg
International Airport (HIA) accounts for all commercial operations in
the area. Small aircraft emissions were calculated by using small
airport operation statistics, which can be found at https://
www.airnav.com and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Area
Forecast Detailed Report.
More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004,
2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices
which are part of this submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On March 27, 2007, the PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Harrisburg maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour 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 Harrisburg Area through the year 2018. A
maint
