Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 3,2001. Thomas C.Voltaggio, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIII.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 is amendedby addingparagraph (c)(186) to read as follows:
§52.2020 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * (186) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129.91 pertaining
to NOxRACT, submitted on March 21, 1996, December 7, 1998 and April 9, 1999.

(i)Incorporation byreference. (A)Letters submittedby the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection transmitting source-specific NOxRACT determinations in the form ofplan approvals or operating permits on March 21, 1996, December 7, 1998 and April 9, 1999. (B) Plan approvals (PA), and Operating permits (OP) for the following

sources:

(1)Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, Westmoreland County, OP 65-000-137, effective May 17, 1999, except for the expiration date.

(2)INDSPEC Chemical Corporation, Butler County, PA 10-021, as amended and effective on October 19, 1998 except for Condition 4. (ii)Additionalmaterials.Other materials submitted bythe Commonwealth ofPennsylvania in support ofand pertaining to the RACT determinations submitted for the

sources listed in paragraph (c)(186)(i)(B) ofthis section.
[FR Doc. 01-26405 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [PAl75-4179; FRL-7079-6]
Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans and Designation ofAreas forAir Quality Planning Purposes; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of Miscellaneous Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: EPA is determining thatthe Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate

ozone nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh area) has attained the 1-hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)by its extended attainment date. The Pittsburgh area is comprised ofAllegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, andWestmoreland counties. This determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring datafor the 1998 to 2000 ozone seasons thatdemonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area, and the most recent datawhich shows that the area is continuing to attain. On thebasis ofthis determination, EPAis also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements alongwith certain other related requirements ofPart D ofTitle 1ofthe Clean Air Act (the Act), are not applicable tothe Pittsburgh area. EPAis also approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) request toredesignate the Pittsburgh

area to attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth's formal request was dated May 21, 2001. In approving this redesignation request, EPA is also approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP), the Commonwealth's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years. EPAis also approving the 1990 baseyear emission inventory for nitrous oxides (NOx).EPA is converting the limited approval ofPennsylvania's New Source Review (NSR)program to full approval throughout the Commonwealth with the exception ofthe 5-county Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton ozone nonattainment area where it will retain its limited approval
status until that area has an approved attainment demonstration for the 1-hour

ozone standard. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection duringnormal business hours at the Air Protection Division,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RegionIII, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau ofAir Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Webster, (215) 814-2033, orby e-mail at Webster.Jill@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 10, 2001 (66FR 1925), EPA published a determination ofattainment for the Pittsburgh area. This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)also proposed a determination that certain requirements ofthe Act were no longer applicable. OnMay 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270), EPA published another NPR for the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. ThisMay 30, 2001, NPR proposed to redesignate the Pittsburgh area to attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard. EPA also proposed to approve the maintenance plan thatthe Commonwealth submitted as arevision
to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPAproposed these actions in parallel with the Commonwealth's process for amending the SIP. No substantial changes were made to the plan duringthe Commonwealth's adoption process and the Commonwealth formally submitted its adopted SIP onMay 21, 2001.

On May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270) EPA also proposed approval ofthe 1990 NOx base year inventory and, to convert the limited approval ofthe Pennsylvania NSRprogram to full approval for the entire Commonwealth, with the exception ofthe Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

ozone nonattainment area. This document isorganized as follows:
I.Whatis thebackground forthese actions? II.What comments did wereceive and what

are ourresponses? III. What actions are we taking? IV.Why are we taking this action to

redesignate thearea? V.What arethe effects ofredesignation to

attainment ofthe 1 -hourNAAQS? VI.Administrative Requirements.

I.What Is theBackground forThese Actions?

The history for these actions have been set forth in the proposed rulemakings published May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270) andJanuary 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925). 

### 53094

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53094 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

II. What Comments DidWe Receive and What Are Our Responses?

We received letters containing adverse comments from 2commenters and 1letter in support ofour proposal ofJanuary 10, 2001. Forour May 30, 2001 proposal, we received 5letters opposed to our actions and 1letter in support.Comments in support ofthe rulemaking action are not summarized below. The adverse comments and EPA's response to them are provided below.

A. CommentsRelatedto Whetherthe Area HasaFullyApprovedPlan

We received comments from several parties who assert that pursuant to 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA cannot redesignate an area to attainment unless EPA "has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area." They contend that EPA has yet to fully approve the applicable implementation plan for the Pittsburgh area. The
commenters maintain that, among other things, EPA has yet to fully approve the moderate area ozone SIP for this area by failing to have fully approved the following specific SIP elements required by the Clean Air Act: (1)An Attainment Determination and Attainment Demonstration

Comment:Several commenters assert that the Act required moderate area SIP submittals toinclude an attainment demonstration based on modeling or other analytical method determined by EPA to be at least as effective. The
commenters contend that EPAhas not approved an attainment demonstration for Pittsburgh, norhas the state submitted an approvable attainment demonstration. The commenters also claim thatEPA's proposal to waive requirements of section 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) ofthe Act concerning submission ofthe ozone attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration and reasonably available control measures and section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures, is without justification. They also contend that EPA has no authority towaive these requirements. One commenter questions why EPAmakes no mention ofthe attainment demonstration adopted December 29, 1997 by the Commonwealth and asserts that EPA's proposal towaive the requirements of section 172(c), section 182(b)(1), and section 172(c)(9) have no effect since EPA has not redesignated the area.

Response:On January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925), EPA proposed thatthe Pittsburgh area had attained the standardbased on 1998-2000 monitoring data. With this finding, EPA also proposed that certain requirements, including an attainment demonstration, were no longer applicable as the area had attained the standard. EPA has explained at length in other actionsits rationale for the reasonableness ofthis interpretation of the Act and incorporates those explanation byreference. See (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 36723) (July 18, 1995) Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 31832-31833) (June21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI), (65 FR 37879) (June 19, 2000) Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio and Kentucky. The United StatesCourt of appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld EPA's interpretation. SierraClubv. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).

EPA reiterates the position setforth in its prior rulemaking actions andin the January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925) proposed rulemaking for the Pittsburgh area. Subpart 2ofpart D ofTitle I ofthe Act contains various airquality planning and SIP submission requirements for

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA believes it isreasonable tointerpret the provisions regarding Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment demonstrations, alongwith other certain otherrelated provisions, not torequire SIP submissions ifan ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment ofthe ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three consecutive years ofcomplete, qualityassured, air quality monitoring data). EPA interprets the general provisions of subpart 1 ofpart D ofTitle I (sections 171 and 172) not to require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations or section 172 (c)(9) contingency measures. As explained in amemorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Area Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard," dated May 10, 1995, EPAbelieves it is appropriate tointerpret the more specific attainment demonstration and related provisions ofsubpart 2in the

same manner. See SierraClubv. EPA, 99 F. 3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).

The attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) requires that the plan provide for "such specific annual reductions in emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA." Ifan area has, in fact, monitored attainment ofthe relevant NAAQS, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation ofcertain section 172(c) requirements providedby EPA in the General Preamble to Title I.As EPA statedin the General Preamble, no other

measures to provide for attainment wouldbe needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since "attainment will have been reached" (57 FR 13564). Upon attainment ofthe NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts tothe maintenance ofthe NAAQS and the development ofa maintenance plan under section 175A.

Similar reasoning applies to other related provisions ofsubpart 2.The first ofthese are the contingency measure requirements ofsection 172(c)(9) ofthe Act.EPAhas previously interpreted the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those "contingency

measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date" (57 FR 13564).

The state must continue to operate an appropriate network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status ofthe area. The air quality data relied uponto determine thatthe area is attaining the ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA'sAerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).

EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's AIRS)for the Pittsburgh moderate ozone nonattainment area from the 1998 to 2000 ozone seasons. Monitoring datafor the 2001 ozone season shows thatthe

area continues to attain the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. On the basis ofthis review,EPA had determined that the

area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 1998-2000 period (andhas continued to do so, to date, in 2001),andtherefore is not required to submit an attainment demonstration and a section 172(c)(9) contingency

measure plan, nor does itneed any other measures to attain the 1-hour

ozone standard.

EPA does not need to evaluate the attainment demonstration that the Commonwealth haspreviously adopted, because itis not necessary for this action, and is no longer a requirement for the Pittsburgh area, because the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

### 53095

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53095 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

It is also important to note that the Commonwealth has a fully approved 15 percent plan for the Pittsburgh area. (66 FR 17634) (April 3, 2001). (2)An "All Reasonably Available Control Measures" (RACM)Analysis
Comment:One commenter asserts that EPA has not approved a demonstration thatthe SIP provided for implementation ofallreasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable, 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), norhas the state met this requirement for Pittsburgh. The
commenter states thatEPA has no authority towaive this requirement, which isin addition to the requirement
to demonstrate timely attainment.

Response:No additional RACM controls beyond what are already required in the SIP are necessary for redesignation to attainment. The General Preamble, April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13560), explains that section 172 (c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment

areas toprovide for the implementation ofRACM as expeditiously as practicable. EPAinterprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt andimplement those measures that are reasonably available and necessary to attain as expeditiously as practicable. Because attainment hasbeen achieved,

no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.

The suspension ofthe attainment demonstration requirements pursuant to

our determination ofattainment include the section 172(c)(1) RACM requirements as well. The General Preamble treats the RACM requirements

as a "component" ofan area's attainment demonstration. Thus, the suspension ofthe attainment demonstration requirement pursuant to

our determination ofattainment applies
to the RACM requirement, since itis a component ofthe attainment demonstration.
(3)Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Comment:Several commenters state that the Act explicitly requires that the SIP mandate RACT for all VOC sources within the nonattainment area, including each category ofVOC sources covered by Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c), 7511a (b)(2). The commenters point out thatEPA concedes that the requirement to fully approve the RACT SIP has not been met as of the date of the redesignation proposal.

Several commenters state thatthe Commonwealth has not adopted source category RACT rules for all CTG categories including: aerospace, synthetic organic compound manufacturing, reactor and distillations processes, shipbuilding, wood furniture, large petroleum dry cleaners, air oxidation processes in synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industries, equipment leaks from natural/gas gasoline processing plants, and a number ofothers. One commenter postulates thatEPA will suggest that it will require source specific RACT for all

sources within each category before finalizing the redesignation proposal andthe commenter asserts thatthis approach circumvents the mandate to adopt RACT for each category ofVOC

sources covered byCTG documents. This commenter goes on to say the these category RACTs were to have been adopted and complied withyears ago andEPA cannot retroactively deem the SIP tobe in compliance with part D.

Several commenters assertthat ifEPA intends to grant the state'sredesignation request based on potential future EPA approvals ofstate RACT determinations, then it will deprive the public ofthe opportunity to offer fully informed
comment asto whether the plan as a whole meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofsection 110 andpart D ofthe Act, as well asthe appropriateness oftheir inclusion in the redesignation.

Response:The Pittsburgh area has satisfied all applicable ozone requirements andhas a fully approved

ozone SIP. In acting upon a redesignation request, EPAmay rely on any prior SIP approvals plus any additional approvals it may perform in conjunction with acting onthe redesignation. EPA has already taken final action to approve all required SIP elements or is approving them in conjunction with this final action onthe redesignation. Therefore, the Pittsburgh

area has afully approved SIP. See "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992, page 3. The Calcagni memorandum allows for approval ofSIP elements and redesignation to occur simultaneously, and EPAhas frequently taken this approach in its redesignation actions. See (61 FR 20458) (ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 31832-31833( (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI).

In ourproposed redesignation onMay 30, 2001, we stated thatwe would not take final actionto redesignate Pittsburgh until ithad taken all actions
necessary for EPAto convert the limited approval ofthe generic RACT regulation
to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area. Since our proposal, EPA has taken final action approving the source-specific SIP revisions submittedby the Commonwealth for allthe sources located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. On August 24, 2001, EPA proposed to convert the limited approval ofthe Commonwealth's NOx and VOC RACT regulation to full approval in the Pittsburgh area. EPAhas takenfinal action onthat proposal and converted the limited approval ofthe Commonwealth's NOx and VOC RACT regulation to full approval. The Commonwealth has met the requirements ofthe Act's RACT provisions for the Pittsburgh area.

The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for "major

sources ofVOC," located within those

areas ofa state where RACT applies underPart D ofthe Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. Thisrequirement, referred to as the nonCTGVOC RACT requirement, clearly does not require category-specific RACT rules. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued aCTG. There are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for "any category ofVOC sources" covered by aCTG issued prior
to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for all "VOC sources" covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPAhas long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement (includingthe requirements for CTG RACT) to be met either by adoption ofcategory-specific rules orby source-specific rules for each

source within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined

as a case-by-case determination, but EPAprovided CTG's to simplify the process for states suchthat they would
notbe required to adopthundreds or thousands ofindividual rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. EPAdoes notbelieve that Congress' use of "source category" in

one provision of section 182(b)(2) was intended to preclude the adoption of source-specific rules.

Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas ofa state where RACT applies under Part D ofthe Act,the state is obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by the CTG. However, that 

### 53096

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53096 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

obligation is not required tobe metby the adoption and submittal ofa source category RACT rule. A state may, instead, opt to impose RACT for individual sources in permits, plan approvals, consent orders or in any other state enforceable document and submitthose documents to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. This option has been exercised bymany states, and happens
most commonly when only a few CTGsubject sources are located in the state. The source-specific approach is generally employed to avoid what can be alengthy and resource-intensive state rule adoption process for only a few

sources thatmay have different needs and considerations that must be taken into account.

While EPAbelieves that the Commonwealth was not obligated to impose RACT via the adoption ofVOC

source category rules for the reasons provided above, nonetheless, EPA has approved the Commonwealth's VOC

source category rules for aerospace (June 25, 2001, 66 FR 33645) and for wood furniture (July 20, 2001, 66 FR 37908).

In aletter from the PADEP (thenthe Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources), dated April 19, 1993, the Commonwealth made negative declarations for the CTG source categories oflarge petroleum dry cleaners, and equipment leaks from natural gas/gasoline processing plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration on September 28, 2001 for point source shipbuilding emissions in the counties ofArmstrong, Butler, Beaver, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland. The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) made a negative declaration onSeptember 27, 2001, for subject shipbuilding sources in Allegheny County.

The public has had opportunity to comment on three occasions on the generic RACT rule. In addition, EPA provided comment periods for its approval ofeach source specific rule, as well as for each ofthe category rules. Furthermore, EPA recently published approval notices for allremaining case specific RACT determinations for

sources located in the Pittsburgh area andthe public did indeed exercise their right to comment on those proposed actions. EPA disagrees thatthe public has not had adequate opportunity to offer fully informed comment as to whether the plan submitted by the Commonwealth meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofsection 110 andpart D ofthe Act. The public has had ample opportunity to comment on the RACT regulations adopted bythe Commonwealth, and EPAis entitled to rely on these previously-approved rules in determining that the State has a SIP that meets those applicable requirements. See Southwestern PennsylvaniaGrowthAlliancev. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989 (6th Cir. 1998).

EPA disagrees with the commenter that itis "retroactively" deeming that the State has complied withthe RACT requirements ofthe Act. With respect to many ofthese source-specific rules, the

source has been subject to and complying withthe requirements for an extended period oftime. Simply because EPA is onlynow taking action

onthose rules does not mean that the State orthe source failed to meetthe statutory RACT obligation. Finally, to the extent thatthe State and/or the

source is late in meeting the statutory RACT obligation, EPA does not believe that Congress intended that such an area could never be redesignated to attainment, as the commenter appears to suggest. At this point, the best such an

area can do is to meetthe requirement

as quickly as possible-the area cannot retroactively comply. Thus, EPA believes that Congress intended that

once such an area complied with the statutory requirements-as is the case with Pittsburgh-the area may be redesignated. (4) New Source Review (NSR)

Comment:We received several
comments regarding NSR and its approval into the SIP. The commenters assertthat the Act explicitly requires the SIP toinclude apreconstruction permit program for new sources and modifications within the nonattainment

area. (42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(C), 7502(c)(4)&(5), 7503, 7511a(a)(2)(C), (b)(5)). The commenters assert thatthe NSR program shouldnot be approved without an approved attainment demonstration in the Pittsburgh area. One commenter also asserts thatEPA
cannot approve the Commonwealth's rule without first promulgating "Alternative 2" ofthe federal NSR rule revision. This commenter also asserts that approval ofthe Commonwealth's NSR program is in conflict with section 184 ofthe Act,because the Commonwealth's NSR rule does not require the same offsetcredit restrictions in the marginal and attainment areas as required by section 184 ofthe Act. One ofthe commenters also contends that theNSR program's conditional approval status has expired and should already have been converted
to a disapproval. This commenter also
asserts that the EPA-required restrictions on shutdown credit are lacking in the program. Response:As indicated, pursuant to EPA'sissuance ofan attainment determination forthe Pittsburgh area, an approved attainment demonstration is

no longer an applicable requirement. EPAhas, however, nowfully approved the NSR program for the Pittsburgh area. OnMay 2,1997, EPA proposed to grant limited approval ofPennsylvania's NSR program (62 FR 24060). On December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722) EPA publishedits final rule granting limited approval of Pennsylvania's NSR program and incorporated 25 Pa.Code ofRegulations, Chapter 127, Subchapter E, Subsections 127.201 through 127.217, inclusive, by reference into the Pennsylvania SIP. (See 40 CFR part 52 at 52.2020(c)(107).) The proposed and final actions provided a detailed description ofhow the Commonwealth's NSRregulations satisfy the requirements of sections 172, 173, 182 and 184 ofthe Act. As explained in section I. C. ofthe May 2, 1997 notice ofproposed rulemaking (62 FR 24061), under section 184 ofthe Act, the preconstruction permitting requirements applicable to moderate

ozone nonattainment areas apply to

ozone attainment areas and to marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment

areas in the Commonwealth because Pennsylvania is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Section II. A. ofthe May 2, 1997 proposal (62 FR 24062) explicitly states that Pennsylvania's NSR requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas apply throughout Pennsylvania with the exception ofthe Philadelphia severe

ozone nonattainment area. Subsections 127.203, 127.208, and 127. 210 ofthe Commonwealth's SIP-approved regulations, in particular, satisfy section 184 ofthe Act byimposing the same offset-related requirements to attainment, and marginal nonattainment

areas ofthe Commonwealth as those applicable to moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

On December 9, 1997, when EPA approved Pennsylvania's NSR regulations into the SIP, its sole reason for granting limited approval, rather thanfull approval, ofPennsylvania's NSRregulations was that they do not contain certain restrictions on the use of emission reductions from the shutdown and curtailment ofexisting sources or units as NSR offsets. These restrictions apply in nonattainment areas without

an approved attainment demonstration (see 40 CFRpart 51.165(a)(ii)(C)). (The submittal and approval ofan attainment demonstration is notrequired bythe Act for ozone nonattainment areas classified

as marginal, noris itrequired in areas designated as attainment for ozone.) As 

### 53097

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53097 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

EPA is, bythis action, approving the attainment determination for the Pittsburgh area proposed onJanuary 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925), approval ofan attainment demonstration is not a requirement for the Pittsburgh area. Pursuant toEPA's determination of attainment, an attainment demonstration isno longer required, andthus similarly, an approved ozone attainment demonstration is no longer required under theNSR provisions for

ozone. Since the premise of40 CFR 51.165(a)(ii)(C)(1), that an attainment demonstration isrequired, does not exist, EPA concludes thatthe regulation shouldbe interpreted so as not to require an approved attainment demonstration where no attainment demonstration isrequired. Therefore, EPA has determined that itis appropriate, at this time, to grant full approval ofthe Commonwealth's NSR regulations as they apply throughout the Commonwealth with the exception of the five-county Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

ozone nonattainment area. That area is the only portion ofthe Commonwealth where the approval ofan attainment demonstration is still required. EPA intends totake rulemaking action to grant full approval ofthe Commonwealth's NSR regulations in the five-county Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

ozone nonattainment area at such time

asthat area has an approved attainment demonstration.

It should be noted that when EPA proposed to remove the limited nature ofits approval ofthe Commonwealth's NSR program on May 30, 2001, itclearly

was not taking action tore-approve Pennsylvania's entire NSR program. Therefore, not onlydoes EPA disagree with the comments that the Commonwealth's NSR regulations fail to satisfy the Act and the current Federal NSR-related requirements for nonattainment areas found at 40 CFR SubpartI, EPA does not believe that such comments are timely.

Because Pennsylvania's NSR regulations satisfy the current federal NSR-related requirements for nonattainment areas found at 40 CFR SubpartI, EPA disagrees with the
comment that it cannot grant approval ofthe Commonwealth's NSR without first promulgating "Alternative 2" ofthe proposed revisions to the federal NSR rules. The commenter's reference to Alternative 2refers to language in the July 23, 1996 NSR rulemaking proposal which has not been finalized, and therefore the Agency believes thatit is
not currently an applicable NSR requirement. EPA did not grant the Commonwealth's NSR program a conditional approval, and, therefore disagrees withthe comment that any conditional approval has expired and shouldhave been converted to a disapproval.

Even iftheNSR program for Pittsburgh were not fully approved the

area would still qualify for redesignation, since EPA haspreviously interpreted the Clean Air Act as not requiring a fully approved NSR program for redesignation ofan area subject to the section 184 transport requirements. EPA has setforth its rationale for its interpretation thatNSR and other section 184 ozone transport requirements areinapplicable for redesignation purposes in itsproposed and final rulemakings onReading, Pennsylvania. See 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826- 24834 (May 7, 1997), which are incorporated herein byreference. (5)Conformity

Comment:Several commenters asserted that the SIP does not include fully approved transportation conformity procedures that comply with Part D ofthe Act under section 176, and that EPAhas no authority to waive this requirement for SIPs. One commenter argues that the Commonwealth is still obligated to submit suchprocedures and the factthat federal procedures apply does not excuse failure to adopt conformity procedures as required by the statute. The commenter contends that the Act allows redesignation to attainment onlywhen EPAhas fully approved the SIP and the state has met allrequirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.

Response:The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has met the statutory requirement for submitting approvable general conformity procedures. EPA approved the Pennsylvania general conformity rules effective September 29, 1997 (62 FR 50870).

Section 176(c) provides that state conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAArequires EPA topromulgate. The Federal general conformity regulations were finalized onNovember 30, 1993, andthe Federal transportation conformity regulations were finalized

onNovember 24, 1993. The Federal general conformity regulations have remained the same since thattime, but the Federal transportation conformity regulations have been amended several times since 1993.

The Federal transportation conformity regulations were amended on August 15, 1997 (40 CFR parts 51 and 93 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining). Conformity regulations needed tobe revised again, due tothe March 2, 1999 court decision, EnvironmentalDefenseFundv. EPA, 167 F. 3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Pennsylvania submitted transportation conformity rules on November 21, 1994, but EPA has not acted upon the rules and the rules must be revised to be consistent with the amendments EPA made consistent with the court rulings inEDF.v. EPA,supra.

EPA believes, however, that itis reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for
purposes ofevaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d). The rationale for this is two-fold. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions ofthe CleanAir Act continues to apply
to areas after redesignation to attainment, since these areas wouldbe subject to a Section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally approved State rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless ofwhether they are redesignated to attainment andmust implement conformity underFederal rules ifState rules are notyet approved, EPA believes itis reasonable toview these requirements as not applying for
purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request. See, for example, Grand Rapids redesignation at 61 FR 31835-31836 (June 21, 1996) and the Cincinnati redesignation at 65 FR 37879, 37885- 37886 (June 19, 2000). EPA has explained its rationale and appliedthis interpretation in numerous redesignation actions. See, Tampa, Florida and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain redesignations (60 FR 52748) (December 7, 1995), and (61 FR 20458) (May 7, 1996), respectively. Consequently, EPA
may approve the ozone redesignation request for the Pittsburgh area notwithstanding the lack ofafully approved conformity SIP. The United States Court ofAppeals for the sixth Circuit hasrecently upheld EPA's interpretation in Wallv.Environmental Protection Agency, no. 00-4010, slip.
op. at 21-24 (6thCir. Sept. 11, 2001). The Court upheldEPA's determination that "failure to submit a revision * * * thatmeets the part D transportationconformity submissions requirements is
not abasis to deny" redesignation to attainment. Id.at 24. 

### 53098

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53098 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

(6) Approval ofthe NOx SIP Call

Comment:A commenter states that the SIP must include provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by any other State under 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(D)(I). The commenter asserts that EPA has specifically determined that emissions from Pennsylvania contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment in downwind states and has issued a SIP call torequire additional NOx controls in the Pennsylvania SIP to address this problem. The commenter asserts that EPA has not fully approved the state's rule to meetthe SIP call requirements, thus the SIP is not yet fully approved.

Response:EPA believes that submissions under the NOx SIP call shouldnot be considered applicable requirements for purposes ofevaluating

aredesignation request. That said,EPA has fully approved the Commonwealth's NOx SIP call rule on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795) as meeting the portion of the SIP call rule that were not remanded by the Court inMichiganv. EPA,213 F. 3d. 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

The NOx SIP call requirements are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPAbelieves that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the requirements that

are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The NOx SIP call submittal requirements continue to apply to the States regardless ofthe designation ofany one particular area in these States.

Thus, we do not agree thatthe NOx SIP call submission shouldbe construed
to be an applicable requirement for
purposes ofredesignation. 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 conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176) (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826) (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458) (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, 62741) (December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890) (June 19, 2000). (7)Photochemical Grid Modeling and Favorable Meteorology
Comment:The commenter asserts that neither the states nor EPAhave shown that air quality improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, asrequired by42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The commenter takes issue with the finding that this criteria is met because, although the Commonwealth has adopted measures that have produced some emission reductions, the commenter believes that EPA has not demonstrated that these reductions are responsible for the area's improved air quality or the absence of violations. The commenter claims that the only way to reliably make such a showing would be through photochemical grid modeling. The
commenter states thatno suchmodeling is presented or discussed in this proposal and that given the complex chemistry and meteorology ofozone formation, the combination ofNOx and VOC emission reductions that mightbe attributable to the citedmeasures could just as easily lead to increases in ozone concentrations. The lack ofviolations in 1998-2000, the commenter states, could just as wellbe due to weather patterns

or changes in transport ofozone precursors. Without modeling to determine the actual impact ofadopted and enforceable controls, the
commenter finds EPA's claim that the

area has attained the NAAQS, to be speculative.

Another commenter asserted the area

was aided in attainment by a 2000

ozone seasonin which there were no temperatures which exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

Response:As provided in longstanding EPA policies, we believe that photochemical grid modeling is not necessary to show thatthe improvement in airquality is due topermanent and enforceable emissions reductions. See General Preamble for the Interpretation ofTitle I ofthe CAA Amendments of 1990, (57 FR 13496) (April 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992); "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992," Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation, September 17, 1993; and "Use ofActual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas," D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993. Our policies provide that an area may meetthis requirement by showing howits ozone precursor emissions changed due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions from when the area was notmonitoring attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS
to when itreached attainment. See the rational set forth in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886- 37889) (June 19, 2000). The sixth Circuit hasrecently upheld EPA's interpretation in Wallv.EPA, supra, slip. op at 16-20.

Reductions in ozone precursor (VOC and NOx)emissions havebrought many

areas across the country into attainment. EPAhas approved many ozone redesignations showing decreases in

ozone precursor emissions resulting in attainment ofthe ozone standard. See redesignations for Charleston (59 FR 30326, June 13, 1994; 59 FR 45985, September 6, 1994), Greenbrier County (60 FR 39857, August 4, 1995), Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994); (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994), Jacksonville/Duval County (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995), Miami/Southeast Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 1995), Tampa (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995), Lexington (60 FR 47089, September 11, 1995), Owensboro (58 FR 47391, September 9, 1993), Indianapolis (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), SouthBend-Elkhart (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), Evansville (62 FR 12137, March 14, 1997; 62 FR 64725, December 9,1997),Canton (61FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Youngstown-Warren (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (60 FR 31433, June 15, 1995; 61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996), Clinton County (60 FR 22337, May 5, 1995; 61 FR 11560, March 21, 1996), Columbus (61FR 3591, February 1, 1996), Kewaunee County (61 FR 29508, June 11, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Walworth County (61 FR 28541, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Point Coupee Parish (61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996; 62 FR 648, January 6, 1997), and Monterey Bay (62 FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most ofthe

areas that havebeen redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard have continued to attain it. Areas that are not maintaining the 1- hour ozone standard have a maintenance plan tobring them back into attainment.

Reductions in ozone precursor emissions have been shown in photochemical grid modeling toreduce 

### 53099

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53099 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

ambient ozone concentrations in areas
across the country. Between 1990 and 1999 area-wide VOC and NOx emissions in the Pittsburgh area decreased by 16% and 30%, respectively. These emissions reductions are due to point source reductions such as RACT, additional NOx controls, 111(d)plans andNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) which reduce VOCs, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and NSR. Additional controls are implemented for the following categories: Automobile refinish coatings, consumer products, architectural andindustrial maintenance coatings, wood furniture coatings, aircraft surface coating, marine surface coatings, metal furniture coatings, municipal solid waste landfills, treatment storage and disposal facilities, and Stage IIvapor recovery. Several programs are implemented to reduce highway vehicle emissions, such

asthe Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), aPittsburgh-specific summertime gasoline 7.8 psi volatility limit, and enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M).Nonroad source programs include Federal rules for large and small compression-ignition engines, small spark-ignition engines, and recreation spark-ignition marine engines.

Ozone air quality monitoring data show thatthe design value changed from 0.149 parts per million (duringthe 1987-1989 time period)to 0.123 parts per million (duringthe 1998-2000 time period). The number ofexpected exceedances declined from 7.0 days per year during 1987-1989 to 1.0 days per year during 1998-2000. This shows that reductions in ozone concentrations correspond to thereduction in ozone precursors emissions in the area.

The commenter claims that the combination ofNOx and VOC emissions reductions could justas easily have led
to increases in ozone. However, the actual monitoring data collected in the

area shows that ambient ozone concentrations have dropped when this combination ofozone precursor reductions occurred. In other metropolitan areas, other levels ofVOC andNOx reductions have also resulted in attainment. See areas listed above in first part ofthis response. The Pittsburgh area's decrease in ozone levels is consistent with what other

areas have experienced. The commenter has not provided data showing that decreases in ozone precursor emissions have led to higher levels ofozone.

The commenter claims that the lack of violations during 1998-2000 couldbe dueto weather patterns or changes in transport ofozone precursors, but does not point to any evidence to support this conclusion. We use athree year period of air quality to account for changes in weather conditions that can
occur from year to year. Weather condition may have a substantial effect

on ozone concentrations, both in terms ofincreasing ozone and decreasing

ozone. However, this effect isnot controllable andEPA uses athree year average to account for changes in meteorology. In the case ofthe Pittsburgh area, the factthat from 1999
to today the area continues to be in attainment ofthe ozone standard increases our confidence that weather is
not a controlling factor in the area's attainment. Furthermore, during the weeks ofAugust 5th and August 12th of 2001, the Pittsburgh area experienced multi-day meteorological episodes in which the temperatures exceeded 90 degrees, andthe ambient ozone levels stayed well belowthe standard at each monitor. (8) Use ofAccurate and Current Emission Inventory
Comment:One Commenter questions whether the Commonwealth used
current and accurate emissions inventories in the analysis to determine maintenance ofthe 1-hour NAAQS.

Response:The Commonwealth used
current and accurate emissions inventories. The Commonwealth uses the 1999 emissions inventory as abase
year emissions inventory for demonstrating that emissions duringthe 10 year maintenance period will stay below attainment year levels. The 1999 inventory is the appropriate inventory
to be used to demonstrate maintenance oftheNAAQS, because the 1999 inventory is arepresentation of emission levels during the time the area has attained theNAAQS. EPAconverted the conditional approval ofthe Commonwealth's 1990 base year VOC inventory to full approval onApril 3, 2001 (66 FR 17634). OnMay 30, 2001 EPA proposed to approve the 1990 NOx base year inventory. EPA did not received comments specific to the 1990 NOx baseyear inventory and today is fully approving the Commonwealth's base year NOxinventory. These 1990 base year NOx andVOC emissions inventories are approved for use in projecting current inventories and out year inventories.

B. Comments Related to the Maintenance Plan
Comment:A commenter asserts that the plan does not demonstrate maintenance for ten years asrequired by sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A ofthe Clean Air Act. The commenter says that EPAproposes to find maintenance not

on the basis ofmodeling, asrequired by the CAA, but on the presumption that the area will alwaysbe in attainment if emissions remain at orbelow estimated 1999 levels. The commenter asserts that such apresumption is not rationally supportable, pointing out thatthe area violated the NAAQS in the 1997-1999 period. Therefore, the commenter
reasons, holding emissions to 1999 levels does not assure attainment. The
commenter states that, even assuming the emission reductions predicted by the states for 1999 and subsequent years, there is no technical analysis in the record demonstrating thatthose emission levels will assure maintenance. The commenter contends that such a demonstration requires photochemical grid modeling that
accounts for the kinds ofweather conditions and transport impacts experienced on appropriately chosen design days. According to the commenter, until EPA approves such a modeling demonstration, it cannot approve the maintenance plan.

The commenter states thatthe history ofthis nonattainment area shows that EPAcannot rationally assume that emission levels correlate with ozone levels in a linear or consistent fashion; the area has gone in and out of attainment over the past 10 years while local emission were supposedly declining. The commenter asserts that there is no reason to believe that the state's attainment inventory approach toward projecting future maintenance is any more reliable nowthan itwas in 1993. The commenter states that the
state itselfasserts thatthe area cannot maintain compliance with the standard solelythrough local reductions andwill onlybe able tomaintain the NAAQS through reductions from Ohio and West Virginia.

Response:Webelieve that the monitoring shows thatthe current level ofemissions is adequate to keep the area in attainment. The following table summarizes the number ofexpected exceedances at each monitor inthe area for 1974 to 2000 for each three year period. Amonitor has to measure more than 1.0 average expected exceedances

over a three year period to cause a violation ofthe 1-hour ozone standard (Expected exceedances take into
account actual monitored exceedances and account for days where there is missing data or the datawas invalidated.) See 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H. The table shows thatthe number of exceedances have decreased fromwhat was monitored inthe late 1970's. 53100

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53100 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.-1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES IN THE PITTSBURGH AREA FROM 

### 1974 TO 

### 2000

Average

Year Design expected monitor exceedances per year

1974-1976 Baden

............ 6.5 1975-1977 Beaver Falls

... 5.7 1976-1978 Beaver Falls

... 13.2 1977-1979 Beaver Falls

... 11.7 1978-1980 Lawrenceville 9.2 1979-1981 Lawrenceville 6.1 1980-1982 Lawrenceville 3.4 1981-1983 Brackenridge 4.4 1982-1984 Brackenridge 2.9 1983-1985 Brackenridge 2.4 1984-1986 Midland

.......... 0.8 1985-1987 Brackenridge 1.7 1986-1988 Brackenridge 6.6 1987-1989 Brackenridge 7.0 1988-1990 Brackenridge 5.6 1989-1991 Lawrenceville 0.7 1990-1992 Lawrenceville 0.3 1991-1993 Harrison 0.7 Township. 1992-1994

.. Harrison 0.7 Township. 1993-1995

.. Harrison 3.0 Township. 1994-1996

.. Harrison 2.7 Township. 1995-1997

.. Harrison 3.3 Township. 1996-1998

.. Charleroi

........ 1.0 1997-1999

.. Penn Hills

...... 1.3 1998-2000

.. Charleroi

........ 1.0

The area has monitored attainment for the three year period from 1998-2000 and continues to monitor attainment in 2001. This demonstrates that the current level ofemissions is adequate to keep the area in attainment during weather conditions as in past years associated with higher levels of ozone. In addition, the Act does not presume that the area will always be in attainment. The Act provides that if the area were to violate the 1-hour ozone standard, then the contingency measures in the maintenance plan wouldbe triggered. This would reduce the ozone precursor emissions and bring the area back into attainment.

Our policy allows areas to prepare an attainment emissions inventory corresponding to the period when the

area monitored attainment. It also allows areas to project maintenance by showing that future emissions will stay below the attainment emissions inventory. See "Use ofActual Emission in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas," D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993. The attainment inventory estimates 1999 emissions, which iswithin the 1998-2000 time period of attainment. Emissions are projected to remain below this level for the next 10years.

Holding emissions at or belowthe level ofthe attainment inventory is adequate toreasonably assure continued maintenance ofthe 1-hour ozone standard. Reductions in ozoneprecursor emissions have been shown in photochemical grid modeling toreduce ambient ozone concentrations in areas
across the country. Photochemical grid modeling is not needed to show thatthe

area has attained or will maintain the standard. The air quality will be maintained bykeeping below the attainment emissions level, continuing
to monitor ozone levels, and having maintenance plan contingency measures available. Reductions in ozone precursor emissions have broughtmany

areas across the country into attainment.

Many ofthe ozone areas for which EPA has approved ozone redesignations have used an emissions inventory approach to demonstrate maintenance. The majority ofareas have continued to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard using that approach. Seeredesignations cited in the response provided at II. A (7)ofthis document. See also discussion at (65 FR 37887-37889) (June 19, 2000) Cincinnati-Hamilton, and Wall

v. EPA, supra, at 16-20. Emissions inventories canbe used to project maintenance ofthe 1-hour ozone standard. As previously stated, ifthe attainment level ofemissions is not adequate toprotect against aviolation andthe area monitors a violation, then the contingency measures in the maintenance plan would be triggered to bring the area back into attainment. There are ozone monitors located in the Pittsburgh area to ensure that the area's air quality remains belowthe level set by the 1-hour ozone standard.

The comment thatEPA should not

assume that "emission levels correlate with ozone levels in some sortoflinear

or consistent fashion" isin effect a recommendation that future maintenance be tested assuming meteorological conditions that are more conducive to ozone formation than the conditions thathave prevailed in 1998
to 2000. No factor otherthan meteorological conditions is known to introduce an inconsistency between

ozone and emissions. The commenter protests that the area has not submitted

amaintenance demonstration based on

ozone modeling, andimplicitly urges that the modeling assume 1997-type conditions, orworse. However, ifa prospective maintenance demonstration

were performed with an ozone photochemical model following EPA guidance, the modeling would be allowed to use episode days from the 1998-2000 period, not 1997. Itis highly likely, ifnot certain, thatthe outcome wouldbe a conclusion that attainment willbe preserved through the required 10-year period. EPAbelieves this modeling guidance is reasonable and appropriate.

In response to the commenter's assertion thatthe Commonwealth does
notbelieve thatit can maintain the NAAQS without reductions from upwind states such as Ohio and West Virginia, both EPA and the Commonwealth recognize the importance ofthe full implementation ofthe NOx SIP call to provide additional airquality benefit to the Pittsburgh area. Furthermore, asthe D.C. Circuit has largely upheld the NOx SIP call, itis eminently reasonable to expect thatthe reductions in states upwind of Pittsburghwill occur.
C. CommentsRelatedto the EnforceabilityandPermanenceof ControlMeasures

(1) Comment:Several commenters express doubts that certain ofthe programs relied upon in the maintenance plan will remain permanent and enforceable in the Commonwealth and asserts thatEPA simply assumes thatthe measures relied

on for continued and future emissions reductions will continue to be implemented. Related comments express concerns over the permanence ofthe enhanced I/M and NSRprograms.

Response:The Act requires the area to have afully approved SIP andto have
met all ofthe applicable requirements of the Act. The area's SIP satisfies these requirements as described in EPA's proposed rulemaking published on May 30, 2001 (66FR 29270). The measures thatthe Commonwealth isrelying onto maintain the 1-hour ozone standard havebeen approved into the SIP and are state and Federally enforceable. The
state must continue toimplement these

measures asprovided forin the Federally approved SIP. Furthermore, the Act does not require a separate level ofenforcement for a maintenance plan

as a prerequisite to redesignation. The enforcement program approved for and applicable to the SIP as awhole also applies to the maintenance plan. See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37881- 37882), and sixth Circuit decision in Wallv. EPA, supra, at 20-21, upholding EPA'sinterpretation ofthe requirement.

All ofthe control measures which the Commonwealth relied upon to generate the 1999 and future emission levels, inventories are SIP-approved measures, 

### 53101

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53101 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

including the enhanced I/M and NSR programs. These programs have been legally adopted by the Commonwealth andEPA has approved them into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA cannot withhold its approval ofthe maintenance plan submittedby the Commonwealth because ofconcerns that Pennsylvania may, at some future time, either submit

a SIP revision to amend or remove a program, or thatthe Commonwealth may fail to implement these programs in the Pittsburgh area. The Federally approved SIP requirements remain in place, and enforceable until such time

asEPA takes action to approve SIP revisions to amend or remove them. This can onlybe done via Federal rulemaking, which includes procedures for public comment and review. In addition,ifthe state fails to implement the approved SIP, Section 179 provides for EPA toimpose sanctions.

EPA hasrecently promulgated rules for On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) testing provisions for 1996 and newer vehicles in existing I/M programs. The Commonwealth's currently approved enhanced I/M SIP requires Pennsylvania
to implement OBD aspart ofitsI/M program in the Pittsburgh area in accordance with the Federal rule. Any changes the Commonwealth makes with respect to the I/M program must ensure

an equivalent level ofemission reductions as iscurrently credited. Again, any changes made tothe Federally approved and enforceable
program would need to go through Pennsylvania's formal regulatory adoption process andEPA's SIP approval process, ensuring ample public participation opportunity.

Likewise, any changes to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR
program would need to go through Pennsylvania's formal regulatory adoption process andEPA's SIP approval process, ensuring ample public participation opportunity. In order to be approvable, any such changes would have to ensure thatthe construction of major new sources and major modifications in the Pittsburgh area would not interfere with the approved maintenance plan.

Furthermore, any changes made by the Commonwealth to SIP approved

measures would require EPA approval in accordance with section 110 (1)ofthe Act. (2) Comment:We received a comment asserting that the maintenance plan is
not approvable because itlacks enforcement programs and commitments ofresources as required by the Act 42 U.S.C. §7410(a)(2)(E).

Response:EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that states must provide such information with each SIP revision. See Wallv. EPA, supra. Although Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(a)(2)(C) do contain these provisions, section 110(a)(2)(H) is the statutory provision which governs requirements for individual plan revisions which States may be required
to submit from time totime. There are

no cross-references in section 7410(a)(2)(H) to either 7410(a)(2)(E) or 7410(a)(2)(C). Therefore, EPA concludes that Congress did not intend to require States to submit an analysis ofadequate funding and enforcement with each subsequent andindividual SIP revision submittedunder the authority ofsection 110(a)(2)(H). Once EPA approves a State's SIP asmeeting section 110(a)(2), EPA isnot required toreevaluate that SIP for each new revision to the plan to meet additional requirements in later sections ofthe Act. The Commonwealth ofPennsylvania had previously received approval ofits 110(a)(2) SIPs. See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation ofthis issue (65 FR 37879, 37881-37882) (June 19, 2000). The sixth circuit has upheld EPA's interpretation in Wallv. EPA,supra,at 20-21.

In afinal rulemaking actionpublished

onFebruary 26, 1985 (50 FR 7772, 7776), EPA approved Pennsylvania's financial andmanpower resource commitments, after having proposed approval ofthese commitments on February 3, 1983 (48FR 5096, 5101). This approval actionreaffirmed EPA's May 20, 1980 (45 FR 33607) approval of these resource commitments for the Pittsburgh area portion ofthe Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment SIP.

Neither this commenter nor any other person has submitted substantive
comments that would lead EPAto separately analyze whether it should call on Pennsylvania torevise its section 110(a)(2) SIPs regarding enforcement and funding.

D. CommentsRelatedto Contingency Measures (1) Comment:Several commenters assertthat the maintenance plan lacks adequate contingency provisions including a plan for the schedule of adoption, description ofmeasures, or quantification ofreductions ofthe

measures to be implemented should the

area violate the standard. One
commenter also asserts that the plan does not contain adequate provisions to adopt additional measures should inventory tracking indicate that afuture violation ispossible. The commenter states thatfuture inventory analyses indicating possible violations should trigger the contingency measures. Commenters state that theplan makes no showing thatthe model VOC rules currently under consideration for the Philadelphia nonattainment area will

assure correction ofany violations in the Pittsburgh area and thatthese

measures are onlyunder consideration. One commenter states that the VOC

measures referenced by the Commonwealth provide no estimation ofreductions that would be achieved in Pittsburgh shouldthese measures be adopted and that adoption ofthese

measure could take up to two years.

One commenter asserts thatthe maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth does not contain a mandatory commitment to implement all ozone-control measures in the SIP prior to redesignation. The commenter contends that this commitment is required,regardless ofwhether ornot the state is currently implementing all

measures andEPA does not have the discretion to approve the maintenance planwithout this commitment.

Response:EPAdisagrees thatthe Commonwealth's maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh area lacks adequate contingency provisions shouldthe area violate the standard. Page 43 ofthe maintenance plan specifically states that ifa violation occurs, the Commonwealth will adopt additional emission reductions, as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act
to return the area to attainment with the health-based one-hour ozone standard. Page 44 ofthe maintenance plan clearly
states that its contingency plan

measures include four ofthe model rules currently being considered as additional measures forthe Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area. The plan specifically states thatthese VOCmodel rules have thepotential to reduce emissions from specific types of

sources and source operations, namely

consumer products, portable fuel containers, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings and solvent cleaning operations. The Commonwealth hasprovided toEPA estimations ofreductions in VOC emissions that wouldbe achieved by adoption ofthese contingency measures in the seven-county Pittsburgh area. Thisinformation has been added to the docket for this final rule.

The Commonwealth has also supplied information that setsforth the schedule for adoption ofregulations under the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, and thatinformation has been placed in the docket ofthis final action. The schedule indicates that Pennsylvania would move to adopt and implement contingency measures within 12 to 24 months ofaviolation. The 

### 53102

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53102 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Commonwealth has also stated thatthe contingency measures would be implemented in accordance with the requirement of section 175A(d) ofthe Clean Air Act that they "promptly
correct any violation." As stated in the September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum, "For purposes ofsection 175A, a State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further actionby the State in order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is considered tobe an enforceable part ofthe SIP and should

ensure that the contingency measures

are adopted expediently once they are triggered." In lightofthe language ofthe maintenance plan, the supplemental information supplied bythe Commonwealth, existing EPA guidance and actions regarding contingency

measures in other redesignations, and the absence ofany suggestion to the contrary from the Commonwealth, EPA is construing the Pittsburgh maintenance plan as embodying a commitment to adopt and implement contingency measures within 12 to 24 months ofaviolation. The provisions regarding the study and possible choice ofcontingency measures in the event of

an exceedance or increase in the emissions inventory provide further

assurance that air quality problems that might occur after redesignation willbe promptly corrected.

In the event ofa monitored exceedance orifperiodic emission inventory updates reveal a greater than 10-percent increase in ozone precursor emissions, the maintenance plan requires the Commonwealth to evaluate whether additional emission controls

are needed toprevent afuture 1-hour

ozone NAAQS violation. EPAviews this commitment to be adequate and enforceable. This approach is consistent with the September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum, which states that the maintenance plan should "identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency measure need tobe implemented. * * * The indicators would allow the State to take early action to address potential violations of the NAAQS before they occur." See September 4, 1992, Calcagni memo, p. 12. Pennsylvania's plan addresses this requirement by identifying two

occurrences that trigger a study to evaluate whether further emission control measures shouldbe implemented. This will allow the Commonwealth to take early action to address future potential violations. It requires the Commonwealth tofully evaluate the current air quality status and control status ofthe area, and determine if,and what level of,action shouldbe implemented toprevent further air quality deterioration.

As tothe comment regarding implementation of SIP measures as contingency measures, EPA does not believe that a further commitment is needed from the Commonwealth to implement as contingency measures all

ozone controlmeasures in the SIP prior
to redesignation. Section 175(A)(d) requires that "[s]uch provisions shall include arequirement that the State will implement all measures withrespect to the control ofthe air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State Implementation plan for the area before redesignation ofthe area as an attainment area." There are no measures in the Pennsylvania SIP to which the section 7505(d) commitment language could apply since the Commonwealth has not sought to drop any measures from the portion ofthe SIP that isbeing implemented. All measures that are either already implemented or scheduled to be implemented, e.g., the NOX SIP call, are still in the SIP and are required to be implemented. There is thus no need for the state to commit to further implementation in lightofthe fact thatit isrequired to continue to implement all measures contained in its SIP. Since the section 7505(d) requirement to implement allmeasure is being satisfied, there is no requirement for an additional commitment. The State could not make any change in implementation ofthese control

measures afterredesignation without EPA approval of a SIP revision. Such a revision would have to meetthe requirements ofsection 110(1) which requires that the revision could not interfere with any applicable requirement. Under these circumstances EPA considers thatthe requirement of section 7505(d) is satisfied.

With respect to the NOx SIP call, which has an implementation deadline in the Commonwealth in 2003, EPA disagrees thatthis SIP element is
necessary for redesignation (see comment(6)), and therefore no additional commitment is needed from the Commonwealth regarding this SIP element.

(2) Comment:A commenter asserts that Stage II vapor recovery, auto refinishing, consumer products, and AIM are listed as contingency measures andthis is double counting.

Response:Stage II, auto refinishing,

consumer products andAIM are state andFederal programs currently implemented in the Pittsburgh area. These programs have assisted in bringing the area into attainment and will continue help the area maintain the

ozone NAAQS and are notlisted as or considered to be contingency measures. There is no "double counting".

E.CommentsRelatedto theMonitoring DataandtheMonitoringNetwork

(1) Comment:We received comments asserting that the three years ofdatathat shouldbe analyzed for demonstration of attainment are 1994-1996. We also received a comment asking ifthe Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1999 and 2000

ozone datahad been quality assured.

Response:EPAis taking action to approve a determination ofattainment and a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh

area. The three years ofviolation free data upon which the determination of attainment isbased, which the Commonwealth submittedto satisfy the applicable criteria for its redesignation request, is the ozone datafor the 1998, 1999, and 2000 ozone seasons. EPA policy is to consider at the most recent 3year period to determine attainment. The ozone data for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 ozone seasons from the 14 ozone monitoring stations inthe PittsburghBeaver Valley Area have been quality assured. All datawere contained in the EPAAIRS Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) by December 4, 2000. All data in AIRS is quality assuredprior to submittal to AIRS, as required by 40 CFR 58.35(d).

(2) Comment:We received comments expressing concern about the removal from service ofthe Penn Hills station duringJune 2001. The comments assign significance to the two exceedances that this station detected in 1999. One
comment points out that the station had previously had monitored violations of the one hour NAAQS. Related
comments express concern about the adequacy ofthe ozone network operated by PADEP andthe Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) in the Pittsburgh-Beaver ValleyArea and state thatthere should notbe a change or substitution ofany monitor until attainment has been achieved.

Response:Since the early 1980's the network in the area has satisfiedthe minimum federal requirements for the number of stations and types ofstations

as set forth at 40 CFR part 58. At a minimum, anetwork must have two stations in each urban area with population greater than 200,000. 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, §3.4. The original Pittsburgh-Beaver Valleynetwork consisted offour stations in Allegheny County and two stations each in Washington County and Beaver County.

EPA regulations contemplate that the monitoring network may change over 53103

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53103 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

time, regardless ofwhether or not an
area is currently designated as attainment. In an effort toimprove the overall quality ofdatafrom the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, the network has grown over time from the original eight tothirteen stations. This growth was carried out in accordance with state and federal law through a process of annual network reviews by the PADEP and the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) asrequired by 40 CFR 58.20(d). EPA participated in these reviews and network changes, as required by40 CFR 58.21. EPA also approved the annual network designs in accordance 40 CFR 58.25. Past annual reviews identified potential data needs ofthe Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley network. In order to address these potential data needs, the network has expanded to its
current size ofthirteen stations. During this time, one ofthe original monitoring stations, Penn Hills, was retired from service, and six new stations were added, for a netgrowth offive stations duringthe 1990's.

The Penn Hills station was removed from service because ofthe limited value ofthe data collected there since it

was established in the early 1980's. Significantly, this station has not shown

aviolation ofthe ozone standard since 1982. Furthermore, the net addition of five monitors tothe Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley network during the 1990's provides monitoring coverage over an

area than isinclusive ofthe area previously monitored by Penn Hills. This resulted in the Penn Hills site capturing dataredundant ofdata collected at othermonitors. Specifically, exceedances atthe Penn Hills monitor

were captured at other stations. For example, since 1987, all unhealthy days detected at Penn Hills, except forJune 19, 1995, were captured by the Brackenridge station (or the Harrison station which replaced Brackenridge in 1990). On June 19, 1995, when the Penn Hills station identified ozone exceedances, the Lawrenceville station, andthe Murryville station, also showed exceedances. The two days of exceedances in 1999 detected at Penn Hills were captured by three other stations, Harrison, Lawrenceville, and Greensburg. Therefore, the closing ofthe Penn Hills station will result in no loss ofdata.

(3) Comment:We received a comment expressing concern that the Penn Hills station ozone data and the South Fayette station ozone data are no longer reported on the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (PADEP) web page.

Response:The PADEP web site does
not list the Penn Hills station because that station was taken out of service in June 2001. (See the comment and response provided atE.(2)) The
commenter found no datafor South Fayette, because no exceedances were detected at this operating station as of the date ofthe commenter's letter. There

are no statutory orregulatory requirements that PADEP make its

ozone data available on the Internet. However, in service to the citizens of the Commonwealth, it isPADEP's practice to provide daily information on its web page indicating those monitoring locations where exceedances ofthe 1-hour and/or 8-hour ozone standards have occurred (cautioning that this information is not based upon datathat hasbeen validated). IfPADEP continues with its current practice,

ozone datafrom the South Fayette monitor will be reported onthe PADEP web site ifthis monitor ever exceeds the

ozone standards.

(4) Comment:Several commenters expressed doubt that the area had attained the standard and suggested that violations in 2001 were imminent. One
commenter asserts that the fact thatthe

area had violated the 8-hour standard does not speak well ofitsbeing redesignated.

Response:The quality assured ozone datafor 1998, 1999 and 2000 indicate that the Pittsburgh area has attained of the 1-hour NAAQS. Moreover, the preliminary data for the 2001 ozone

season indicate, to date, continued attainment ofthe 1-hour standard. EPA does not believe thatviolations ofthe 1- hour standard are imminent in the Pittsburgh area.

The Pittsburgh area's status with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard is
not germane to the approval ofthe redesignation request andmaintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard.

III. What Actions Are We Taking?

We are determining that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate

ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS for ozone. The Pittsburgh

area includes the Pennsylvania counties ofAllegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland. Onthe basis ofthis determination, EPAis also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1)), along with certain other related requirements, ofpart D ofTitle 1ofthe Act, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement, the section 182(b)(1) attainment demonstration requirement are not applicable tothe Pittsburgh area.

We are approving the redesignation of the Pittsburgh area to attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard and we are approving the section 175A maintenance plan as a revision tothe Pennsylvania SIP. By approving the Pittsburgh area maintenance plan, EPA is also approving the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets contained in the plan as adequate for maintenance ofthe

ozone NAAQS andfor transportation conformity purposes. These Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets are 109.65 tons/day ofVOC for 1999, 98.22 tons/ day ofVOC for 2007, and 102 tons/day ofVOC for 2011; for NOxthe Motor Vehicle emissions budgets are 171.05 tons/day for 1999, 129.12 tons/day for 2007, and 115.02 tons/day for 2011.

We are converting the limited approval ofthe NSR program in the Commonwealth tofull approval everywhere in the Commonwealth with the exception ofthe Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton ozone nonattainment area.

We are approving the 1990 NOxbase
year emissions inventory for the Pittsburgh area.
IV.Why AreWe Taking ThisAction To Redesignate the Area?

We are making a determination that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA isbasing this determination upon three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1998-2000

ozone seasons that demonstrate thatthe

ozone NAAQS has been attained in the entire Pittsburgh area. Preliminary data for the 2001 ozone season also indicates thatthe area continues in attainment. EPAbelieves thatit isreasonable to interpret provisions regarding attainment demonstrations, alongwith certain other related provisions, not to require SIP submissions ifan ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment ofthe ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years ofcomplete, quality assured, air quality monitoring data). See May 10, 1995, memorandum from John Seitz, and SierraClubv. EPA, 99 F.3.d 1551 (10thCir. 1996).

We are approving the maintenance plan as arevision to the SIP because it
meets the requirements ofsection 175A and 107(d). We are also redesignating the area because three years ofambient air monitoring data demonstrate thatthe

ozone NAAQS has been attained, the

area has continued in attainment and the area has satisfied all other requirements for redesignation. 53104

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53104 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

V.What Are the Effects of Redesignation to Attainment ofthe 1- Hour NAAQS?

These actions determine thatthe area attained the 1-hour ozone standard and that the requirements ofsection 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) concerning the submission ofthe ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for reasonable further progress (RFP) or attainment are not applicable to the area.

The redesignation changes the official designation ofthe Pennsylvania counties ofAllegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, andWestmoreland from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. It also approves a SIP revision that puts into place a plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years. This plan includes contingency measures to correct any future violations ofthe 1-hour ozone standard. By approving the maintenance plan, EPAis also approving the mobile

source emissions budgets included in the plan for purposes oftransportation conformity.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. GeneralRequirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993), this action is
not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreview by the Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. This action also redesignates

an area to attainment, an action that affects the status ofa geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation ofan area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Clean Air Act does
not impose any new requirements on small entities. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601, et seq.).Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state lawand does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (PublicLaw 104-4). This rule also does
not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect

on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects onthe States,

onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower andresponsibilities established in the CAA. This action alsoredesignates an

area to attainment. The redesignation merely affects the status ofa geographical area, does not impose any

new requirements on sources, or allows

a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter therelationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order donot apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meetthe criteria ofthe CAA. In this context, in the absence ofa 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 lawfor EPA, when itreviews

a SIP submission, to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies theprovisions ofthe CAA. Additionally, redesignation is an action that affects the status ofageographical

area but does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

B. Submission to Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United Statesprior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it ispublished in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.Petitions for JudicialReview

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action, to redesignate the Pittsburgh area to attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
approve a 10-year maintenance plan,
convert the New Source Review
program to full approval, approve the NOxbase year inventory, and approve Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2)).

List ofSubjects

40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. 53105

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53105 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Dated: October 3, 2001. Thomas C. Voltaggio, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIlL 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended

as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 is amendedby addingparagraph (c)(188) to read as follows:
§52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (188) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations including a 10-year ozone maintenance plan for the PittsburghBeaver Valley area, submitted on May 21, 2001 bythe Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection. (i)Incorporation byreference. (A)Letter dated May 21, 2001 submittedby the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection transmitting the maintenance plan for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. (B) The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area

ozone maintenance plan submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, effective May 15, 2001. This plan establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOCs of 109.65 tons/day for 1999, 98.22 tons/ day for 2007, and 102 tons/day for 2011. This plan also establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOx of 171.05 tons/day for 1999, 129.12 tons/day for 2007, and 115.02 tons/day for 2011.

(ii)Additionalmaterial.Remainder of State Submittalpertaining to the revision listed in paragraph (c)(188)(i) of this action. 3. Section 52.2036 is amended by revising the sectionheading and by addingparagraph (in) to read as follows: §52.2036 1990base year emission inventory.

* * * * *

(m)EPA approves the 1990 NOx base year emission inventory for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, submittedby the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection

on March 22, 1996 and supplemented

on February 18, 1997.
§52.2037 [Amended]

4. In §52.2037 remove and reserve paragraph (b)(1).

PART 81-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, etseq. 2. In §81.339, the table for Ozone (1- Hour Standard) is amended byrevising the entry for the "Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area" to read as follows:
§81.339 Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

PENNSYLVANIA-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area: Allegheny County

........................................... October 19, 2001

........... Attainment Armstrong County

.......................................... October 19, 2001

........... Attainment Beaver County

............................................... October 19, 2001

........... Attainment Butler County

................................................. October 19, 2001

........... Attainment Fayette County

.............................................. October 19, 2001

........... Attainment Washington County

....................................... October 19, 2001

........... Attainment Westmoreland County

................................... October 19, 2001

........... Attainment

This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-26093 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR PART 81 [CA058-FOA; FRL-7087-1]

Clean AirAct FindingofAttainment; California-Imperial Valley Planning Area; Particulate Matter of 10 Microns

or Less (PM-10)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final actionto find thatthe State ofCalifornia has established to EPA's satisfaction that the Imperial Valley Planning Area (Imperial County), aPM-10 moderate nonattainment area, would have attained the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter often microns or less (PM-10)by the applicable Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) attainment date, December 31, 1994, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States, i.e., Mexico. As a result ofthis final action, Imperial County will not be subject to a finding offailure to attain and reclassification to serious atthis time and will remain a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action iseffective

onNovember 19, 2001. ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action
atEPA's Region 9 office duringnormal business hours. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division,Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

Electronic Availability:This document is also available as an electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/ air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1287, lo.doris@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.Background

Imperial County is a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area located on the 53106

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53106 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

California borderwith Mexico, with a December 31, 1994 attainment deadline. Under CAAsection 188(b)(2)(A), moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must be reclassified as serious by operation oflaw after the statutory attainment date ifthe Administrator finds thatthe area has failed to attain the NAAQS. However, CAA section 179(B)(d) provides that any area that establishes tothe satisfaction ofEPA that itwould have attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment datebut for emissions emanating from outside the United States shall not be subject to the provisions ofCAA section 182(b).

Imperial County andthe California Air Resources Board submitted evidence that the County would have attained the PM-10 NAAQS but for transport from Mexico. The primary information prepared by the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) is "Imperial County PM-10 Attainment Demonstration" (hereafter referred to as the "179B(d) demonstration") which

was transmitted to EPAby the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

onJuly 18, 2001 letter from Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, CARB, to Ms. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPARegion 9).

Pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2)(B) ofthe Act, EPAmust publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying those

areas thatfailed to attain the standard andreclassifying the areas to serious. OnAugust 6, 2001, EPA issued two alternative proposals:

(1)To find thatthe State ofCalifornia had established to EPA's satisfaction that Imperial County, aPM-10 moderate nonattainment area, would have attained the NAAQS PM-10 by the applicable Clean Air Act attainment date, December 31, 1994, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States, i.e., Mexico. (2)Alternatively, to findthat Imperial County did not attain the PM-10 NAAQS by its CAA mandated attainment date. This proposed finding

was based on monitored air quality data for the PM-10 NAAQS during the years 1992-1994. A final action would result in a reclassification to serious PM-10 nonattainment for Imperial County.

These proposed alternative actions

were published in a Federal Register notice (66 FR 42187) on August 10, 2001 (proposedrule or notice ofproposed rulemaking, NPR). The 30-day public
commentperiod ended on September 10, 2001. EPA requested public
comments on both proposals and received ten comment letters from the following: * Sierra Club/EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund (David S. Baron, Attorney) * Imperial County Air Pollution Control

District (Stephen L. Birdsall, Air Pollution Control Officer) * Congressman Duncan Hunter, U.S.

House ofRepresentatives, Washington, D.C. 20515-0552 * Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers

Association (Lauren S. Grizzle, Executive Director) * Imperial County Farm Bureau (Lauren

S. Grizzle, Executive Director) * California Farm Bureau Federation

(Cynthia L. Cory, Director, Environmental Affairs) * Mar VistaFarms, Inc. (MichaelB.

Cox, President) * Nisei Farmers League (ManuelCunha,

Jr., President) * California Cotton Ginners and

Growers Association (RogerA. Isom, Vice President &Director ofTechnical Services) * Granite Construction Company (Jeff

Mercer, Area manager) All ofthe commenters supported EPA's proposed finding ofattainment pursuant to section 179B(d) ofthe CAA, except for the Sierra Club/EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund (Sierra Club).

While the SierraClub raises some important issues, EPAwas aware of these issues prior to the proposed rulemaking and has not been convinced by Sierra Club thatthe State's 179B(d) demonstration isinadequate andthat the finding ofnonattainment and reclassification to serious shouldbe finalized. Thus, EPAis finalizing its action to findthat the State ofCalifornia has established thatImperial County would have attainedthe NAAQS for PM-10 bythe applicable CAA attainment date, December 31, 1994, but for emissions emanating from Mexico. Today's rulemaking provides EPA's responses to public comments and finalizes EPA's proposed action.

II. Public Comments andEPA Responses

A. SierraClub/EarthJustice Legal DefenseFund(DavidS. Baron, Attorney)

Comments were submittedby the EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund on behalf ofthe Sierra Club. In general, the Sierra Club opposes our proposed finding of attainment and asserts that the 179B(d) demonstration does not adequately demonstrate attainment but for the emissions emananting from Mexico. The Sierra Club believes we must finalize ourproposed finding of nonattainment andreclassification to serious PM-10 nonattainment for Imperial County. 1.CAA Requires Modeling
The Sierra Club's first group of
comments address the need for a modeling demonstration. The Sierra Club asserts that air quality modeling is

a requirement underCAA Section 179B(d) and thatin order to qualify for

a 179B(d) waiver,the state must make

a showing thatis the equivalent ofan attainment demonstration which the Act and EPA's own regulations and guidelines require to be based on air quality modeling. The Sierra Clubthen discusses how the State's air quality modeling does not adequately demonstrate attainment ofthe 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS due to deficiencies with the modeling inventory and modeling assumptions which are summarized inEPA's responses below.

EPA'sresponse:EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club that aCAA Section 179(B)(d) waiver must be based on air quality modeling. CAA section 179B(d) does not require air quality modeling for PM-10 nonattainment areas at international borders, and EPA's guidance relating to serious PM-10 nonattainment areas suggests modeling

as one offive methods that may be used
to determine attainment but for international transport.' In issuing guidance onCAA section 179(B), EPA considered it appropriate to grant states

more flexibility in making the "but-for" attainment determination forborder

areas due to the special difficulties that

canbe encountered atthese areas.

For example, it maybe particularly difficult for States to acquire the
necessary input data for a valid modeling analysis, including monitored meteorological and air quality data,
accurate speciated emissions inventories with temporal and spatial breakdown, andinformation on dayspecific emissions, when such data
mustbe collected in areas outside ofthe U.S. The acquisition ofsuch data is

'EPA's guidance appears in "State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers forPM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle I of the Clean AirAct Amendments of1990," 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994. The guidance lists 5typesof information that could beused to qualify for treatment under section 179B, and provides that "States may useone or

more ofthese types ofinformation or other techniques, depending on their feasibility and applicability,to evaluate the impact of emissions emanating from outside the U.S. on the nonattainment area." The General Preamble goes on to note that "the first 3 examples do notrequire the Stateto obtain information from a foreign country." Onlythe fifth method employs modeling. 59 FR 42001. As discussed inthe proposed action, the State submitted information addressing each ofthe
5methods. 66 FR42189-90. 

### 53107

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53107 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

resource intensive both in terms of money and expert stafftime, and the exercise may consume years of preparatory work andthen require additional time and expense for quality

assurance and datapreparation and analysis. In cases where the critical modeling input data are not available or

are incomplete or inaccurate, EPA believes that Congress could not have intended to disallow areas from presenting, and EPA from approving, non-modeling evidence of "attainment but for transport."

Although modeling input data were recognized to be sparse, the State's 179B(d) demonstration did attempt to address each ofthe 5allowable approaches specified in the General Preamble, including an air quality modeling "but-for" attainment demonstration forboth the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.

As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA did not base theproposed finding ofattainment for the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS onthe State's air quality modeling demonstration. The sensitivity ofthe 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS to the modeling inputs, coupled with the lack ofmodel validation, led EPAto conclude that,unlike the annual PM-10 NAAQS, the air quality modeling could
not be relied upon for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS attainment demonstration. Instead, EPA based its finding of attainment for the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS onthe State's analysis of monitoring sites, meteorological conditions (whichinvolves an analysis ofspatial plots, wind roses andback trajectories) and inventory estimates for both sides oftheborder. EPAbelieves that these arevalid alternative methods for determining attainment but for international transport (see General Preamble at 59 FR 42001).

For the annual PM-10 NAAQS, model performance assessment alsoraises issues, although these concerns are less than for the 24-hour NAAQS because day-specific modeling inputs and predictions are not needed. Moreover, to determine whether or not Imperial County would have attained the annual PM-10 NAAQS but for international transport does not require modeling precision, due to the factthat the annual arithmetic mean concentrations for 1992-1994 are only slightly above the annual PM-10 NAAQS (51 gtg/m 3 at Brawley and 56 gLg/m 3 at Calexico Dichot-Grant Street). All thatis required ofthe model in support ofa "but for" demonstration isevidence that at least

a smallportion ofthe monitored concentrations was due to transport of pollution from Mexico. 2.Adequacy ofthe State's Emissions Inventory Input to the Modeling

The Sierra Club comments thatthe State's modeling inventory is insufficient because it was not developed for PM-10 modeling, does
not reflect peak PM-10 levels, is not a "current" and "accurate" inventory, and does not contain data on actual PM-10 emissions, but is based on the SCOS inventory which is adjusted with invalid assumptions (i.e., percentage of TSP thatis PM-10 and correlation of PM-10 emissions to population).

EPA Response:While the modeling inventory for Imperial County was not developed specifically for PM-10 modeling, it does include PM-10 emissions and represents thebest available inventory atthis time. As discussed in EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) for the proposed rule, the modeling inventory was derived from the Southern California Ozone Study (SCOS) modeling inventory for a typical summer day. Seasonal adjustments were made to the inventory, andthe inventory was scaled, based onpopulation changes, for the
years 1992 to 1994. The use ofthis modeling inventory to represent average annual PM-10 concentrations is an acceptable approach, but theuse ofthis modeling inventory to represent peak PM-10 days is less reliable because emissions ofPM-10 are likely tobe higher than the seasonal average on peak days. In otherwords, this inventory is more reliable for the determining attainment ofthe annual PM-10 NAAQS than for the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.

EPA does not agree that the modeling inventory is insufficient because it is based onthe SCOS inventory and adjustments made to that inventory (i.e., percentage ofTSP that isPM-10 and correlation ofPM-10 emissions to population). As discussed above, the modeling inventory developed isthe best available inventory andinformation
atthis time. In order to develop a modeling inventory for Imperial County, the State tookthe SCOS modeling inventory and made adjustments to reflect the PM-10 emissions in Imperial county. For example, the SCOS inventory included emissions oftotal suspended particulates (TSP).PM-10 is

a subset ofTSP. In order toto adjust for the SCOS inventory for PM-10 emissions, the State used an adjustment factor of1.93 which is based on a comparison ofthe 1997 SCOS inventory
to Imperial County's 1995 PM-10 emissions inventory (bestavailable PM10 inventory). The State also adjusted the inventory for changes in the population since the "vast majority of PM-10 emission inImperial County are from area sources such asunpaved roads, paved roads and agriculture." 2 While these may not be the most precise adjustment techniques for the Imperial County PM-10 modeling inventory, EPAbelieves these adjustments are reasonable for the annual PM-10 NAAQS.

In general, there are many uncertainties in developing PM-10 inventories. This ispartly due to intrinsic variability, but alsobecause socioeconomic surrogate data and location-specific data needed tobuild a spatially and temporally resolved inventory is sometimes not available. However, EPAbelieves thatthe fugitive PM-10 emission estimates andthe modeling that uses them are an adequate basis for this action. The State is continuously improving andupdating inventory information. The inventory usedin the State's demonstration represents the best available PM-10 inventory for the 1992-1994 timeframe.

3.Background Concentration in the Model

The Sierra Club comments that there is no basis for using the annual background concentration of25 gLg/m 3

and thatitis "the product ofpure speculation."

EPA Response:The background concentration level was based on a frequency distribution analysis of measured PM-10 concentrations at monitors in the Imperial County and Mexicali from 1992 to 2000. 3 EPA believes the 25 gLg/m 3background concentration level is a conservative level.

4. Secondary Particles in the Model

The Sierra Club comments that the State's modeling demonstration includes no analysis for secondary particle formation.

EPA Response:While there is no specific discussion ofsecondary particulates in EPA'sproposed rule (66 FR 42187), the analysis provided by the
state did account forthe formation of secondary particulates. See Imperial County PM10 Attainment Demonstration, Chapter III.B, page 4.In addition the Imperial Valley/Mexicali Cross Border PM-10 Transport Study (Transport Study)provides a filter analysis which indicates that secondary

2See the State's 179B(d) demonstration (Chapter
IILB. Modeling Emissions Inventory) for more detailedinformation on the how the State's modeling inventory was developed.

3See the State's 179B(d) demonstration (Chapter IILD.Background Concentrations) for more information. 53108

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53108 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

particulates are measured in therange of 2to 4 gg/m 3for secondary ammonium sulfates and 2to 3gLg/m 3for secondary ammonium nitrates (Transport Study, Summary and Conclusion, page 9-5) and are thus a small portion ofthe particulate matter in Imperial County.

5.ProofThatMexico Emissions Impact U.S. Monitors and Adequacy of Alternative Demonstration

The Sierra Club asserts thatthe state has failed to demonstrate thatPM-10 violations in Imperial County are actuallybeing caused by emissions from Mexico and that, even ifair quality modeling was not required, the state's "alternative" 179B(d) demonstration (i.e., based on analysis ofwind patterns andpopulation densities) isgrossly inadequate. The Sierra Club believes that the State's analysis ofwind patterns andpopulation densities does not show that any quantifiable amount of particulates traveled to the U.S. monitors, let alone any amount that would contribute to nonattainment and that there is nothing in the record relating to an actual amount ofPM-10 emissions traveling from Mexico to Imperial County. Also, the Sierra Club
states thatthe Imperial Valley/Mexicali Cross Border PM-10 Transport Study (TransportStudy), which indicates that international transport is not always the

cause ofPM-10 violations, were not refuted and are more reliable than the

more recent analysis by the state which the Sierra Club claims to be speculative. Finally, the Sierra Club asserts that there isno analysis ofthe PM-10 transport to Imperial County's border from places other than Mexico (i.e., on the U.S. side).

EPA'sresponse:The State's 179B(d) demonstration, which includes a detailed analysis of spatial plots, wind

roses andback trajectories for each of the PM-10 exceedance days during 1992-1994, provides thebest qualitative analysis ofthe emissions from Mexico possible for the Imperial County area for the period in question. Filter analyses often can provide more specificity on where the monitoring emissions are coming from but, since the types ofPM10 sources are similar onboth sides of the border, analysis ofthe Imperial County samples would not show what portion ofthe catch originated on the Mexican side ofthe border.4

4As discussed in the proposed rule, the 1992- 1993 Imperial Valley/Mexicali Cross BorderPM-10 Transport Study (Final Report, January 30, 1997) includes an analysis ofthe particles collected in

areas within Imperial Countywhere violations have been recorded. This sample analysis determined that geological dust (70-90%), motor vehicle exhaust (10-15%) and vegetative burning (10%) The Sierra Club suggests that the analyses found in the State's 179B(d) demonstration prove nothing about whether or not emissions from Mexico

are impacting U.S. monitors. EPA believes that given the available information, the State has made agood argument thatImperial County is being impacted by Mexico emissions. Additional activities (tracer studies, air monitoring studies, establishment of

more meteorology stations at border) couldhave been conducted, but itis not

now possible to create information from

new studies for the 1992-1994 timeframe. Thus,EPA believes thatthe State's 179B(d) analysis of spatial plots, wind roses and backtrajectories provides thebest determination ofPM10 emissions transport from Mexico.

EPA does not have to refute the Transport Studyresults in order to make this finding of attainment but for international transport. As discussed in the proposed rule, the additional windfield analyses (Attachment 2to EPA's TSD, Additional windroses and windfields for January 25, 1993) provided amore detailed analysis, supplementing information from the Transport Study.5The Transport Study is simply an effort to collect air quality data on exceedance days and analyze the data based on wind direction and speed, andthe study is thus very similar
to the analyses found in the State's demonstration. The Transport Study indicates that several ofthe exceedance days appear to have stagnant wind conditions (1/19/93, 1/25/93, 7/7/94, 10/17/94 and 12/16/94), but the State's demonstration uses more meteorological data andfinds evidence that transport from Mexico is likely even with the stagnant conditions at the surface. For each ofthe exceedances, the State's analysis took into account additional information not included in the Transport Study. This information included: (a)The number ofhours with southerly wind directions thathave the potential to carry emissions from Mexico into Imperial County; (b)the back trajectories and backtrajectories based onupper-air synoptic wind data, which show the existence ofmuch higher winds from the south that are decoupled from the surface stagnant conditions, and (c) the windroses developed for all meteorological stations, suggesting that emissions from

account forthe highest contribution to PM-10 concentrations. These arethe predominant emissions sources on both sides ofthe border. Thus, the filter analysis by itselfcould notbeused to determine the extent to which violations might result from international transport.

5See Attachment 2to EPA's TSD, Additional windroses andwindfields forJanuary 25, 1993. Mexico likely contributed to the concentrations measured at Brawley. Based onthis additional information and the further analyses, the State concluded that Imperial County would
nothave violated the PM-10 NAAQS but for transport from Mexico. In weighing the "but-for" evidence, EPA also considered itimportant to consider the relatively low level ofthe 24-hour exceedances (162 gg/m3), 175 gg/m 3

, 165 gg/m 3

, 159 gg/m 3

, and 153 gg/m3). EPAconcedes thatinformation is not available to determine with confidence the exact quantity ofPM-10 coming fromMexico, but EPA continues to believe thatthe Statehas diligently collected and analyzed available evidence and has successfully demonstrated for each ofthe exceedance days the probability thatImperial County would not have violated the NAAQS but for the emissions emanating fromMexico.

Finally, EPAbelieves that there were insufficient datato support a modeling
assessment ofthe potential for long range transport fromthe South coast or other California areas to Mexico and back again to Imperial. The Sierra Club presents no evidence thatthere is transportfrom U.S. sources outside of Imperial County. Even ifevidence existed thatthe Imperial County monitors were being impacted by long
range transport from within the U.S., such evidence would not invalidate the State's demonstration thatImperial County would have attained the NAAQS but for emissions emanating fromMexico.

6. Emissions Inventories

The Sierra Club asserts thatthe comparison ofemissions inventories between Imperial and Mexicali is inadequate due to the uncertainty in the Mexicali inventory, that the Mexicali inventory has notbeen analyzed for transportability ofparticles and thatthe emissions inventory forImperial County has neverbeen approved byEPA, and thus cannot be used to support a "butfor" finding.

EPA'sresponse:The comparison of Imperial and Mexicali emissions was intended to provide support for the attainment finding.EPA agrees that there isuncertainty in the Mexicali inventory,however, EPA alsobelieves it isuseful to examine all available data for this attainment finding.Even ifthe Mexicali emissions were one-half of 257, as suggested by the Sierra Club, the emissions in the city ofMexicali (200 square miles) would be about halfofthe emissions in all ofImperial County (4060 square miles), but the emissions density in Mexicali would still be much 

### 53109

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53109 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

greater than in Imperial County. As far

as determining the transportability of emissions from Mexicali, as discussed above and in the proposed rule, filter analyses havebeen examined for the border area andprovided some information on theparticles characteristics. Finally, as discussed above, the emission inventories used in the State's 179B(d) demonstration are the most current andbest available. EPA plans to take action on the inventories when they are submitted as part ofthe State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Imperial County.

7.Post-1994 Exceedances

The Sierra Club asserts thatthe 179B(d) determination is inadequate because it fails to consider the post-1994 exceedances. The Sierra Club states that the post-1994 exceedances are numerous, in some cases extreme, and relevant to the attainment but for international transport determination.

EPA'sresponse:EPAbelieves that the post-1994 exceedances are irrelevant to the determinations at issue. The statutory attainment date for the Imperial County PM-10 moderate nonattainment area isDecember 31, 1994. EPAbelieves the State's 179B(d) demonstration adequately demonstrates attainment by examining the air quality datafrom 1992-1994. Ifthis demonstration is adequate, reclassification to serious isnot required. Section 188(b)(2) provides that: "Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date for a PM-10 nonattainment area, the Administrator shall determine whether the area attained the standard by thatdate. Ifthe Administrator finds that any Moderate Area is not in attainment after the applicable attainment date * * *" the

area shall be reclassified. While the second sentence of section 188(b)(2) contains the language quotedby the
commentor "is not in attainment after the applicable attainment date," itis clear thatin the context ofthe first
sentence ofthe provision, which isthe
sentence that establishes the duty to make an attainment determination, the duty isto "determine whether the area attained the standard by thatdate [referring to the phrase "applicable attainment date" in the opening clause ofthe sentence]." Thus, EPA's duty is
to determine whether the area attained by its attainment date andthe language in the second sentence regarding a finding after the attainment date may reasonably be interpreted as referring to the date the finding ismade, which would necessarily be after the attainment date, not to the date usedin the determination as the benchmark for determining attainment. The question of whether an area should be reclassified is considered along with whether an

area has achieved attainment bythe attainment date. Thus, the air quality datafrom the years 1992-1994 are the relevant datafor determining whether Imperial County shouldbe reclassified
to serious.

8. SIP Requirements

Finally, the SierraClub asserts that a 179B(d) waiver cannot be granted unless allmoderate area SIP requirements (e.g., RACM, RACT, New Source Review, etc.)

are being met.

EPA'sresponse:As discussed in the EPA's proposal, this rulemaking does
not address the SIP requirements for Imperial Countybut onlythe question ofwhether ornot the State has established that Imperial County attained the NAAQS byDecember 31, 1994, but for international transport. CAA section 179B(d) states that "any State that establishes to the satisfaction ofthe Administrator * * * that such State has attained the national ambient air quality standard for [PM-10] by the applicable attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside ofthe United States, shall not be submitto the provisions ofsection 7512(b)(2) * * " which requires reclassification upon failure to attain. This provision does not require a SIP submittal in order for the waiver to be granted. EPA is currently working with the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board on developing an approvable State Implementation Plan for Imperial County. Adraft ofthis plan was issued for public review inJuly 2001.

B. OtherCommentsSupporting EPA's Final Action
Besides the Sierra Club, all ofthe
commentors support EPA's finding of attainment but for international transport and are extremely opposed to the finding ofnonattainment and reclassification to a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. Commentors discussed the overwhelming pollution problem coming from Mexico, the

measures theirindustries have taken to reduce pollution and thatit wouldbe unfair toimpose additional controls on

sources in Imperial County. The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District alsoprovided additional technical analysis supporting the methods used in the State's 179B(d) demonstration.

III. Summary ofFinalAction

EPA's proposed rule (66 FR 42187) discusses how the State's 179B(d) demonstration isbased on a competently collected and examined set ofthe relevant available information, and reaches a reasoned conclusion that each ofthe 1992-94 exceedances, which

are only slightly above the NAAQS, would likely nothave occurred without pollutant transport from Mexico.

In summary, EPA continues to believe that CAA section 179B(d) does not mandate amodeling demonstration, and thatthe Statehas provided evidence sufficient to show that, but for international transport ofPM-10, Imperial County would have attained the annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1994 deadline.

IV.Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA isrequired to determine whether regulatory actions

are significant and therefore should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a "significant regulatory action"

as one thatis likely to result in a rule thatmay meet atleast one ofthe four criteria identified in section 3(f), including, (1)have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, publichealth or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)materially alter the budgetary impact ofentitlements, grants, user fees, orloan programs or the rights and obligations ofrecipients therof; or (4) raisenovel legal or policy issues arising out oflegal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.

EPA has determined thatthe final finding of attainment pursuant to CAA section 179B(d) would result in none of the effects identified in section 3(f). A finding of attainment under section 179B(d) ofthe CAA does not impose any additional requirements on an area. This actions does not,in-and-of-itself, impose any newrequirements on any sectors ofthe economy.
B.Executive Order13211

The final finding of attainment under CAA 179B(d) is not subject toExecutive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 Fed.Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because 

### 53110

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53110 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

it is not a significant regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866.

C.Executive Order13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1)Is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA hasreason tobelieve may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective andreasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The final finding of attainment under CAA 179B(d) isnot subject toExecutive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D.Executive Order13132

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism," (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes andreplaces Executive Orders 12612, "Federalism," and 12875, "Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership." Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely inputby State and local officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations thathave "substantial direct effects on the States,

onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment." Under Executive Order 13132, EPAmay not issue a regulation thathas federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and thatis not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the
process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation thathas federalism implications and thatpreempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation. The final finding of attainment will
not have substantial direct effects on California, onthe relationship between the national government and California,

or onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. As stated above,

afinding of attainment under section 179B(d) ofthe CAA does not impose
any additional requirements on an area. This action does not,in-and-of-itself, impose any new requirements on any sectors ofthe economy. Thus, the requirements ofsection 6 ofthe Executive Order do not apply tothis final action.

E.Executive Order13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249,November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely inputby tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave tribal implications." "Policies that have tribal implications" is defined in the Executive Order toinclude regulations that have "substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes."

The final finding of attainment under CAA 179B(d) does not have tribal implications. For the reasons discussed above, the final action will not have substantial direct effects ontribal governments, onthe relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government andIndian tribes,

as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

F. RegulatoryFlexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies thatthe rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

As discussed above, the final finding ofattainment under CAA 179B(d) does
not impose additional requirements on small entities. Therefore, I certify that this final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

G. UnfundedMandates

Under section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPAmust prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed orfinal rule thatincludes a Federal mandate that may resultin estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPAmust select the most costeffective and leastburdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule andis consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPAto establish aplan for informing and advising any small governments that maybe significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

With respectto EPA's final finding of attainment under CAA 179B(d), EPA
notes that this actions in-and-of itself establishes no new requirements. Furthermore, EPA is not directly establishing any regulatory requirements that may significantly impact or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments. Thus, EPAisnot obligated
to develop under section 203 ofUMRA

a small government agency plan.

H.NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct
Section 12 ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPAmust consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) ifavailable and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so wouldbe inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's final action because they do not require the public
to perform activities conducive tothe

use ofVCS.

L Submission to Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a 

### 53111

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53111 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United Statesprior to publication ofthe rule in the FederalRegister. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a "major" rule as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

J.Petitions forJudicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for thepurposes ofjudicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule

oraction. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: October 9, 2001. Sally Seymour, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIX. [FRDoc. 01-26406 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENTAGENCY

44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-D-7515]
Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification ofthe base (1%annual chance) flood elevations is appropriate because ofnew scientific or technical data. Newflood insurance premium rates willbe calculated from the modified base flood elevations for newbuildings and their
contents. DATES: These modified base flood elevations are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effectprior to this determination for each listed community.

From the date ofthe second publication ofthese changes in a newspaper oflocal circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Acting Administrator for Federal Insurance andMitigation Administration reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed duringthe 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the ChiefExecutive Officer ofeach community. The respective addresses

are listed in the following table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief,Hazards StudyBranch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, or (email) matt.miller@fema.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the ChiefExecutive Officerofthe community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection isprovided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge ofchanged conditions, orupon new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 ofthe Flood Disaster Protection Act of1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 etseq., and with44 CFR Part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown andmust be used for allnew policies andrenewals.

The modified base flood elevations

are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt

orto show evidence ofbeing already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They shouldnot be construed tomean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements ofits own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

The changes in base flood elevations

are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
NationalEnvironmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded fromthe requirements of44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Acting Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies thatthis rule is exemptfrom the requirements ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required tomaintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis hasbeen prepared. Regulatory Classification

This interimrule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order12612, Federalism

This rule involves no policies that havefederalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order12778, Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) ofExecutive Order 12778.

List ofSubjects in44 CFR Part65

Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 65 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 etseq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
§65.4 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the authority of §65.4 are amended as follows: 

### 53112

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53112 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

State and county Location D and name of news- Chief executive officer Effective date of Community paper where notice was of community modification number published

Florida: Duval

......

Georgia: Gwinnett

Kentucky: Whitley

Maine: York

.........

Mississippi: Madison.

North Carolina: Wake

............

D

are
.............

Wake

............ City of Jacksonville.

Unincorporated

Areas.

City of Williamsburg.

Town of Alfred

...

City of Ridgeland

Town of Cary

.....

Unincorporated

Areas.

Town of Garner

Gaston

......... City of Gastonia

Ohio: Warren

...... City of Mason

....

South Carolina: Lexington

.....

Lexington

.....

Tennessee: Sullivan.

Virginia: Rockingham. City of Columbia

Unincorporated

Areas.

Town of Kingsport.

Unincorporated

Areas. August 8, 2001; August 15, 2001; Financial News andDaily Record.

August 23, 2001; August

30, 2001; Gwinnett Daily Post.

August 17, 2001; August

24, 2001; Times Tribune.
September 27, 2001; October 4, 2001; The Sanford News.

May 17, 2001; May 24,

2001; Madison County Journal.

August 2, 2001; August 9,

2001; The CaryNews.

August 23, 2001; August

30, 2001; Coastland Times.

July 18, 2001; July 25,

2001; The News and Observer.

August 29, 2001; September 5, 2001; The Gaston Gazette.

July 18, 2001; July 25,

2001; The News and Observer.

July 18, 2001; July 25,

2001; The News and Observer.

September 5, 2001; September 12, 2001; PulseJournal.

August 20, 2001; August

27, 2001; The State.

August 20, 2001; August

27, 2001; The State.

August 23, 2001; August

30, 2001; Kingsport Times.

September 21, 2001;

Daily News Record. The Honorable John A. Delaney, Mayor of the City of Jacksonville, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. Mr. Wayne Hill, Chairman of the

Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners, Justice and Administration Center, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045. The Honorable Bill Nighbert,

Mayor of the City of Williamsburg, P.O. Box 119, Williamsburg, Kentucky 40769. Mr. Perley Yeaton, Chairperson of

the Board of Selectmen for the Town of Alfred, P.O. Box 667, Alfred, Maine 04001. The Honorable Gene F. McGee,

Mayor of the City of Ridgeland, P.O. Box 217, Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158.

The Honorable Glenn D. Lang,

Mayor of the Town of Cary, 318 North Academy Street, P.O. Box 8005, Cary, North Carolina 27512. Mr. Moncie L. Daniels, Chairman

of the Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1000, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Ms. Mary Lou Rand, Town Manager, P.O. Box 446, 900 Seventh Avenue, Garner, North Carolina 27529. Mayor of the City of Gastonia,

P.O. Box 1748, 181 South Street, Gastonia, North Carolina
28053-1748. The Honorable Paul Y. Coble,

Mayor of the City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. Mr. David Cooke, Wake County

Manager, Suite 1100, 337 South Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. The Honorable John McCurley,

Mayor of the City of Mason, 202 West Main Street, Mason, Ohio 45040.

The Honorable Robert D. Cole,

Mayor of the City of Columbia, P.O. Box 147, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Mr. Bruce Rucker, Lexington

County Council Chairman, 212 South Lake Drive, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. The Honorable Jeanette Blazier,

Mayor of the City of Kingsport, 225 West Center Street, City Hall, Kingsport, Tennessee 37660-4237. Mr. Pablo Cuevas, Chairman of

the Board of Supervisors, Rockingham County P.O. Box 1252 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801. August 1,2001

..........

November 29, 2001

...

August 10, 2001

........ 120077D&E

130322D

210228D

September 19, 2001

.. 230191C

May 10, 2001

............ 280110 D

July 26, 2001

............. 370238D

August 16, 2001

........

July 11, 2001

............. 375348E

370240 D

December 5, 2001

..... 

### I370100D

July 11, 2001

.............

July 11, 2001

............. 370243 D

370368 D

August 30,2001

........ 390559C

August 13, 2001

........

August 13, 2001

........ 450172D

450129D

August 16, 2001

........ 470184D

October 12, 2001

...... 510133B Wake

............

Wake

............ City of Raleigh

...

Unincorporated

Areas. 53113

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53113 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

(CatalogofFederalDomestic Assistance No. 83.100, "Flood Insurance")

Dated: October 9,2001.
Robert F. Shea, ActingAdministrator, Federal Insuranceand Mitigation Administration. [FR Doc. 01-26424 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718-04-P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENTAGENCY

44 CFR Part 65
Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1-percentannual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs)

are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified elevations will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for newbuildings and their contents. EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps ((FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection
atthe office ofthe ChiefExecutive Officer ofeach community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief,Hazards StudyBranch, Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment Division, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461 or (e-mail) matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA makes the final determinations listed below ofthe final determinations of modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers oflocal circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance andMitigation Administration, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this rule includes the address ofthe ChiefExecutive Officer ofthe community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection.

The modifications are made pursuant to Section 206 ofthe Flood Disaster Protection Act of1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with44 CFR Part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown andmust be used for allnew policies andrenewals.

The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt orto show evidence ofbeing already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National FloodInsurance Program (NFIP).

These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They shouldnot be construed tomean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements ofits own, or pursuant topolicies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

These modified BFEs are used tomeet the floodplain management requirements ofthe NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, andfor the contents in these buildings.

The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies thatthis rule is exemptfrom the requirements ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required tomaintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis hasbeen prepared. Regulatory Classification

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order12612 Federalism

This rule involves no policies that havefederalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order12778, CivilJustice Reform

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) ofExecutive Order 12778.

List ofSubjects in 44 CFR Part65

Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 65 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 etseq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3of1978, 3CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
§65.4 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the authority of §65.4 are amended as follows:

Dates and names of Chief executive officer Effective date of Community State and county Location newspaper where notice of community modification number
was published

Arkansas: Washington (FEMA Docket No. 7602). Oklahoma: (FEMA

Docket No. 7602). City of Springdale

City of Edmond

.... April 20, 2001, April 27, 2001, The Morning News ofNorthwestArkansas. May 17, 2001, May 24,

2001, The EdmondSun. The Honorable Jerre Van Hoose, Mayor, City of Springdale, 201 Spring Street, Springdale, Arkansas 72764. The Honorable Bob Rudkin, Mayor,

City of Edmond, P. 0. Box 202, Edmond, Oklahoma 73083. July 27, 2001

....... 050219

August 23, 2001

.. 400252 

### 53114

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53114 2001