Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory, 37683-37695 [07-3325]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
show overhead slides or make
computerized slide presentations unless
we receive special requests in advance.
Commenters should notify Ms. Crabtree
if they will need specific audiovisual
(AV) equipment. Commenters should
also notify Ms. Crabtree if they need
specific translation services for nonEnglish speaking commenters. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide
written versions of their oral testimonies
either electronically on computer disk
or CD ROM or in paper copy.
The hearing schedules, including lists
of speakers, will be posted on EPA’s
Web site for the proposal at https://
www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/
actions.html prior to the hearings.
Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and
written statements will be included in
the rulemaking dockets.
How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
The EPA has established the official
public docket for the ‘‘National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ under
Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0172. The EPA has also developed a
Web site for the proposal at the address
given above. Please refer to the
proposal, published elsewhere in this
Federal Register, for detailed
information on accessing information
related to the proposal.
Dated: July 5, 2007.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.
[FR Doc. E7–13526 Filed 7–10–07; 11:37 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0453; FRL–8336–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and
Approval of the Area’s Maintenance
Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania
ozone nonattainment area (Pittsburgh
Area) be redesignated as attainment for
the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the ozone
redesignation request for Pittsburgh
Area. In conjunction with its
redesignation request, PADEP submitted
a SIP revision consisting of a
maintenance plan for Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality ozone monitoring
data for 2003–2005. EPA’s proposed
approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its
determination that the Pittsburgh Area
has met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air
Act (CAA). In addition, PADEP
submitted a 2002 base year inventory for
the Pittsburgh Area which EPA is
proposing to approve as a SIP revision.
EPA is also providing information on
the status of its adequacy determination
for the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the
Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan for
purposes of transportation conformity,
which EPA is also proposing to approve.
EPA is proposing approval of the
redesignation request, and the
maintenance plan and the 2002 base
year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the
CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2007–0453 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail:
cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0453,
Christopher Cripps, 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–
0453. EPA’s policy is that all comments
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37683
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
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, P.O.
Box 8468, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or
by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
37684
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
II. What is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
Table of Contents
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOC react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
The air pollutants NOX and VOC are
referred to as precursors of ozone. The
CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA
designated, as nonattainment, any area
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the air quality data for the
three years of 2001–2003. These were
the most recent three years of data at the
time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Pittsburgh Area was designated as basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a
Federal Register notice signed on April
15, 2004 and published on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its
exceedance of the 8-hour health-based
standard for ozone during the years
2001–2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA
issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996)
to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in
the Pittsburgh Area (as well as most
other areas of the country) effective June
15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR
44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in
South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04–1201
(hereafter ‘‘South Coast’’), in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the DC
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule
was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Therefore, the
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to
classifications for areas currently
classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part
D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and
the timing for emissions reductions
needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective. The
June 8 decision left intact the Court’s
rejection of EPA’s reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand
I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing
To Take?
II. What is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to
Attainment?
IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Request and SIP Revision?
VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and
Identify Adequate and Approvable Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the
Pittsburgh Area?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
I. What are the Actions that EPA is
Proposing To Take?
On April 26, 2007, PADEP formally
submitted a request to redesignate the
Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone. Concurrently, on April 26, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan
for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision
to ensure continued attainment of the 8hour NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation. PADEP also submitted a
2002 base year inventory as a SIP
revision on April 26, 2007. The
Pittsburgh Area is currently designated
as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area and is covered by a maintenance
plan for the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the Pittsburgh
Area maintenance plan as a SIP
revision, such approval being one of the
CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status. The maintenance
plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in the Pittsburgh Area for the
next ten years. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2002 base year inventory
for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its
action on the adequacy process for the
MVEBs identified in the Pittsburgh Area
maintenance plan, and proposing to
approve the MVEBs identified for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for transportation
conformity purposes.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard
and those anti-backsliding provisions of
the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8
decision reaffirmed the December 22,
2006 decision that EPA had 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)
certain transportation conformity
requirements for certain types of federal
actions. The June 8 decision clarified
that the Court’s reference to conformity
requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor
vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly
in section VI. B. ‘‘The Pittsburgh 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 decisions
in South Coast are not an impediment
to redesignating the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two
sets of provisions—subpart 1 and
subpart 2—that address planning and
control requirements for nonattainment
areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as
‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains
general, less prescriptive requirements
for nonattainment areas for any
pollutant—including ozone—governed
by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8hour ozone nonattainment areas are
subject only to the provisions of subpart
1. Other areas are also subject to the
provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA’s 8hour ozone implementation rule, signed
on April 15, 2004, an area was classified
under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour
ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year
average annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design
value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest
1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas
are covered under subpart 1, based upon
their 8-hour design values. In 2004,
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Pittsburgh Area was designated a basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment area based
upon air quality monitoring data from
2001–2003, and therefore, is subject to
the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further
information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness
requirements are met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50. Based upon ozone monitoring
data for the period 2003 through 2006
(inclusive), the Pittsburgh Area has a
design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year
period 2003 through 2005 and has a
design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year
period 2004 through 2006. Therefore,
the ambient ozone data for the
Pittsburgh Area indicates no violations
of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Pittsburgh Area
The Pittsburgh Area is comprised of
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,
Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland
counties. Prior to its designation as an
8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Pittsburgh Area had been designated
and classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area for the 1-hour
standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822,
November 6, 1991. On October 19, 2001
(66 FR 53094), EPA approved a request
to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
and approved a maintenance plan SIP
revision.
On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested
that the Pittsburgh Area be redesignated
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. The redesignation request
included 3 years of complete, qualityassured data for the period of 2003–
2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone had been achieved in the
Pittsburgh Area. The data satisfies the
CAA requirements when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (commonly referred to as
the area’s design value) is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). Under the
CAA, a nonattainment area may be
redesignated if sufficient complete,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
quality-assured data is available to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What are the Criteria for
Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for
redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and Part D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990;
• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
• ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37685
Quality Management Division, October
28, 1992;
• ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November
30, 1993;
• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested
redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. On April 26, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the
Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision to
assure continued attainment at least 10
years after redesignation. EPA has
determined that the Pittsburgh Area has
attained the standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the designation of the
Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area for the next 10
years. The maintenance plan includes
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
37686
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
contingency measures to remedy any
future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS
(should they occur), and identifies the
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for
transportation conformity purposes for
the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs
(2009 and 2018) are displayed in the
following table:
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
BUDGETS
[Tons per day (rounded to two decimal
places)]
Year
VOC
2009 ..........................
2018 ..........................
NOX
54.54
32.91
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
A. The Pittsburgh Area Has Attained the
Ozone NAAQS
In the Pittsburgh Area, there are
currently thirteen monitors that measure
air quality with respect to ozone. As
part of its redesignation request,
Pennsylvania submitted ozone
monitoring data which included the
years 2003 through 2006 (the most
recent years of data available as of the
time of the redesignation request) for the
Pittsburgh Area. This data has been
quality assured and is recorded in Air
Quality System (AQS).
Based upon this data, EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For the 8-hour ozone
standard, an area may be considered to
be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if
there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and
Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete and consecutive calendar
years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard,
the design value, which is the 3-year
average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations, measured at each
monitor within the area over each year
must not exceed the ozone standard of
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58, and recorded in EPA’s Air Quality
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
TABLE 2.—PITTSBURGH NONATTAINMENT AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8HOUR OZONE VALUES
101.53
41.15
VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the
State’s Request and SIP Revision?
EPA is proposing to determine that
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how
PADEP’s April 26, 2007, submittal
satisfies the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
System (AQS). PADEP uses the AQS as
the permanent database to maintain its
data and quality assures the data
transfers and content for accuracy. The
monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the
duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
The fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum
concentrations, along with the threeyear average, are summarized in Table
2 for the four monitors with the highest
2005 and 2006 design values in the
Pittsburgh area.
Jkt 211001
Annual 4th
High Reading (ppm)
Year
Monitor: California & 11th, Harrison Twp,
Allegheny Co., AQS ID 42–003–1005
2003 ..........................................
0.081
2004 ..........................................
0.076
2005 ..........................................
0.087
2006 ..........................................
0.088
The average for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.081 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning,
Armstrong Co., AQS ID 42–005–0001
2003 ..........................................
0.086
2004 ..........................................
0.082
2005 ..........................................
0.086
2006 ..........................................
0.080
The average for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.082 ppm
Monitor: Route 168 & Tomlinson Road,
Beaver Co., AQS ID 42–007–0002
2003 ..........................................
0.087
2004 ..........................................
0.081
2005 ..........................................
0.086
2006 ..........................................
0.082
The average for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
Monitor: Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID 42–003–
0010
2003 ..........................................
0.088
2004 ..........................................
0.072
2005 ..........................................
0.092
2006 ..........................................
0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004
through 2006 is 0.080 ppm
The air quality data show that the
Pittsburgh Area has attained the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standard with a design value of 0.084
ppm for 2003 through 2005 and still is
attaining the standard with a design
value of 0.083 ppm at the monitors with
the highest design value for 2004
through 2006. The data collected at the
Pittsburgh Area monitor satisfies the
CAA requirement that the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm. PADEP’s request for
redesignation for the Pittsburgh Area
indicates that the data was quality
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP
has committed to continue monitoring
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
B. The Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of
this redesignation under section 110 of
the CAA (General SIP Requirements)
and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of
the CAA, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained what requirements are
applicable to the area, and determined
that the applicable portions of the SIP
meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the
CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
with respect to the timing of applicable
requirements. Under this interpretation,
to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–66, (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
Applicable requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the area’s
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See Section 175A(c) of
the CAA. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis).
This section also sets forth EPA’s
views on the potential effect of the
Court’s rulings on this proposed
redesignation action. For the reasons set
forth below, EPA does not believe that
the Court’s rulings alters any
requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and do not prevent EPA
from proposing or ultimately finalizing
this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006 and June 8,
2007 decisions impose no impediment
to moving forward with redesignation of
this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court’s decisions
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which include enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the State after reasonable
public notice and hearing;
• Provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
• Implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirement
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;
• Provisions for air pollution
modeling; and
• Provisions for public and local
agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a State from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another State. To implement this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The Pittsburgh Area will
still be subject to these requirements
after it is redesignated. The section 110
and Part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated
fuels requirement. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings, (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65
FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules,
EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an
‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(l) because the NOX rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour
(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951,
23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37687
for purposes of redesignation. Any
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the Part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are not yet
due, because, as we explain later in this
notice, no Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under the 8-hour standard became due
prior to submission of the redesignation
request.
Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies
all of the applicable general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in
section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that
Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section
110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
Sections 172–176 of the CAA, found
in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic
nonattainment requirements for all
nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the
CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D,
establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
nonattainment classification.
Under an April 30, 2004, final rule (69
FR 23951), EPA classified the Pittsburgh
Area as a subpart 1 nonattainment area
under the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA
believes that no subpart 1 requirements
need to be approved prior to
redesignation. Of the nonattainment
plan provisions due under section 172,
none were due prior to submission of
the complete redesignation request
because EPA’s November 29, 2005 final
rule (70 FR 71612) set the deadline for
these requirements at 3 years after
resignation, which for the Pittsburgh
Area is June 15, 2007.
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
the Court’s rulings in South Coast
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 cannot now
go forward. This belief is based upon (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
requirements 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 Pittsburgh
Area was classified under subpart 1 and
was obligated to meet only subpart 1
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37688
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
requirements. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to
qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division). See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–12466 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation; and 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
DC Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking, see
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63
(DC Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit
upheld a District Court’s ruling refusing
to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly, here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request.
With respect to subpart 2
requirements, if the Pittsburgh Area
initially had been classified under
subpart the first two-part D subpart 2
requirements applicable to the
Pittsburgh Area under section 182(a) of
the CAA would be: (1) A base-year
inventory requirement pursuant to
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, (2)
the emissions statement requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the
CAA.
As we have stated previously in this
document, these requirements are not
yet due for purpose of redesignation of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
the Pittsburgh Area, but nevertheless,
Pennsylvania already has in its
approved SIP an emissions statement
rule for the 1-hour standard which
covers all portions of the Pittsburgh
Area and which EPA believes satisfies
the emissions statement requirement for
the 8-hour standard under section
182(a)(3)(B). This regulation is codified
at Section 135.21 ‘‘Emission statements’’
in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1);
see also 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
SIP concurrently with the maintenance
plan as fulfilling the requirements, if
necessary, of both section 182(a)(1) and
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
EPA proposes to determine that
Pennsylvania’s SIP meets all applicable
SIP requirements under Part D of the
CAA. In addition to the fact that Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation did not become due prior
to submission of the redesignation
request, EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the general conformity and
NSR requirements as not requiring
approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176,
Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires States to
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that Federally supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as
well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (‘‘general
conformity’’). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required
EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) since State
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where State rules have not
been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438–440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
In the case of the Pittsburgh Area,
EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Pittsburgh Area
need not comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.’’ See rulemakings for
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467–
12468); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio
(61 FR at 20458, 20469–20470);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834–
31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of
Pennsylvania, 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 Ozone
Transport Region (OTR). The OTR NSR
requirements are more stringent than
that required for a marginal area.
Nevertheless, 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 Pittsburgh Area.
3. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
As stated previously in this
document, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA approved a request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
and approved a maintenance plan SIP
revision.
With respect to the 1-hour standard
requirements, the Pittsburgh Area was
an Attainment area subject to a Clean
Air Act section 175A maintenance plan
under the 1-hour standard. The Court’s
decisions in South Coast do not impact
redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the Court
in its June 8 decision clarified that for
those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets in their maintenance
plans, anti-backsliding requires that
those 1-hour budgets must be used for
8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs). To meet
this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity
regulations at 40 CFR part 93. As
discussed elsewhere in this document,
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
37689
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
EPA is proposing to approve 8-hour
MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area. Once
these 8-hour MVEBs are approved the 1hour budgets will no longer apply under
anti-backsliding.
With respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour
standard that the Court found were not
properly retained, the Pittsburgh Area is
an attainment area subject to a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard, and the NSR, contingency
measures (pursuant to section 172(c)(9)
or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision
requirements no longer apply to an area
that has been redesignated to attainment
of the 1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast
should not alter any requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of this area.
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 reasonably
available control technology (RACT),
NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M), and Stage II vapor
recovery or a comparable measure. In
the case of the Pittsburgh Area, which
is located in the OTR, nonattainment
NSR will continue to be applicable after
redesignation as discussed previously in
this document.
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including NSR,
as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. See the Reading,
Pennsylvania redesignation proposed
and final rules, 61 FR 53174, (October
10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7,
1997), respectively. The rationale for
this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP
revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT,
and I/M even after redesignation.
Second, the section 184 control
measures are region-wide requirements
and do not apply to the area by virtue
of the area’s nonattainment designation
and classification, and thus are properly
considered not relevant to an action
changing an area’s designation. See 61
FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832
(May 7, 1997).
time of its designation as a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857). No Part D submittal
requirements have come due prior to the
submittal of the 8-hour maintenance
plan for the area. Therefore, all Part D
submittal requirements have been
fulfilled. Because there are no
outstanding SIP submission
requirements applicable for the
purposes of redesignation of the
Pittsburgh Area, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements. As
indicated previously, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected
with Part D nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. EPA also believes that
Pennsylvania has fulfilled all 8-hour
Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
5. The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully
Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
Pittsburgh Area Is Due to Permanent
and Enforceable Reductions in
Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA has fully approved the
Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo,
p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–
90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. The Pittsburgh Area was a 1hour maintenance area which had been
a moderate nonattainment area at the
EPA believes that the Commonwealth
has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Pittsburgh
Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions
attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.
TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004
[In tons per day (tpd)]
Year
Point
Area
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Year 2002 ....................................................................................................................
Year 2004 ....................................................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) .................................................................................................................
16.5
15.5
1.0
100.3
98.1
2.2
51.5
48.8
2.7
86.4
73.3
13.1
254.7
235.7
19.0
250.4
202.8
47.6
11.5
11.7
–0.2
86.1
81.5
4.6
173.9
148.8
25.1
522.0
444.8
77.2
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Year 2002 ....................................................................................................................
Year 2004 ....................................................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) .................................................................................................................
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions were reduced by 19.0 tpd,
and NOX emissions were reduced by
77.2 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures
implemented in the Pittsburgh Area:
(1) Stationary Area Sources
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
(a) Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206,
January 16, 2003),
(b) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR
70893, December 8, 2004);
(2) Highway Vehicle Sources
(a) Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP), Tier 1 (56 FR 25724,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698,
February 10, 2000),
(b) Federal Heavy Duty Engines and
Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694,
October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896,
October 6, 2000),
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
37690
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(c) National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28,
1999),
(d) Vehicle Emission Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) Program (64 FR
32411, June 17, 1999 and 70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005);
(3) Nonroad Sources—Federal
Nonroad Engine and Fuels (40 CFR
parts 89 to 91, and 1039, 1048 and
1051); and
(4) Stationary Point Sources—
Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution
Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428,
September 29, 2006) (66 FR 43795,
August 21, 2001 and 71 FR 57428,
September 29, 2006).
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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
D. The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
Pennsylvania submitted for approval
under section 175A of the CAA the
April 26, 2007, maintenance plan to
fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for
the 8-hour standard. Pennsylvania
submitted this SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for at
least 10 years after redesignation. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the
ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP
for the Pittsburgh Area meets the
requirements of the CAA regarding
maintenance of the applicable ozone
standards including the 8-hour
standard.
1. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A(a), the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after approval of a redesignation of
an area to attainment. Section 175A(b)
requires that eight years after the
redesignation the State must submit a
revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the next
10-year period following the initial 10year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memorandum dated September
4, 1992, provides additional guidance
on the content of a maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should
address the following provisions:
(1) An attainment emissions
inventory;
(2) A maintenance demonstration;
(3) A monitoring network;
(4) Verification of continued
attainment; and
(5) A contingency plan.
2. Analysis of the Pittsburgh Area
Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. An attainment year
of 2004 was used for the Pittsburgh Area
since it is a reasonable year within the
3-year attainment period of 2003–2005
and accounts for reductions attributable
to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.
PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC
and NOX emissions inventories for the
Pittsburgh Area, including point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NOX and VOC base
year emissions inventories, PADEP used
the following approaches and sources of
data:
(i) Point source emissions—
Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit
annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data
are multiplied by emission factors from
Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data
System and EPA’s publication series
AP–42 and are based on Source
Classification Code (SCC). Each process
has at least one SCC assigned to it. If the
owners and operators of facilities
provide more accurate emission data
based upon other factors, these emission
estimates supersede those calculated
using SCC codes.
(ii) Area source emissions—Area
source emissions are generally
estimated by multiplying an emission
factor by some known indicator or
collective activity for each area source
category at the county level.
Pennsylvania estimates emissions from
area sources using emission factors and
SCC codes in a method similar to that
used for stationary point sources.
Emission factors may also be derived
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from research and guidance documents
if those documents are more accurate
than FIRE and AP–42 factors.
Throughput estimates are derived from
county-level activity data, by
apportioning national and statewide
activity data to counties, from census
numbers, and from county employee
numbers. County employee numbers are
based upon North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes to
establish that those numbers are specific
to the industry covered.
(iii) On-road mobile sources—PADEP
employs an emissions estimation
methodology that uses current EPAapproved highway vehicle emission
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. The
Pittsburgh Area highway vehicle
emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle
type and roadway type.
(iv) Mobile nonroad emissions—The
2002 emissions for the majority of
nonroad emission source categories
were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model estimates emissions
for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from
aircraft or locomotives. For 2002
locomotive emissions, PADEP projected
emissions from a 1999 survey using
national fuel information and EPA
emission and conversion factors.
Commercial aircraft operations are
significant in the Pittsburgh area.
Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT)
accounts for all commercial operations
in the Pittsburgh area. PADEP
quantified the emissions at PIT with the
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling
System (EDMS) that is an EPA-approved
model. For other 2002 aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions
using small aircraft operation statistics
from https://www.airnav.com, and
emission factors and operational
characteristics in EDMS. For PIT,
growth was estimated using estimates of
future operations at PIT from the FAA
APO Terminal Area Forecast Detailed
Report. For other aircraft operations,
growth was calculated using estimates
of small airport activity from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)’s APO
terminal area forecast detailed report.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and
NOX emissions for the Pittsburgh Area
are summarized along with the 2009
and 2018 projected emissions for this
area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the
demonstration of maintenance for this
area. EPA has concluded that
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Pennsylvania has adequately derived
and documented the 2004 attainment
year VOC and NOX emissions for this
area.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a SIP
revision to supplement its April 26,
2007, redesignation request. The
submittal by PADEP consists of the
maintenance plan as required by section
175A of the CAA. The Pittsburgh Area
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 Pittsburgh Area through
the year 2018. The Pittsburgh Area
maintenance demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA,
supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See
also, 66 FR at 53099–53100; 68 FR at
25430–25432.
37691
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and
NOX emissions for the Pittsburgh Area
for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose
2009 as an interim year in the 10-year
maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX
emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during
the time of the 10-year maintenance
period.
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD)
2004 VOC
emissions
Source category
2009 VOC
emissions
2018 VOC
emissions
Mobile* .................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...............................................................................................................................................
Area .....................................................................................................................................................
Point .....................................................................................................................................................
73.3
48.8
98.1
15.5
54.54
39.1
92.4
16.4
32.91
34.6
96.1
20.3
Total ..............................................................................................................................................
235.7
202.44
183.91
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS 2004–2018 (TPD)
2004 NOX
emissions
Source category
2009 NOX
emissions
2018 NOX
emissions
Mobile* .................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...............................................................................................................................................
Area .....................................................................................................................................................
Point .....................................................................................................................................................
148.8
81.5
11.7
202.8
101.53
70.5
12.1
255.2
41.15
55.6
12.2
273.6
Total ..............................................................................................................................................
444.8
439.33
382.55
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
The following are permanent and
enforceable control measures to ensure
emissions during the maintenance
period and are equal to or less than the
emissions in the attainment year:
(1) Pennsylvania’s Portable Fuel
Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR
70893);
(2) Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products
(December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895);
(3) Pennsylvania’s Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
(November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080); and
(4) Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution
Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428,
September 29, 2006).
Additionally, the following mobile
programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further
contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS:
(1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and
light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline
(2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 and Tier
2;
(2) NLEV Program, which includes
the Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle
Program for passenger vehicles and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999);
(3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/
2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006) (66
FR 5002, January 18, 2001);
(4) Non-road emissions standards
(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/
2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004); and
(5) Pennsylvania’s vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance program
(October 6, 2005, 70 FR 58313).
In addition to the permanent and
enforceable measures, the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) should
have positive impacts on Pennsylvania’s
air quality. CAIR, which will be
implemented in the eastern portion of
the country in two phases (2009 and
2015) should reduce long range
transport of ozone precursors and will
have a beneficial effect on the air quality
in the Pittsburgh Area.
Pennsylvania and other nearby states
are required to adopt a regulation
implementing the requirements of CAIR
or an equivalent program. On April 28,
2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to
reduce the interstate transport of NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and sulfur dioxides that contribute
significantly to nonattainment and
maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. If Pennsylvania has not
adopted its own CAIR requirements and
obtained EPA’s approval of the required
SIP revision by September 2007, the FIP
will impose the Federal program upon
CAIR-affected electric generating units
in Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Area
does have several sources which are
subject to regulation under CAIR. For
the maintenance demonstration,
Pennsylvania did not rely upon any
reductions from CAIR from these
facilities. However, the quality of air
transported from upwind sources into
the county would be improved.
Based upon the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional
measures, EPA concludes that PADEP
has successfully demonstrated that the
8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained in the Pittsburgh Area.
(c) Monitoring Network—Currently
there are thirteen monitors measuring
ozone in the Pittsburgh Area.
Pennsylvania will continue to operate
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37692
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
an air quality monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—The Commonwealth will
track the attainment status of the ozone
NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area by
reviewing air quality and emissions
during the maintenance period. The
Commonwealth will perform an annual
evaluation of two key factors, VMT data
and emissions reported from stationary
sources, and compare them to the
assumptions about these factors used in
the maintenance plan. The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the
periodic (every three years) emission
inventories prepared under EPA’s
Consolidated Emission Reporting
Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A)
to see if the area exceed the attainment
year inventory (2004) by more than 10
percent. Based on these evaluations, the
Commonwealth will consider whether
any further emission control measures
should be implemented.
(e) The Maintenance Plan’s
Contingency Measures—The
contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
State will promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of the Pittsburgh 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 eight-hour ozone
concentrations at the Pittsburgh Area
design monitor are above 84 ppb. If this
trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth
will evaluate whether additional local
emission control measures should be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
implemented in order to prevent a
violation of the air quality standard.
PADEP will analyze the conditions
leading to the excessive ozone levels
and evaluate what measures might be
most effective in correcting the
excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of
Federal, state and local measure that
have been adopted but no yet
implemented at the time of excessive
ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then
begin the process of implementing any
selected measures.
Contingency measures will be
adopted in the event that a violation of
the 8-hour ozone standard occurs in the
Pittsburgh Area. In the event of a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard,
contingency measures will be adopted
in order to return the area to attainment
with the standard. Contingency
measures to be considered for the
Pittsburgh Area will include, but not
limited to the following:
Regulatory measures:
—Additional controls on consumer
products
—Additional control on portable fuel
containers
Non-regulatory measures:
—Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip
reflash’’ ‘‘ installation software to
correct the defeat device option on
certain heavy duty diesel engines.
—Diesel retrofit, including replacement,
repowering or alternative fuel use, for
public or private local onroad or
offroad fleets.
—Idling reduction technology for Class
2 yard locomotives.
—Idling reduction technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses
and other freight-handling facilities.
—Accelerated turnover of lawn and
garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including
promotion of electric equipment.
• Additional promotion of alternative
fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating
and agricultural use.
The following schedule applies to the
implementation of the regulatory
contingency measures:
—Within 1 month of the trigger, submit
request to begin regulatory
development process.
—Within 3 months of the trigger, review
of regulation by Air Quality Technical
Advisory Committee (AQTAC),
Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) and
other advisory committees as
appropriate.
—Within 6 months of the trigger,
Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
meeting/action.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
—Within 8 months of the trigger,
publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
for comment as proposed rulemaking.
—Within 10 months of the trigger,
public hearing takes place and
comment period on proposed rule
closes.
—Within 11 months of the trigger,
House and Senate Standing
Committees and Independent
Regulatory Review Commission
(IRRC) comment on proposed rule.
—Within 13 months of the trigger,
AQTAC, CAC and other committees
review responses to comments and
draft final rulemaking.
—Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB
meeting/action.
—Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC
action on rulemaking.
—Within 18 months of the trigger,
Attorney General’s review/action.
—Within 19 months of the trigger,
publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and
submit to EPA as a SIP revision. The
regulation would become effective
upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.
The following schedule applies to the
implementation of non-regulatory
contingency measures:
—Within 2 months of the trigger:
Identify stakeholders for potential
non-regulatory measures.
—Within 3 months of the trigger, if
funding is necessary, identify
potential sources of funding and the
timeframe under which funds would
be available. In addition to non-Title
V Clean Air funds, the following
program may be able to provide
funding: for transportation projects,
the Federal Highway Administration,
as allocated to the two municipal
planning organizations in the
Pittsburgh Area; for projects which
will also have an energy efficient cobenefit, the Pennsylvania Energy
Harvest program; for projects which
would be undertaken by small
business and are pollution prevention
projects, the Small Business
Advantage Grant and Small Business
Pollution Prevention Loan programs;
for projects which will involve
alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling
operations, the Alternative Fuel
Incentive Grant program; for projects
involving diesel emissions, Federal
Energy Policy Act diesel reduction
funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for
which Pennsylvania or project
sponsors may apply under a
competitive process.
—Within 6 months of the trigger, work
with the area planning commissions
to identify land use planning
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
strategies and projects with
quantifiable and timely emission
benefits. Work with the Pennsylvania
Department of Community and
Economic Development and other
State agencies to assist in these
measures.
—Within 9 months of the trigger, enter
into agreements with implementing
organizations if state loans or grants
are involved. Quantify projected
emission benefits.
—Within 12 months of the trigger,
submit a revised SIP to EPA.
—Within 12–24 months of the trigger,
implement strategies and projects.
(g) Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of
the Maintenance Plan
EPA concludes that the April 26, 2007
maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA.
VII. Does the Maintenance Plan
Establish and Identify Adequate and
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e.,
RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify
and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile
sources. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and
51.112, MVEBs must be established in
an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is
the portion of the total allowable
emissions that is allocated to highway
and transit vehicle use and emissions. A
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish and revise the MVEBs in
control strategy SIPs and maintenance
plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB budget
contained therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by State and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ of a MVEB are set out in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area
are listed in Table 1 of this document
for the 2009, and 2018 years and are the
projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the
safety margin allocated to the MVEBs.
These emission budgets, when approved
by EPA, must be used for transportation
conformity determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The following example is for the 2018
safety margin: The Pittsburgh Area first
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during the 2002 to 2004 time period.
The Commonwealth used 2004 as the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37693
year to determine attainment levels of
emissions for the Pittsburgh Area.
The total emissions from point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources in 2004 were 235.7 tpd of VOC
and 444.8 tpd of NOX. PADEP projected
emissions out to the year 2018 and
obtained totals of 183.91 tpd of VOC
and 382.55 tpd of NOX from all sources
in the Pittsburgh Area. The safety
margin for the Pittsburgh Area for 2018
would be the difference between these
amounts. This difference is 51.79 tpd of
VOC and 62.25 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 8hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin
is the extra emissions reduction below
the attainment levels that can be
allocated for emissions by various
sources as long as the total emission
levels are maintained at or below the
attainment levels. Table 6 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018
years.
TABLE 6.—2009 AND 2018 SAFETY
MARGINS FOR THE PITTSBURGH AREA
Inventory year
2004 Attainment ..........
2009 Interim ..
2009 Safety
Margin .......
2004 Attainment ..........
2018 Final .....
2018 Safety
Margin .......
VOC emissions (tpd)
NOX emissions (tpd)
235.7
202.44
444.8
439.33
33.26
5.47
235.7
183.91
444.8
382.55
51.79
62.25
PADEP allocated 3.58 tpd VOC to the
2009 interim VOC on-road mobile
source emissions projection and 3.06
tpd NOX to the 2009 interim NOX onroad mobile source emissions projection
to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the
2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 4.60
tpd VOC and 3.32 tpd NOX from the
2018 safety margins to the 2018 on-road
mobile source emissions projections 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 7 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for the Pittsburgh
Area.
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
37694
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Pittsburgh Area MVEBs will also be
TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL
MVEBS FOR THE PITTSBURGH AREA announced on EPA’s conformity Web
TONS PER DAY
[Rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Inventory year
VOC emissions
NOX emissions
site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/traq,
(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’
button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that
2009 on-road
the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
mobile source
projected
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
emissions ......
50.96
98.47 proposing to approve the
2009 Safety
Commonwealth’s April 26, 2007,
Margin Allorequest for the Pittsburgh Area to be
cated to
designated to attainment of the 8-hour
MVEBs ..........
3.58
3.06
2009 MVEBs .....
54.54
101.53 NAAQS for ozone. EPA has evaluated
Pennsylvania’s redesignation request
2018 on-road
and determined that it meets the
mobile source
redesignation criteria set forth in section
projected
emissions ......
28.31
37.83 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
2018 Safety
that the redesignation request and
Margin Allomonitoring data demonstrate that the
cated to
area has attained the 8-hour ozone
MVEBs ..........
4.60
3.32 standard. The final approval of this
2018 MVEBs .....
32.91
41.15
redesignation request would change the
designation of the Pittsburgh Area from
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
nonattainment to attainment for the
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the
8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
Pittsburgh Area are approvable because
proposing to approve the associated
the MVEBs for NOX and VOC, including maintenance plan and the 2002 base
the allocated safety margins, continue to year inventory for Pittsburgh Area,
maintain the total emissions at or below submitted on April 26, 2007, as
the attainment year inventory levels as
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA
required by the transportation
is proposing to approve the
conformity regulations.
maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh
Area because it meets the requirements
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
of section 175A of the CAA as described
Process for the MVEBs in the Pittsburgh
previously in this notice. EPA is also
Area Maintenance Plan?
proposing to approve the MVEBs
The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area
submitted by Pennsylvania for the
maintenance plan are being posted to
Pittsburgh Area in conjunction with its
EPA’s conformity Web site concurrent
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting
with this proposal. The public comment public comments on the issues
period will end at the same time as the
discussed in this document. These
public comment period for this
comments will be considered before
proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
taking final action.
concurrently processing the action on
the maintenance plan and the adequacy IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
process for the MVEBs contained
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
The MVEBs cannot be used for
Budget. For this reason, this action is
transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan update and associated also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
MVEBs are approved in a final Federal
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR28355 (May
the budgets adequate in a separate
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
action following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written
to approve state law as meeting Federal
comments with respect to the proposed
requirements and imposes no additional
approval of the Pittsburgh Area MVEBs, requirements beyond those imposed by
or any other aspect of our proposed
state law. Redesignation of an area to
approval of this updated maintenance
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of
plan, we will respond to the comments
the Clean Air Act does not impose any
on the MVEBs in our final action or
new requirements on small entities.
proceed with the adequacy process as a
Redesignation is an action that affects
separate action. Our action on the
the status of a geographical area and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on sources. Redesignation
of an area to attainment under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does
not impose any new requirements on
small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new regulatory requirements on
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will
it have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to affect the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any
new requirements on sources, or allows
the state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission;
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Pittsburgh 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 dioxides,
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: June 28, 2007.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07–3325 Filed 7–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list 12
penguin species: emperor penguin
(Aptenodytes forsteri), southern
rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes
chrysocome), northern rockhopper
penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi (E.
chrysocome moseleyi)), fiordland
crested penguin (Eudyptes
pachyrhynchus), snares crested penguin
(Eudyptes robustus), erect-crested
penguin (Eudyptes sclateri), macaroni
penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), royal
penguin (Eudyptes schlegeli), whiteflippered penguin (Eudyptula
albosignata (E. minor albosignata)),
yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes
antipodes), African penguin
(Spheniscus demersus), and Humboldt
penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing 10 species of penguins may be
warranted. We, therefore, are initiating
a status review of 10 species of penguins
to determine if listing under the Act is
warranted. To ensure that the status
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial
information regarding these species. We
find the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing of
two species may be warranted: snares
crested penguin and royal penguin.
Therefore, we will not be initiating a
status review for these two species in
response to this petition. However, we
ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of these two
species or threats to them or their
habitat at any time.
We must receive your comments
on or before September 10, 2007.
DATES:
Submit any comments,
information, and questions by any one
of the following methods: By mail to the
Special Assistant to the Deputy
Assistant Director, International Affairs,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Room 760, Arlington, VA
22203; by fax to 703–358–2276; by email to DSApenguins@fws.gov; or
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at www.regulations.gov.
ADDRESSES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition to List 12 Penguin Species as
Threatened or Endangered under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jul 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Dr.
Peter O. Thomas at the above address,
or by telephone, 703–358–1708; or email, DSApenguins@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37695
If you
submit information or comments, please
include ‘‘Attn: Penguins’’ in the
beginning of your message. Electronic
attachments in standard formats (such
as .pdf or .doc) are acceptable, but
please name the software necessary to
open any attachments in formats other
than those given above. Also, please
include your name and return address
in your e-mail message. If you do not
receive a confirmation from the system
that we have received your e-mail
message, please submit your comments
in writing using one of the alternate
methods described above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from this status review will be
as accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we solicit comments or
suggestions from the public, concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party. We are opening a 60day public comment period to allow all
interested parties an opportunity to
provide information on the statuses of
10 species of penguins: emperor
penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), southern
rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes
chrysocome), northern rockhopper
penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi (E.
chrysocome moseleyi)), fiordland
crested penguin (Eudyptes
pachyrhynchus), erect-crested penguin
(Eudyptes sclateri), macaroni penguin
(Eudyptes chrysolophus), whiteflippered penguin (Eudyptula
albosignata (E. minor albosignata)),
yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes
antipodes), African penguin
(Spheniscus demersus), and Humboldt
penguin (Spheniscus humboldti)
throughout their range, including:
(1) Information on taxonomy,
distribution, habitat selection and
trends (especially breeding and foraging
habitats), diet, and population
abundance and trends (especially
current recruitment data) on these
species;
(2) Information on the effects of
climate change and changing ocean or
land or sea ice conditions on the
distribution and abundance of these
species and their principal prey species
over the short and long term (especially
information on known prey
substitutions, and what their effects
would be on these species);
(3) Information on the effects of other
potential threat factors, including
commercial fishing activities,
contaminants, habitat loss, harvest,
predation by other animals, and
diseases of these species or their
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37683-37695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453; FRL-8336-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (Pittsburgh Area) be redesignated
as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation
request for Pittsburgh Area. In conjunction with its redesignation
request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-
assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on
its determination that the Pittsburgh Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In
addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Pittsburgh
Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also
providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for
the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the
Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA is proposing
approval of the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the
2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0453 by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453, Christopher Cripps, 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-
2007-0453. 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
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, P.O. Box 8468,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or
by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever
[[Page 37684]]
``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing To Take?
II. What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and SIP Revision?
VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing To Take?
On April 26, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on April 26, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision
to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year
inventory as a SIP revision on April 26, 2007. The Pittsburgh Area is
currently designated as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and is
covered by a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA is proposing to
determine that the Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Pittsburgh Area maintenance
plan as a SIP revision, such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status. The maintenance plan is designed to
ensure continued attainment in the Pittsburgh Area for the next ten
years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory
for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the
MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) for transportation conformity purposes.
II. What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
A. General
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Pittsburgh Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
status in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of
the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area (as well as most
other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August
3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006).
On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA,
Docket No. 04-1201 (hereafter ``South Coast''), in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule
was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related
to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour
attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8
decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let
stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-
backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December
22, 2006 decision that EPA had 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) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain
types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the
Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-
hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The
Pittsburgh 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 decisions in South
Coast are not an impediment to redesignating the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of
subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2.
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004,
[[Page 37685]]
Pittsburgh Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore,
is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. Based upon
ozone monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2006 (inclusive), the
Pittsburgh Area has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period
2003 through 2005 and has a design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year
period 2004 through 2006. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Pittsburgh Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The Pittsburgh Area
The Pittsburgh Area is comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,
Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh Area
had been designated and classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment
area for the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6,
1991. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved a request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard and approved a maintenance plan SIP revision.
On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested that the Pittsburgh Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Pittsburgh Area. The data satisfies the
CAA requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to
as the area's design value) is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment
area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data
is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
allows for redesignation, providing that:
(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
(3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(5) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Pittsburgh
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On April 26, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP
revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Pittsburgh Area has attained
the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation
of the Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area for the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes
[[Page 37686]]
contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for NOX
and VOC for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and
2018. These MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
[Tons per day (rounded to two decimal places)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.............................................. 54.54 101.53
2018.............................................. 32.91 41.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and SIP Revision?
EPA is proposing to determine that Pittsburgh Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's April 26, 2007,
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA.
A. The Pittsburgh Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS
In the Pittsburgh Area, there are currently thirteen monitors that
measure air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation
request, Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data which included
the years 2003 through 2006 (the most recent years of data available as
of the time of the redesignation request) for the Pittsburgh Area. This
data has been quality assured and is recorded in Air Quality System
(AQS).
Based upon this data, EPA is proposing to determine that the
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the 8-hour
ozone standard, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete
and consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value, which is
the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area over
each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). PADEP uses the
AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures
the data transfers and content for accuracy. The monitors generally
should have remained at the same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The fourth-
high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year
average, are summarized in Table 2 for the four monitors with the
highest 2005 and 2006 design values in the Pittsburgh area.
Table 2.--Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
High
Year Reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor: California & 11th, Harrison Twp, Allegheny Co., AQS ID 42-003-
1005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................... 0.081
2004....................................................... 0.076
2005....................................................... 0.087
2006....................................................... 0.088
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning, Armstrong Co., AQS ID 42-005-
0001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................... 0.086
2004....................................................... 0.082
2005....................................................... 0.086
2006....................................................... 0.080
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.082 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor: Route 168 & Tomlinson Road, Beaver Co., AQS ID 42-007-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................... 0.087
2004....................................................... 0.081
2005....................................................... 0.086
2006....................................................... 0.082
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor: Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID 42-
003-0010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................... 0.088
2004....................................................... 0.072
2005....................................................... 0.092
2006....................................................... 0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.080 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality data show that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.084 ppm for 2003 through 2005 and
still is attaining the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm at the
monitors with the highest design value for 2004 through 2006. The data
collected at the Pittsburgh Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement
that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.
PADEP's request for redesignation for the Pittsburgh Area indicates
that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan,
PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.
B. The Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations,
EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area, and
determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these
requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We
note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable
requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's
[[Page 37687]]
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See Section 175A(c) of the CAA. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of
the Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's
December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because
even in light of the Court's decisions redesignation is appropriate
under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding
policies regarding redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements
should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The Pittsburgh Area will still be
subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110
and Part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's
designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate
in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with
EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for
redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings, (61 FR 53174-53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NOX
SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ``an
`applicable requirement' for purposes of section 110(l) because the
NOX rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2),
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set
forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification.
Under an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), EPA classified
the Pittsburgh Area as a subpart 1 nonattainment area under the 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA believes that no subpart 1 requirements need to be
approved prior to redesignation. Of the nonattainment plan provisions
due under section 172, none were due prior to submission of the
complete redesignation request because EPA's November 29, 2005 final
rule (70 FR 71612) set the deadline for these requirements at 3 years
after resignation, which for the Pittsburgh Area is June 15, 2007.
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's rulings in South
Coast 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 cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1)
EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements 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
Pittsburgh Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to
meet only subpart 1
[[Page 37688]]
requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation; and 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 DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC
Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly,
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request.
With respect to subpart 2 requirements, if the Pittsburgh Area
initially had been classified under subpart the first two-part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Pittsburgh Area under section
182(a) of the CAA would be: (1) A base-year inventory requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, (2) the emissions
statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.
As we have stated previously in this document, these requirements
are not yet due for purpose of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area,
but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which covers all
portions of the Pittsburgh Area and which EPA believes satisfies the
emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard under section
182(a)(3)(B). This regulation is codified at Section 135.21 ``Emission
statements'' in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); see also 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 SIP concurrently with the
maintenance plan as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both
section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that
Pennsylvania's SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D
of the CAA. In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of
the redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret
the general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval
prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d)
since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and
Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
In the case of the Pittsburgh Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Pittsburgh 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.'' See rulemakings for
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-12468); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio
(61 FR at 20458, 20469-20470); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831,
31834-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of Pennsylvania, 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 Ozone Transport Region
(OTR). The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required
for a marginal area. Nevertheless, 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
Pittsburgh Area.
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
As stated previously in this document, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA approved a request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan
SIP revision.
With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Pittsburgh
Area was an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's decisions in
South Coast do not impact redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision
clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions
budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that
those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations
until replaced by 8-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs). To
meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations
at 40 CFR part 93. As discussed elsewhere in this document,
[[Page 37689]]
EPA is proposing to approve 8-hour MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area. Once
these 8-hour MVEBs are approved the 1-hour budgets will no longer apply
under anti-backsliding.
With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the
Pittsburgh Area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measures (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.
Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter any requirements
that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
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 reasonably available control
technology (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M), and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of
the Pittsburgh Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR
will continue to be applicable after redesignation as discussed
previously in this document.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
See the Reading, Pennsylvania redesignation proposed and final rules,
61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997),
respectively. The rationale for this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation. Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the
area by virtue of the area's nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an
action changing an area's designation. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Pittsburgh Area was a
1-hour maintenance area which had been a moderate nonattainment area at
the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). No Part D submittal requirements have
come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the
area. Therefore, all Part D submittal requirements have been fulfilled.
Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable
for the purposes of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area, the
applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP
requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes that the section
110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that
Pennsylvania has fulfilled all 8-hour Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Pittsburgh Area Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the
observed air quality improvement in the Pittsburgh Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004
[In tons per day (tpd)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................ 16.5 100.3 51.5 86.4 254.7
Year 2004................................................ 15.5 98.1 48.8 73.3 235.7
Diff. (02-04)............................................ 1.0 2.2 2.7 13.1 19.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................ 250.4 11.5 86.1 173.9 522.0
Year 2004................................................ 202.8 11.7 81.5 148.8 444.8
Diff. (02-04)............................................ 47.6 -0.2 4.6 25.1 77.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 19.0 tpd, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 77.2 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures implemented in the Pittsburgh Area:
(1) Stationary Area Sources
(a) Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003),
(b) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004);
(2) Highway Vehicle Sources
(a) Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), Tier 1 (56 FR
25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000),
(b) Federal Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694,
October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000),
[[Page 37690]]
(c) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28,
1999),
(d) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program (64 FR
32411, June 17, 1999 and 70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005);
(3) Nonroad Sources--Federal Nonroad Engine and Fuels (40 CFR parts
89 to 91, and 1039, 1048 and 1051); and
(4) Stationary Point Sources--Pennsylvania's Interstate Pollution
Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR
57428, September 29, 2006) (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001 and 71 FR
57428, September 29, 2006).
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 Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted for
approval under section 175A of the CAA the April 26, 2007, maintenance
plan to fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard.
Pennsylvania submitted this SIP revision to provide for maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for at least 10 years
after redesignation. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the ozone
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Pittsburgh Area meets the
requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable ozone
standards including the 8-hour standard.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A(a), the plan must demonstrate continued attainment
of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A(b) requires that
eight years after the redesignation the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be
maintained for the next 10-year period following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a
schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt
correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the
CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memorandum
dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the content of
a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the
following provisions:
(1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) A maintenance demonstration;
(3) A monitoring network;
(4) Verification of continued attainment; and
(5) A contingency plan.
2. Analysis of the Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the
Pittsburgh Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year
attainment period of 2003-2005 and accounts for reductions attributable
to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.
PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for the Pittsburgh Area, including point, area, mobile on-
road, and mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions
inventories, PADEP used the following approaches and sources of data:
(i) Point source emissions--Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and
emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by
emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System
and EPA's publication series AP-42 and are based on Source
Classification Code (SCC). Each process has at least one SCC assigned
to it. If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate
emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates
supersede those calculated using SCC codes.
(ii) Area source emissions--Area source emissions are generally
estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or
collective activity for each area source category at the county level.
Pennsylvania estimates emissions from area sources using emission
factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary
point sources. Emission factors may also be derived from research and
guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and
AP-42 factors. Throughput estimates are derived from county-level
activity data, by apportioning national and statewide activity data to
counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers. County
employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to
the industry covered.
(iii) On-road mobile sources--PADEP employs an emissions estimation
methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions. The
Pittsburgh Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
vehicle type and roadway type.
(iv) Mobile nonroad emissions--The 2002 emissions for the majority
of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel,
gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-
fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives. For
2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion
factors. Commercial aircraft operations are significant in the
Pittsburgh area. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) accounts for
all commercial operations in the Pittsburgh area. PADEP quantified the
emissions at PIT with the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System
(EDMS) that is an EPA-approved model. For other 2002 aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small aircraft operation
statistics from https://www.airnav.com, and emission factors and
operational characteristics in EDMS. For PIT, growth was estimated
using estimates of future operations at PIT from the FAA APO Terminal
Area Forecast Detailed Report. For other aircraft operations, growth
was calculated using estimates of small airport activity from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s APO terminal area forecast
detailed report.
The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for the
Pittsburgh Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected
emissions for this area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the
demonstration of maintenance for this area. EPA has concluded that
[[Page 37691]]
Pennsylvania has adequately derived and documented the 2004 attainment
year VOC and NOX emissions for this area.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision to supplement its April 26, 2007, redesignation request.
The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA. The Pittsburgh Area 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 Pittsburgh Area through the
year 2018. The Pittsburgh Area maintenance demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.
See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-25432.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Pittsburgh Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose 2009 as an
interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected
to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-
year maintenance period.
Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 VOC 2009 VOC 2018 VOC
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*........................ 73.3 54.54 32.91
Nonroad........................ 48.8 39.1 34.6
Area........................... 98.1 92.4 96.1
Point.......................... 15.5 16.4 20.3
----------------------------------------
Total...................... 235.7 202.44 183.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 NOX 2009 NOX 2018 NOX
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*........................ 148.8 101.53 41.15
Nonroad........................ 81.5 70.5 55.6
Area........................... 11.7 12.1 12.2
Point.......................... 202.8 255.2 273.6
----------------------------------------
Total...................... 444.8 439.33 382.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
The following are permanent and enforceable control measures to
ensure emissions during the maintenance period and are equal to or less
than the emissions in the attainment year:
(1) Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69
FR 70893);
(2) Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR
70895);
(3) Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080); and
(4) Pennsylvania's Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction
Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, September 29,
2006).
Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
(1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner
gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)--Tier 1 and Tier 2;
(2) NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle
Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999);
(3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road
(2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001);
(4) Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel
(2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004); and
(5) Pennsylvania's vehicle emission inspection/maintenance program
(October 6, 2005, 70 FR 58313).
In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162)
should have positive impacts on Pennsylvania's air quality. CAIR, which
will be implemented in the eastern portion of the country in two phases
(2009 and 2015) should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors
and will have a beneficial effect on the air quality in the Pittsburgh
Area.
Pennsylvania and other nearby states are required to adopt a
regulation implementing the requirements of CAIR or an equivalent
program. On April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to reduce the interstate transport of
NOX and sulfur dioxides that contribute significantly to
nonattainment and maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. If
Pennsylvania has not adopted its own CAIR requirements and obtained
EPA's approval of the required SIP revision by September 2007, the FIP
will impose the Federal program upon CAIR-affected electric generating
units in Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Area does have several sources
which are subject to regulation under CAIR. For the maintenance
demonstration, Pennsylvania did not rely upon any reductions from CAIR
from these facilities. However, the quality of air transported from
upwind sources into the county would be improved.
Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the Pittsburgh Area.
(c) Monitoring Network--Cur
