Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the York (York and Adams Counties) 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory, 60296-60307 [E7-20942]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60296
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Written comments must be
received on or before November 23,
2007.
DATES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0625; FRL–8485–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the
York (York and Adams Counties) 8Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area’s
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year
Inventory
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the York
(York and Adams Counties) ozone
nonattainment area (York Area) be
redesignated as attainment for the 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to
approve the ozone redesignation request
for the York Area. In conjunction with
its redesignation request, the
Commonwealth submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for the York 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 York Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
based upon three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2004–2006. EPA’s
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request is based on its
determination that the York Area has
met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air
Act (CAA). In addition, the
Commonwealth has also submitted a
2002 base year inventory for the York
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
maintenance plan for the York Area for
purposes of transportation conformity,
which EPA is also proposing to approve.
EPA is proposing approval of the
redesignation request and of the
maintenance plan and 2002 base year
inventory SIP revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2007–0625 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0625,
Marilyn Powers, 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–
0625. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
ADDRESSES:
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LaKeshia Robertson, (215) 814–2113, or
by e-mail at robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To
Take?
II. What Is the Background for These
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation
to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in the
York Area Maintenance Plan Adequate
and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is
Proposing To Take?
On June 14, 2007, PADEP formally
submitted a request to redesignate the
York Area from nonattainment to
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania
submitted a maintenance plan for the
York Area as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment in the area over
the next 11 years. Pennsylvania also
submitted a 2002 base year inventory for
the York Area as a SIP revision. The
York Area is currently designated a
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
EPA is proposing to determine that the
York 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 York Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the York 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 York Area for the next
11 years. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2002 base year inventory
for the York Area as a SIP revision.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its
action on the adequacy process for the
MVEBs identified in the York
maintenance plan, and proposing to
approve the MVEBs identified for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the York Area
for transportation conformity purposes.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
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 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
York Area was designated a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area in a Federal
Register notice signed on April 15, 2004
and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857), based on its exceedance of the
8-hour health-based standard for ozone
during the years 2001–2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final
rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the York Area
(as well as most other areas of the
country) effective June 15, 2005. See, 40
CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23966 (April 30,
2004); and 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
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter ‘‘South
Coast’’). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast
Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
Docket No. 04–1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
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 CAA 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 measures required for 1hour 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 CAA, 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.
In addition, 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 8hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations, which is
already required under EPA’s
conformity regulation. The Court thus
clarified that 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for antibacksliding purposes. The Court upheld
EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour
standard provided there were adequate
anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere
in this document, mainly in section VI.
B. ‘‘The York Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a
Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA,’’ EPA discusses its
rationale why the decision in South
Coast is not an impediment to
redesignating the York 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60297
control requirements for nonattainment
areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as
‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains
general, less prescriptive requirements
for nonattainment areas for any
pollutant—including ozone—governed
by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. In 2004, the
York Area was classified a basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area based on air
quality monitoring data from 2001–
2003. Therefore, the York Area is
subject to the requirements of subpart 1
of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness
requirements are met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50. The ozone monitoring data
indicates that the York Area has a
design value of 0.081 ppm for the 3-year
period of 2004–2006, using complete,
quality-assured data. Therefore, the
ambient ozone data for the York Area
indicates no violations of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
B. The York Area
The York Area consists of York and
Adams Counties, Pennsylvania. Prior to
its designation as an 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, the York Area was
a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area, and therefore, was subject to
requirements for marginal
nonattainment areas pursuant to section
182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). EPA determined
that the York Area has attained the 1hour ozone NAAQS by the November
15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349,
January 17, 1995).
On June 14, 2007, PADEP requested
that the York Area be redesignated to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. The redesignation request
included three years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period of
2004–2006, indicating that the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in
the York Area. The data satisfies the
CAA requirements that the 3-year
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
60298
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (commonly referred to as
the area’s design value), must be less
than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084
ppm when rounding is considered).
Under the CAA, a nonattainment area
may be redesignated if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data is
available to determine that the area has
attained the standard and the area meets
the other CAA redesignation
requirements set forth in section
107(d)(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
redesignations in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990;
• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
• ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, October
28, 1992;
• ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November
30, 1993;
• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On June 14, 2007, PADEP requested
redesignation of the York Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. On June 14, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the
York Area as a SIP revision, to ensure
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS over the next 11 years,
until 2018. PADEP also submitted a
2002 base year inventory concurrently
with its maintenance plan as a SIP
revision. EPA has determined that the
York Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard and has met the requirements
for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. What Would Be the Effect of These
Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the York 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 York Area for the next 11 years,
until 2018. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to
remedy any future violations of the 8hour NAAQS (should they occur), and
identifies the NOX and VOC MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes for
the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs
are displayed in the following table:
TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
BUDGETS IN TONS PER SUMMER
DAY (TPSD)
Year
2009 ..................................
2018 ..................................
VOC
15.9
9.0
NOX
22.8
10.0
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Commonwealth’s Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the York Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met.
The following is a description of how
the PADEP’s June 14, 2007 submittal
satisfies the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
A. The York Area Has Attained the
Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the York Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may
be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data. To attain this
standard, the design value, which is the
3-year average of the fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations, measured at each
monitor within the area over each year,
must not exceed the ozone standard of
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58, and recorded in the Air Quality
System (AQS). The monitors generally
should have remained at the same
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
60299
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
In the York Area, there are two ozone
monitors, located in York County (York)
and another in Adams County
(Biglerville) that measures air quality
with respect to ozone. As part of its
redesignation request, Pennsylvania
referenced ozone monitoring data for
the years 2004–2006 for the York Area.
This data has been quality assured and
is recorded in the AQS. PADEP uses the
AQS as the permanent database to
maintain its data and quality assures the
data transfers and content for accuracy.
The fourth-highest 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations, along with
the three-year average are summarized
in Table 2.
TABLE 2.—YORK AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES
Annual 4th highest reading (ppm)
Monitor/County/AIRS ID
2004
York County Monitor/AQS ID 42–133–0008 .......................................................................................................
Adams County Monitor/AQS ID 42–001–0002 ...................................................................................................
.077
.072
2005
.089
.080
2006
.077
.074
The average for the 3-year period 2004–2006 is 0.081 ppm (based on York Monitor/AQS 42–133–0008).
The air quality data for 2004–2006
show that the York Area has attained
the standard with a design value of
0.081 ppm. The data collected at the
York 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 York Area
indicates that the data is complete and
was quality assured in accordance with
40 CFR part 58. In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Pennsylvania and
data taken from AQS indicate that the
York Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
B. The York 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 York
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) of the CAA. In
making these proposed determinations,
EPA ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the York 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
fully approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)
with respect to the timing of applicable
requirements. Under this interpretation,
to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See also, Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
Applicable requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the area’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR at 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
This section 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
alter 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CAA 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 requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD));
• Provisions for the implementation
of part D requirements for 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,
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
60300
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 believe that these
requirements are 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 York Area will still
be subject to these requirements after it
is redesignated. The section 110 and
Part D requirements, which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and
classification, are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This policy is consistent with
EPA’s existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See,
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October
10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996);
and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking
(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also, the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly,
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules,
EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an
‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(1) because the NOX rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour
(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951,
23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. As we
explain later in this notice, no Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard
became due for the York Area prior to
the submission of the redesignation
request.
Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies
all of the applicable general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
section 100(a)(2), EPA concludes that
Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(e) regarding section
110 of the CAA.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements
Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final
rule (69 FR 23951), the York Area was
designated a basic nonattainment area
under subpart 1 for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Sections 172–176 of the CAA,
found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements
depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification.
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
the court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons
for classifying areas under subpart 1 for
the 8-hour standard, and remanded that
matter to the Agency. Consequently, it
is possible that this area could, during
a remand to EPA, be reclassified under
subpart 2. Although any future decision
by EPA to classify this area under
subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes
that this does not mean that
redesignation of the area cannot now go
forward. This belief is based upon: (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance
with the requirements due at the time
the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied.
At the time the redesignation request
was submitted, the York Area was
classified under subpart 1 and was
obligated to meet subpart 1
requirements. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that
came due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See,
September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division). See
also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation; 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking. See,
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63
(D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C.
Circuit upheld a District Court’s ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on that area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly, here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation, additional
SIP requirements under subpart 2 that
were not in effect at the time it
submitted its redesignation request.
With respect to 8-hour subpart 2
requirements, if the York Area initially
had been classified under subpart 2, the
first two Part D subpart 2 requirements
applicable to the York Area under
section 182(a) of the CAA would be a
base year inventory requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the
CAA, and the emissions statement
requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B).
As stated previously, these
requirements are not due for purposes of
redesignation of the York Area, but
nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has
in its approved SIP, an emissions
statement rule for the 1-hour standard
that covers all portions of the designated
8-hour nonattainment area, and that
satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard.
See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at
40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12,
1995. With respect to the base year
inventory requirement, in this notice of
proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing
to approve the 2002 base year inventory
for the York Area, which was submitted
on June 14, 2007, concurrently with its
maintenance plan, into the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2002 base year inventory as
fulfilling the requirements, if necessary,
of both sections 182(a)(1) and 172(c)(3)
of the CAA. A detailed evaluation of
Pennsylvania’s 2002 base year inventory
for the York Area can be found in a
Technical Support Document (TSD)
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking.
EPA has determined that the emission
inventory and the emissions statement
for the York Area have been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation did not become due prior
to submission of the redesignation
request, EPA believes that the general
conformity and NSR requirements do
not require approval prior to
redesignation.
With respect to section 176,
Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to
establish criteria and procedures to
ensure that Federally-supported or
funded projects conform to the air
quality planning goals in the applicable
SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit
Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as
well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (‘‘general
conformity’’). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) since State
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where State rules have not
been approved. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438–440 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also,
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
In the case of the York Area, EPA has
also determined that before being
redesignated, the York Area need not
comply with the requirement that an
NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation. EPA has also determined
that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that an
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 of
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Normally, a State’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program will become effective in
the area immediately upon
redesignation to attainment. See the
more detailed explanations in the
following redesignation rulemakings:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467–12468, March
7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH
(61 FR 20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61
FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21, 1996).
In the case of the York Area, the Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations in the
Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the
requirements for NSR in section 184 of
the CAA to ozone attainment areas
within the ozone transport region
(OTR). The OTR NSR requirements are
more stringent than that required for a
marginal or basic ozone nonattainment
area. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA fully approved
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision
consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations that cover
the York Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including the
NSR program, as not being applicable
for purposes of redesignation. The
rationale for this is based on two
considerations. First, the requirement to
submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas
in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as
reasonably available control technology
(RACT), and Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) programs even after
redesignation. Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the
York Area by virtue of the area’s
designation and classification. See, 61
FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–32 (May
7, 1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area
Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court
limited its vacatur so as to uphold those
provisions of the anti-backsliding
requirements that were not successfully
challenged. Therefore the Area must
meet the federal anti-backsliding
requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et
seq.; 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26,
2005), which apply by virtue of the
area’s classification for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As set forth in more detail
below, the area must also address four
additional anti-backsliding provisions
identified by the Court in its decisions.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40
CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour ozone
NAAQS requirements that continue to
apply after revocation of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. Section
51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60301
‘‘The area remains subject to the
obligation to adopt and implement the
applicable requirements as defined in
section 51.900(f), except as provided in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of paragraph (b) of
this section.’’
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70
FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), states
that:
‘‘Applicable requirements means for an
area the following requirements to the
extent such requirements applied to the
area for the area’s classification under
section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1hour NAAQS at the time of designation
for the 8-hour NAAQS.’’
(1) RACT.
(2) I/M.
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs
for purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under
section 183(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under
section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as
required by section 182(e)(4) of the
CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring
under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures
(TCMs) under section 182(c)(5) of the
CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the
CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section
182(f) of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or
alternative as provided under section
51.905(a)(1)(ii).’’
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the
York Area is subject to the obligations
set forth in 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the York
Area was designated a marginal
nonattainment area for the 1-hour
standard. With respect to the 1-hour
standard, the applicable requirements
under the anti-backsliding provisions at
40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) for the York Area
are limited to the RACT and I/M
programs specified in section 182(a) of
the CAA and are discussed in the
following paragraphs:
Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP
revisions to correct or amend RACT for
sources in marginal areas, such as the
York Area, that were subject to control
technique guidelines (CTGs) issued
before November 15, 1990 pursuant to
CAA section 108. On December 22,
1994, EPA fully approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP all corrections
required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
60302
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22,
1994). EPA believes that this
requirement applies only to marginal
and higher classified areas under the 1hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990
amendments to the CAA; therefore, this
is a one-time requirement. After an area
has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS,
there is no requirement under the 8hour NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the CAA
relates to the savings clause for certain
I/M programs. It requires marginal areas
to adopt vehicle I/M programs. This
provision was not applicable to the York
Area because this area did not have nor
was required to have an I/M program
before November 15, 1990.
In addition the Court held that EPA
should have retained four additional
measures in its anti-backsliding
provisions: (1) Nonattainment area NSR;
(2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3)
contingency measures under section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA; and
(4) 1-hour motor vehicle emissions
budgets that were yet not replaced by 8hour emissions budgets. These
requirements are addressed below:
With respect to NSR, EPA has
determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved
nonattainment New Source Review
program, for the same reasons discussed
previously with respect to the
applicable Part D requirement for the 8hour standard.
The section 185 penalty fee
requirement applies only to severe and
extreme nonattainment areas, and was
never applicable in the York 1-hour
marginal nonattainment area.
With respect to the requirement for
submission of contingency measures for
the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does
not require contingency measures for
marginal areas.
The conformity portion of the Court’s
ruling does not impact the redesignation
request for the York Area except to the
extent that the Court in its June 8
decision clarified that for those areas
with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding
requires that those 1-hour budgets must
be used for 8-hour conformity
determinations until replaced by 8-hour
budgets. There are no applicable 1-hour
MVEBs for the York Area. (As discussed
elsewhere in this document, EPA is
proposing to approve 8-hour MVEBs for
the York Area.) 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. The court clarified that 1-hour
conformity determinations are not
required for anti-backsliding purposes.
Thus EPA has concluded that the
York Area has met all requirements
applicable for redesignation under the
1-hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional
control requirements under section 184
for the purpose of reducing interstate
transport of emissions that may
contribute to downwind ozone
nonattainment. The section 184
requirements include RACT, NSR,
enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M), and Stage II vapor
recovery or a comparable measure.
In the case of the York Area, which is
located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR
will continue to be applicable after
redesignation. On October 19, 2001,
EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP
revision for the area. See 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001).
EPA has also interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including NSR,
as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Reading, PA
Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October
10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997).
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. York Area Has a Fully Approved SIP
for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the
Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. 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 also, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003)
and citations therein.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the
York 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 York 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 SUMMER DAY (TPSD)
Year
Point
Area
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
2002 .............................................................................................................................
2004 .............................................................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) .................................................................................................................
8.5
5.3
¥3.2
27.1
26.8
¥0.3
25.3
21.3
¥4.0
10.4
10.1
¥0.3
71.3
63.5
¥7.8
70.2
75.3
5.1
2.9
3.0
0.1
36.6
31.9
¥4.7
14.3
13.7
¥0.6
124.0
123.9
¥0.1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
2002 .............................................................................................................................
2004 .............................................................................................................................
Diff. (02–04) .................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC
emissions decreased by 7.8 tpsd, and
NOX emissions decreased by 0.1 tpsd.
These reductions, and anticipated future
reductions, are due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795,
August 21, 2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January
16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR
70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs (FMVCP).
—Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
—Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000).
Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6,
2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/
Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June
29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions are the
cause of the long-term improvement in
ozone levels and are the cause of the
York Area achieving attainment of the 8hour ozone standard.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
D. The York Area Has a Fully
Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the York Area to attainment
status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP
revision to provide for maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the York
Area for at least 11 years after
redesignation. The Commonwealth is
requesting that EPA approve this SIP
revision as meeting the requirement of
CAA 175A. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the
York Area meets the requirements of the
CAA regarding maintenance of the
applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance
Plan?
Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after approval of a redesignation of
an area to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the Commonwealth
must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memo provides additional
guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the
following provisions:
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued
attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the York Area Maintenance
Plan
(a) Attainment inventory—An
attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined
that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year
establishes a reasonable year within the
three-year block of 2004–2006 as a
baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the
CAA requirements to date. The 2004
inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance and is based on actual ‘‘typical
summer day’’ emissions of VOC and
NOX during 2004 and consists of a list
of sources and their associated
emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data
was compiled from actual sources.
Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit
annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data
are multiplied by emission factors from
Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data
Systems and EPA’s publication series
AP–42, and are based on Source
Classification Codes (SCC).
The 2002 area source data was
compiled using county-level activity
data, from census numbers, from county
numbers, etc. The 2004 area source data
was projected from the 2002 inventory
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60303
using temporal allocations provided by
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source
inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) estimates
for VMT. The PADEP has provided
detailed data summaries to document
the calculations of mobile on-road VOC
and NOX emissions for 2002, as well as
for the projection years of 2004, 2009,
and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6
below).
The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the
majority of non-road emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model calculates emissions
for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled non-road equipment types and
includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from
locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and
2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and
conversion factors. There are no
commercial aircraft operations in York
and Adams Counties. For 2002 and 2004
aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated
emissions using small airport operations
statistics from https://www.airnav.com,
and emission factors and operational
characteristics in the EPA-approved
model, Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS).
More detailed information on the
compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009,
and 2018 inventories can found in the
Technical Appendices, which are part
of the June 14, 2007 state submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On
June 14, 2007, the PADEP submitted a
maintenance plan as required by section
175A of the CAA. The York Area
maintenance plan shows maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
demonstrating that current and future
emissions of VOC and NOX remain at or
below the attainment year 2004
emissions levels throughout the York
Area through the year 2018. A
maintenance demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See, Wall v. EPA,
supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See
also, 66 FR at 53099–53100; 68 FR at
25430–25432.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and
NOX emissions for the York Area for
2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose
2009 as an interim year in the
maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX
emissions are not projected to increase
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
60304
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
above the 2004 attainment level during
the time of the maintenance period.
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPSD)
2004 VOC
emissions
Source category
2009 VOC
emissions
2018 VOC
emissions
Point* .......................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................
Mobile** ....................................................................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................................................................
5.3
26.8
21.3
10.1
8.2
26.2
15.9
8.4
10.1
28.9
9.0
6.9
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
63.5
58.7
54.9
*The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A–4 submitted
with the maintenance plan.
**Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPSD)
2004 NOX
emissions
Source category
2009 NOX
emissions
2018 NOX
emissions
Point* .......................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................
Mobile** ....................................................................................................................................................
Non-road ..................................................................................................................................................
75.3
3.0
31.9
13.7
74.1
3.1
22.8
11.2
79.7
3.3
10.0
6.5
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
123.9
111.2
99.5
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
*The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A–4.
**Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.
Additionally, the following programs
are either effective or due to become
effective and will further contribute to
the maintenance demonstration of the 8hour ozone NAAQS:
• The Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006).
• The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001).
• Area VOC regulations concerning
portable fuel containers (69 FR 70893,
December 8, 2004), consumer products
(69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004), and
architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (AIM) (69 FR
68080, November 23, 2004).
• Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs (light-duty) (Tier 1, Tier 2; 56
FR 25724, June 5, 1991; 65 FR 6698,
February 10, 2000).
• Vehicle emission/inspection/
maintenance program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
• Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/
2007) and low sulfur on-road (2006) (66
FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
• Non-road emission standards (2008)
and off-road diesel fuel (2007/2010) (69
FR 38958 June 29, 2004).
• NLEV/PA Clean Vehicle Program
(54 FR 72564, December 28, 1999)—
Pennsylvania will implement this
program in car model year 2008.
• Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel
Emissions Control Program (May 10,
2002).
Based on the comparison of the
projected emissions and the attainment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
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 York Area.
(c) Monitoring Network—There are
currently two monitors measuring ozone
in the York Area. PADEP will continue
to operate its current air quality monitor
(located in York and Adams Counties),
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued
Attainment—In addition to maintaining
the key elements of its regulatory
program, the Commonwealth will track
the attainment status of the ozone
NAAQS in the York Area by reviewing
air quality and emissions data during
the maintenance period. The
Commonwealth will perform an annual
evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) data and emissions reported from
stationary sources, and compare them to
the assumptions about these factors
used in the maintenance plan. The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the
periodic (every three years) emission
inventories prepared under EPA’s
Consolidated Emission Reporting
Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A)
to see if they exceed the attainment year
inventory (2004) by more than 10
percent. PADEP will also continue to
operate the existing ozone monitoring
station in the York Area pursuant to 40
CFR part 58 throughout the
maintenance period and submit qualityassured ozone data to EPA through the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the
CAA states that eight years following
the redesignation of the York Area,
PADEP will be required to submit a
second maintenance plan that will
ensure attainment through 2028. PADEP
has made that commitment to meet the
requirement of section 175A(b).
(e) The Maintenance Plan’s
Contingency Measures—The
contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
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 timeframe by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
The ability of the York 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
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Commonwealth’s maintenance plan
outlines the procedures for the adoption
and implementation of contingency
measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur.
Contingency measures will be
considered if for two consecutive years
the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the York and Adams
Counties monitors are above 84 ppb. If
this trigger point occurs, the
Commonwealth will evaluate whether
additional local emission control
measures should be implemented in
order to prevent a violation of the air
quality standard. PADEP will also
analyze the conditions leading to the
excessive ozone levels and evaluate
which measures might be most effective
in correcting the excessive ozone levels.
PADEP will also analyze the potential
emissions effect of Federal, state, and
local measures that have been adopted
but not yet implemented at the time the
excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP
will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures.
Contingency measures will also be
considered in the event that a violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at
the York and Adams Counties,
Pennsylvania monitors. In the event of
a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard,
PADEP will adopt additional emissions
reduction measures as expeditiously as
practicable in accordance with the
implementation schedule listed later in
this notice and the Pennsylvania Air
Pollution Control Act in order to return
the area to attainment with the standard.
Contingency measures to be considered
for the York Area will include, but not
be limited to the following:
Regulatory measures:
—Additional controls on consumer
products.
—Additional controls on portable fuel
containers.
Non-Regulatory measures:
—Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip
reflash’’ (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on
certain heavy-duty diesel engines).
—Diesel retrofit, including replacement,
repowering or alternative fuel use, for
public or private local on-road or offroad fleets.
—Idling reduction technology for Class
2 yard locomotives.
—Idling reduction technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses
and other freight-handling facilities.
—Accelerated turnover of lawn and
garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including
promotion of electric equipment.
—Additional promotion of alternative
fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating
and agricultural use.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
The plan lays out a process to have
any regulatory contingency measures in
effect within 19 months of the trigger.
The plan also lays out a process to
implement the non-regulatory
contingency measures within 12–24
months of the trigger.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Established and Identified in
the York Area Maintenance Plan
Adequate and Approvable?
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e.,
RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify
and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile
sources. In the maintenance plan, the
MVEBs are termed ‘‘on-road mobile
source emission budgets.’’ Pursuant to
40 CFR part 93 and § 51.112, MVEBs
must be established in an ozone
maintenance plan. An MVEB is the
portion of the total allowable emissions
that is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions. An MVEB
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an
area’s planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained
in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish and revise the MVEBs
in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of or reasonable progress
towards the NAAQS. If a transportation
plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and ensuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60305
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 forth in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The MVEBS for the York Area are
listed in Table 1 of this document for
2009 and 2018, and are the projected
emissions for the on-road mobile
sources plus any portion of the safety
margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety
margin allocation for 2009 and 2018
only). These emission budgets, when
approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity
determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A safety margin is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The safety margin is the extra emissions
that can be allocated as long as the total
attainment level of emissions is
maintained. The credit, or a portion
thereof, can be allocated to any of the
source categories. The following
example is for the 2018 safety margin:
the York Area first attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004
time period. The Commonwealth used
2004 as a year to determine attainment
levels of emissions for the York Area.
The total emissions from point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources in 2004 equaled 63.5 tpd of
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
60306
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VOC and 123.9 tpd of NOX. PADEP
projected emissions out to the year 2018
and projected a total of 54.9 tpd of VOC
and 99.5 tpd of NOX from all sources in
the York Area. The safety margin for the
York Area for 2018 is the difference
between these amounts, or 8.6 tpd of
VOC and 24.4 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. Table 6 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018
years.
TABLE 6.—2009 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR THE YORK AREA
VOC Emissions
(tpd)
Inventory year
2004
2009
2009
2004
2018
2018
Attainment ...........................................................................................................................................
Interim .................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .....................................................................................................................................
Attainment ...........................................................................................................................................
Final ....................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin .....................................................................................................................................
PADEP allocated 0.8 tpd VOC and 1.0
tpd NOX to the 2009 interim VOC
projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOX projected on-road mobile
source emissions projection to arrive at
the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs,
PADEP allocated 1.1 tpd VOC and 1.0
tpd NOX from the 2018 safety margins
to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once
allocated to the mobile source budgets,
these portions of the safety margins are
NOX Emissions
(tpd)
63.5
58.7
4.8
63.5
54.9
8.6
123.9
111.2
12.7
123.9
99.5
24.4
no longer available, and may not be
allocated to any other source category.
Table 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018
MVEBs for the York Area.
TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR THE YORK AREA
VOC Emissions
(tpd)
Inventory Year
2009
2009
2009
2018
2018
2018
Projected On-road Mobile Source Projected Emissions ....................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ....................................................................................................
MVEBs ................................................................................................................................................
Projected On-road Mobile Source Projected Emissions ....................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ....................................................................................................
MVEBs ................................................................................................................................................
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?
The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the
York Area are approvable because the
MVEBs for NOX and VOCs continue to
maintain the total emissions at or below
the attainment year inventory levels as
required by the transportation
conformity regulations.
D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for the MVEBs in the York Area
Maintenance Plan?
The MVEBs for the York Area
maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity Web site concurrently
with this proposal. The public comment
period will end at the same time as the
public comment period for this
proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
concurrently processing the action on
the maintenance plan and the adequacy
process for the MVEBs contained
therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate
and also proposing to approve the
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan.
The MVEBs cannot be used for
transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan and associated
MVEBs are approved in a final Federal
Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
the budgets adequate in a separate
action following the comment period.
If EPA receives adverse written
comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the York Area MVEBs, or
any other aspect of our proposed
approval of this updated maintenance
plan, we will respond to the comments
on the MVEBs in our final action or
proceed with the adequacy process as a
separate action. Our action on the York
Area MVEBs will also be announced on
EPA’s conformity Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/index.htm (once there, click
on ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions).
VIII. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to determine that
the York Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the redesignation of the York
Area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request and determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX Emissions
(tpd)
15.1
0.8
15.9
7.9
1.1
9.0
21.8
1.0
22.8
9.0
1.0
10.0
York Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the
designation of the York Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing
to approve the maintenance plan for the
York Area, submitted on June 14, 2007,
as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA is proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for the York Area
because it meets the requirements of
section 175A as described previously in
this notice. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2002 base-year inventory
for the York Area, and the MVEBs
submitted by Pennsylvania for the York
Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of
the CAA does not impose any new
requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on sources. Redesignation
of an area to attainment under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 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). Because this action
affects the status of a geographical area
or allows the state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements and
because this action does not impose any
new requirements on sources, this
proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This proposed rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Oct 23, 2007
Jkt 214001
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 CAA. 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 CAA. Redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any new
requirements on sources. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order.
This rule, proposing to approve the
redesignation of the York Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and
the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60307
Dated: October 16, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7–20942 Filed 10–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Parts 1540, 1544, and 1560
[Docket No. TSA–2007–28572]
RIN 1652–AA45
Secure Flight Program
Transportation Security
Administration, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed Rule: Extension of
Comment Period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is extending the
comment period on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking regarding the
Secure Flight Program published on
August 23, 2007. TSA has decided to
grant, in part, two requests for an
extension of the comment period and
will extend the comment period for
thirty (30) days. The comment period
will now end on November 21, 2007,
instead of October 22, 2007.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule at 72 FR at 48356, August
23, 2007, is extended until November
21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the TSA docket number to
this rulemaking, to the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS), a
government-wide, electronic docket
management system, using any one of
the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail, In Person, or Fax: Address,
hand-deliver, or fax your written
comments to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590–0001; Fax 202–493–2251. The
Department of Transportation (DOT),
which maintains and processes TSA’s
official regulatory dockets, will scan the
submission and post it to FDMS.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
format and other information about
comment submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Knott, Policy Manager, Secure
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60296-60307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20942]
[[Page 60296]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0625; FRL-8485-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the York (York and Adams Counties) 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 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the York (York and Adams Counties) ozone
nonattainment area (York 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 the York Area.
In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the York
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 York Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2004-2006. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour
ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the York
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth has also
submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the York 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 maintenance
plan for the York Area for purposes of transportation conformity, which
EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA is proposing approval of the
redesignation request and of the maintenance plan and 2002 base year
inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 23,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0625 by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0625, Marilyn Powers, 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-
2007-0625. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia Robertson, (215) 814-2113, or
by e-mail at robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the York Area Maintenance Plan Adequate and
Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?
On June 14, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate
the York Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance plan for the
York Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment in the area
over the next 11 years. Pennsylvania also submitted a 2002 base year
inventory for the York Area as a SIP revision. The York Area is
currently designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing to determine that the York 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 York
Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
[[Page 60297]]
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the York 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 York Area for the
next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year
inventory for the York Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the York maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for the York Area 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 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 York Area
was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a Federal
Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based
standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the York Area (as well as most other
areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69
FR at 23966 (April 30, 2004); and 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 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (hereafter ``South Coast''). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. 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 CAA 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
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 CAA, 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.
In addition, 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, which is
already required under EPA's conformity regulation. The Court thus
clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke
the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding
provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The
York Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA,'' EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast
is not an impediment to redesignating the York Area to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In
2004, the York Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. Therefore,
the York Area is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the York Area has a design value of
0.081 ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using complete, quality-
assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the York Area
indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
B. The York Area
The York Area consists of York and Adams Counties, Pennsylvania.
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
York Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and
therefore, was subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas
pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991). EPA determined that the York Area has attained the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17,
1995).
On June 14, 2007, PADEP requested that the York Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2004-2006, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the York Area. The data satisfies the CAA
requirements that the 3-year
[[Page 60298]]
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (commonly referred to as the area's design value), must
be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is
considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data is available to determine
that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(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 redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on
or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On June 14, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the York Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On June 14, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the York Area as a SIP revision, to
ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the next 11
years, until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory
concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision. EPA has
determined that the York Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard
and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the York 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
York Area for the next 11 years, until 2018. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-
hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NOX and
VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and
2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following table:
Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Summer Day (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................. 15.9 22.8
2018.................................................. 9.0 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the York Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's June 14,
2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.
A. The York Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the York Area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value,
which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area
over each year, must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the same
[[Page 60299]]
location for the duration of the monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
In the York Area, there are two ozone monitors, located in York
County (York) and another in Adams County (Biglerville) that measures
air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation
request, Pennsylvania referenced ozone monitoring data for the years
2004-2006 for the York Area. This data has been quality assured and is
recorded in the AQS. PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to
maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content
for accuracy. The fourth-highest 8-hour daily maximum concentrations,
along with the three-year average are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.--York Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th highest reading
(ppm)
Monitor/County/AIRS ID --------------------------------
2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
York County Monitor/AQS ID 42-133-0008. .077 .089 .077
Adams County Monitor/AQS ID 42-001-0002 .072 .080 .074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.081 ppm (based on York
Monitor/AQS 42-133-0008).
The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the York Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.081 ppm. The data
collected at the York 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 York Area indicates that the data is
complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan,
PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and data taken from AQS indicate that the York Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The York 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 York 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)
of the CAA. In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained
which requirements are applicable to the York Area and determined that
the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements.
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR
at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
This section 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 alter
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 CAA 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 requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));
Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements
for 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,
[[Page 60300]]
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 believe that these requirements are
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 York Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See, Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with
respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1
Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX
SIP Call rules are not ``an `applicable requirement' for purposes of
section 110(1) because the NOX rules apply regardless of an
area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-
hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for
the York Area prior to the submission of the redesignation request.
Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 100(a)(2),
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(e) regarding section 110 of the CAA.
2. Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the York
Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 1 for the
8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of
Part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification.
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is
possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified
under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this
area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of
the area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon: (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance
with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might in the future be applied.
At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the York Area
was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet subpart 1
requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See, September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation; 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. See, Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such determination would have resulted
in the imposition of additional requirements on that area. The Court
stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination
within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only
makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large
costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they
were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, here it would
be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of
redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
With respect to 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if the York Area
initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two Part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the York Area under section 182(a)
of the CAA would be a base year inventory requirement pursuant to
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and the emissions statement requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B).
As stated previously, these requirements are not due for purposes
of redesignation of the York Area, but nevertheless, Pennsylvania
already has in its approved SIP, an emissions statement rule for the 1-
hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 8-hour
nonattainment area, and that satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard. See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1)
codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. With respect
to the base year inventory requirement, in this notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory
for the York Area, which was submitted on June 14, 2007, concurrently
with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing
to approve the 2002 base year inventory as fulfilling the requirements,
if necessary, of both sections 182(a)(1) and 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A
detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base year inventory for the
York Area can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD)
[[Page 60301]]
prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the
emission inventory and the emissions statement for the York Area have
been satisfied.
In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.
With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section
176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures
to ensure that Federally-supported or funded projects conform to the
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity'').
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section
107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have
not been approved. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995).
In the case of the York Area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the York Area need not comply with the requirement
that an NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. EPA has also
determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that an 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
of Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Normally, a State's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will become
effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment. See
the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation
rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY
(66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831,
31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of the York Area, the Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184
of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the ozone transport region
(OTR). The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required
for a marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area. On October 19, 2001
(66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision
consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that
cover the York Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations.
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as reasonably available control technology (RACT), and Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs even after redesignation.
Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements
and do not apply to the York Area by virtue of the area's designation
and classification. See, 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996)
and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to
uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were
not successfully challenged. Therefore the Area must meet the federal
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by virtue of the area's
classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As set forth in more detail
below, the area must also address four additional anti-backsliding
provisions identified by the Court in its decisions.
The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-
hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Section 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:
``The area remains subject to the obligation to adopt and implement the
applicable requirements as defined in section 51.900(f), except as
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of paragraph (b) of this section.''
Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states that:
``Applicable requirements means for an area the following requirements
to the extent such requirements applied to the area for the area's
classification under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS
at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.''
(1) RACT.
(2) I/M.
(3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.
(4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.
(5) Stage II vapor recovery.
(6) Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA.
(7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.
(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic
hours as required by section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.
(9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the
CAA.
(10) Transportation control measures (TCMs) under section 182(c)(5)
of the CAA.
(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1)
of the CAA.
(12) NOX requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA.
(13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under
section 51.905(a)(1)(ii).''
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the York Area is subject to the
obligations set forth in 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).
Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
York Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour
standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements under the anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) for the York Area are limited to the RACT and I/M programs
specified in section 182(a) of the CAA and are discussed in the
following paragraphs:
Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend
RACT for sources in marginal areas, such as the York Area, that were
subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November
15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. On December 22, 1994, EPA fully
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under
section 182(a)(2)(A) of
[[Page 60302]]
the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994). EPA believes that this
requirement applies only to marginal and higher classified areas under
the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore,
this is a one-time requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section
182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement
under the 8-hour NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the CAA relates to the savings clause for
certain I/M programs. It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M
programs. This provision was not applicable to the York Area because
this area did not have nor was required to have an I/M program before
November 15, 1990.
In addition the Court held that EPA should have retained four
additional measures in its anti-backsliding provisions: (1)
Nonattainment area NSR; (2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3) contingency
measures under section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA; and (4) 1-
hour motor vehicle emissions budgets that were yet not replaced by 8-
hour emissions budgets. These requirements are addressed below:
With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being
redesignated need not have an approved nonattainment New Source Review
program, for the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the
applicable Part D requirement for the 8-hour standard.
The section 185 penalty fee requirement applies only to severe and
extreme nonattainment areas, and was never applicable in the York 1-
hour marginal nonattainment area.
With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency
measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require
contingency measures for marginal areas.
The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the
redesignation request for the York Area except to the extent that the
Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour
MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets.
There are no applicable 1-hour MVEBs for the York Area. (As discussed
elsewhere in this document, EPA is proposing to approve 8-hour MVEBs
for the York Area.) 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. The court clarified that 1-
hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
Thus EPA has concluded that the York Area has met all requirements
applicable for redesignation under the 1-hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The
section 184 requirements include RACT, NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M), and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable
measure.
In the case of the York Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation.
On October 19, 2001, EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP revision for the
area. See 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001).
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Reading, PA Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826
(May 7, 1997). 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. York Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. 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 also, 68 FR
at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the York 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 York 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 summer day (tpsd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..................................................... 8.5 27.1 25.3 10.4 71.3
2004..................................................... 5.3 26.8 21.3 10.1 63.5
Diff. (02-04)............................................ -3.2 -0.3 -4.0 -0.3 -7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..................................................... 70.2 2.9 36.6 14.3 124.0
2004..................................................... 75.3 3.0 31.9 13.7 123.9
Diff. (02-04)............................................ 5.1 0.1 -4.7 -0.6 -0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60303]]
Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 7.8 tpsd, and
NOX emissions decreased by 0.1 tpsd. These reductions, and
anticipated future reductions, are due to the following permanent and
enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003).
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP).
--Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
--Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999).
Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313,
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
Non-road Diesel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the
cause of the York Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
D. The York Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the York Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the York Area for at least 11
years after redesignation. The Commonwealth is requesting that EPA
approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of CAA 175A. Once
approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure
that the SIP for the York Area meets the requirements of the CAA
regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address
the following provisions:
(a) an attainment emissions inventory;
(b) a maintenance demonstration;
(c) a monitoring network;
(d) verification of continued attainment; and
(e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the York Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the three-year block of 2004-2006 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to
date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based
on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX
during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated
emissions.
The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual
sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger
facilities to submit annual production figures and emission
calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission
factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data Systems and EPA's
publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes
(SCC).
The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level activity
data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area
source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal
allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA).
The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data
summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and
NOX emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years
of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6 below).
The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of non-road emission
source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The
NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied
petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road
equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not
estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004
locomotive emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and
conversion factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in York
and Adams Counties. For 2002 and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP
estimated emissions using small airport operations statistics from
https://www.airnav.com, and emission factors and operational
characteristics in the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System (EDMS).
More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004,
2009, and 2018 inventories can found in the Technical Appendices, which
are part of the June 14, 2007 state submittal.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On June 14, 2007, the PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The York Area maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions
levels throughout the York Area through the year 2018. A maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling. See, Wall v. EPA, supra;
Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at
25430-25432.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
York Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim
year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the
VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
[[Page 60304]]
above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance
period.
Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 VOC 2009 VOC 2018 VOC
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point*........................... 5.3 8.2 10.1
Area............................. 26.8 26.2 28.9
Mobile**......................... 21.3 15.9 9.0
Nonroad.......................... 10.1 8.4 6.9
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 63.5 58.7 54.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4
submitted with the maintenance plan.
**Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission
budgets for transportation conformity.
Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 NOX 2009 NOX 2018 NOX
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point*........................... 75.3 74.1 79.7
Area............................. 3.0 3.1 3.3
Mobile**......................... 31.9 22.8 10.0
Non-road......................... 13.7 11.2 6.5
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 123.9 111.2 99.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4.
**Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission
budgets for transportation conformity.
Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (71 FR 25328, April
28, 2006).
The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August
21, 2001).
Area VOC regulations concerning portable fuel containers
(69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004), consumer products (69 FR 70895,
December 8, 2004), and architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings (AIM) (69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004).
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (light-duty) (Tier
1, Tier 2; 56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991; 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
Vehicle emission/inspection/maintenance program (70 FR
58313, October 6, 2005).
Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low sulfur on-
road (2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
Non-road emission standards (2008) and off-road diesel
fuel (2007/2010) (69 FR 38958 June 29, 2004).
NLEV/PA Clean Vehicle Program (54 FR 72564, December 28,
1999)--Pennsylvania will implement this program in car model year 2008.
Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program
(May 10, 2002).
Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the York Area.
(c) Monitoring Network--There are currently two monitors measuring
ozone in the York Area. PADEP will continue to operate its current air
quality monitor (located in York and Adams Counties), in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued Attainment--In addition to
maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the
Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the
York Area by reviewing air quality and emissions data during the
maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation
of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data and emissions reported from
stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these
factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also
evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared
under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51,
subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory (2004)
by more than 10 percent. PADEP will also continue to operate the
existing ozone monitoring station in the York Area pursuant to 40 CFR
part 58 throughout the maintenance period and submit quality-assured
ozone data to EPA through the AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the CAA
states that eight years following the redesignation of the York Area,
PADEP will be required to submit a second maintenance plan that will
ensure attainment through 2028. PADEP has made that commitment to meet
the requirement of section 175A(b).
(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the 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
timeframe by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
The ability of the York 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
[[Page 60305]]
Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur.
Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive
years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the York and
Adams Counties monitors are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs,
the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission
control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation
of the air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions
