# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 66 Fed. Reg. 54143 2001

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Dec 8 18:42:45 2009

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

30.21' N, 0840 20'W (thesecoordinates

are on opposite sides ofthe St. Mary's River and east ofthe Sault Locks); proceeding in a westerly direction, encompassing allwaters in theriver alongthe St. Mary's River and St. Mary's Falls Canal past the Sault Locks,

to a line drawn from 46'29.86' N, 0840 23' W to 460 30.27' N, 0840 23' W (these coordinates are on opposite sides ofthe St. Mary's River, west ofthe Sault locks). These coordinates are based
upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

(b)Effective dates.This section is effective from 1p.m. October 11, 2001 until 1p.m. June 15, 2002. (c) Regulations.(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain ofthe Port, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The general regulations of §165.33 ofthis part apply.

(2)Persons desiring to transit the area ofthe security zone must first notify the Captain ofthe Port SaultSte. Marie via the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) at telephone number (906) 635-3232 oron VHF channel 12 (156.6 MHz) or VHF channel 14 (156.7 MHz) and receive permission to transit the area. Approval will be made on a case-by-case basis. (3)Allpersons andvessels shall comply with the instructions ofthe Captain ofthe Port SaultSte. Marie or the designated on-scene patrol personnel.

Dated: October 11, 2001.
C. S. Gordon, Captain,U.S. CoastGuard,Captain ofthe Port SaultSte.Marie, MI. [FR Doc. 01-27053 Filed 10-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [PA-4185; FRL-7089-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Post 1996 Rate-ofProgress Plan and One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration forthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) consisting ofthe Post 1996 rate-ofprogress (ROP)plans andthe one-hour

ozone attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

severe nonattainment area (the Philadelphia area). These control strategy plans were submittedby the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The

measures that have been adopted bythe Commonwealth which comprise the control strategies ofthe Post-1996 ROP plans andthe one-hour ozone attainment demonstration have and will result in significant emission reductions ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) in the Philadelphia area. The intended effect ofthis action is to approve these SIP revisions asmeeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA orthe Act). The Philadelphia area is comprised oftwo counties in Delaware, one county in Maryland, seven counties in NewJersey, and five counties in Pennsylvania, namely Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 26, 2001. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection duringnormal business hours atthe Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 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 at the EPA Region III office above or by e-mail at Webster.Jill@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is organized to address the following questions:

A.What action isEPA takingin this final rulemaking?

B.What previous action has beenproposed

on these SIPRevisions?

C.What were the conditions for approval providedin the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking forthe attainment demonstration?

D.What amendments tothe attainment demonstration SIP did Pennsylvania submit forthe Philadelphia area since December 16, 1999?

E. What didthe Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemaking cover?

F.When didEPA make adetermination regarding theadequacy of theMotor Vehicle Emissions Budgets forthe Philadelphia area?

G.Uponwhat SIP elements didEPA need totake final action before or concurrently with full approval ofthe attainment demonstration could be granted?

H.What measures are inthe control strategy for thePost 1996 plan and the attainment demonstration?

I.What are theapproved transportation conformity budgets, and what effects does thisaction have on transportation planning?

J.Whathappens tothe approved 2005 budgets when States change theirbudgets usingthe MOBILE6 Model?

K.Whatis the Status ofPennsylvania's New Source Review (SIP)?

L.What comments were received on the proposed approvals and how hasEPA responded to them?

A.What Action Is EPA Takingin This Final Rulemaking?

EPA is fully approving as meeting the requirements ofsection 182(c)(2) and (d) ofthe Act, the Post 1996 ROP plans and the one-hour attainment demonstration SIP, demonstrating attainment by November 2005, which were submitted by Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia

area. The following tables identify submittal dates and amendment dates for the Post 1996ROP plans andthe attainment demonstration:

TABLE 

### 1

.- SUMMARY OF ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION SUBMITTAL DATES

Initial submittal

................................ Amendment

..................................... Date

April 30, 1998

................................ August 21, 1998

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

Amendment

..................................... February 25, 2000

......................... Content

Attainment demonstration. Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for Regional Scale

Modeling. Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets to Include Benefits from

the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program and Heavy Duty Diesel Engine (HDDE) Rule. 54143

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54143 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.- SUMMARY OF ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION SUBMITTAL 

### DATES-Continued

Date Content

Amendment

..................................... July 31, 1998 &

............................. Commitments to Adopt Needed Measures for Attainment. February 25, 2000

......................... Amendment

..................................... July 19, 2001

................................. Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets to Include the Benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur-in-fuel Rule. Amendment

..................................... July 19, 2001

................................. Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis.

TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF POST-1 

### 996 ROP SUBMITTAL DATES

Date Content

Initial submittal

................................ July 31, 1998

................................. ROPthorough 1999. Initial submittal

................................ April 30, 1998

................................ ROPthorough 2005. Amendment

..................................... February 25, 2000

......................... Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets to Include Benefits from the NLEV Program and HDDE Rule.

B. What Previous Action Has Been Proposed on These SIP Revisions?

In aDecember 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) notice ofproposed rulemaking (the December 16, 1999 NPR), we proposed approval ofPennsylvania's 2005 attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area.

On February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8703), EPA published a notice ofavailability

onguidance memoranda relating tothe
ten one-hour ozone attainment demonstrations (includingthe Philadelphia area) proposed for approval or conditional approval on December 16, 1999. The guidance memoranda are entitled: "Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations" dated November 3, 1999, and "Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas" dated November 30, 1999.

On July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), EPA published asupplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) on the attainment demonstration. In that supplemental notice, we clarified and expanded ontwo issues relating to the
motor vehicle emissions budgets in attainment demonstration SIP revisions. This supplemental notice is discussed in Section I.E. ofthis document.

On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568), EPA published a NPR proposing to approve Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plans for the Philadelphia area. We did not receive any comments on thatNPR. In this final rulemaking action, we are approving the Post 1996 ROP plans submittedby Pennsylvania from 1996 through the 2005 attainment year.

On August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45797), EPA published a SNPR onthe attainment demonstration. In that supplemental notice, we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's analysis and determination that there are no additional reasonably available control

measures (RACM)for the area. We received no comments on that SNPR.

Comments received onthe December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) and July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383) proposed actions listed in this section relevant to the Philadelphia area attainment demonstration are discussed in Sections I. K. and II.

C. WhatWere the Conditions for Approval Provided inthe Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Attainment Demonstration?
OnDecember 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428),

we proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration submitted bythe Commonwealth ofPennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. Our approval was contingent upon certain actions by Pennsylvania. These actions were to: (1)Adopt and submit adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets. (2) Submit alist ofcontrol measures that, when implemented, would be expected toprovide sufficient additional emission reductions to further reduce emissions to support the attainment test and a commitment that these measures would not involve additional limits on highway construction beyond those that couldbe imposed under the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget. (3)Adopt and submit arule(s) for the regional NOx reductions consistent with the modeling demonstration. (4) Adopt and submit an enforceable commitment(s), or a reaffirmation of existing enforceable commitment to do the following: (a) Submit measures byOctober 31, 2001 for additional emission reductions

asrequired in the attainment demonstration test, andfor additional emission reduction measures developed through the regional process, submit an enforceable commitment for the additional measures and abackstop commitment to adopt and submit intrastate measures for the emission reductions in the event the regional
process does notrecommend measures thatproduce emission reductions.

(b) Submit a revised SIP &motor vehicle emissions budget by October 31, 2001 ifadditional measures affect the
motorvehicle emissions inventory.

(c) Submit revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets 1year after MOBILE6 issued.

(d) Perform a mid-course review by December 31, 2001.

D. WhatAmendments tothe Attainment Demonstration SIP Did Pennsylvania Submit forthe PhiladelphiaArea Since December 16, 1999?

Since December 16, 1999, Pennsylvania has submitted a number of amendments to the Pennsylvania SIP for Philadelphia:

(1)On February 25, 2000, the Commonwealth submitted the "State Implementation Plan Revision to the Philadelphia Ozone Nonattainment Area" dated January, 2000. This submittal contained the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Post 1996 ROP plans and the attainment demonstration. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets reflected the benefits achieved from the NLEV
program and the HDDE rule.

(2)In the February 25, 2000 submittal, the Commonwealth included a commitment to revise the motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year after the official release ofthe MOBILE 6 model.

(3)On February 25, 2000, the Commonwealth also submitted a letter reaffirming a previous commitment to adopt additional measures needed to reach attainment by October 31, 2001 

### 54144

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54144 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

andto revise the SIP and motorvehicle emissions budgets by October 31, 2001 ifthe additional measures affect the
motor vehicle emissions inventory in accordance with therequirements ofthe CAA. In its February 25, 2000 letter, the Commonwealth enclosed a copy ofthe Southeastern Pennsylvania's Stakeholder's report which includes a list ofpotential control measures that the work group identified and considered during the Stakeholder's
process. (2)On July 19, 2001 the Commonwealth submitted a revision to its 2005 attainment demonstration SIP which includes revised attainment year motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Philadelphia area. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets reflect the benefits ofthe Tier 2/Sulfur rule estimated for the Philadelphia area. The Commonwealth also included in the July 19, 2001 submittal aformal SIP commitment to perform a mid course review byDecember 31, 2003. (3)On July 19, 2001, the Commonwealth also submitted a supplement to its 2005 attainment demonstration SIP submittal consisting ofa RACM analysis and determination.

E. What Didthe Supplemental Notices ofProposed Rulemaking Cover?

(1)On July 28, 2000, EPApublished

a supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking (SNPR) on the 2005 attainment demonstration (65 FR 46383). In that supplemental notice, we clarified and expanded ontwo issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets in this attainment demonstration SIP revision:

(a)First, we proposed a clarification ofwhat occurs ifwe finalize conditional

orfull approval ofthis and certain other attainment demonstration SIP revisions based ona state commitment to revise the SIP's motorvehicle emissions budgets in the future. Under the proposal, the motorvehicle emissions budgets in the approved SIP will apply for transportation conformity purposes onlyuntil the budgets are revised consistent with the commitment and we have found the newbudgets adequate. Once we have found the newly revised budgets adequate, then they would apply instead ofthe previous conditionally or fully approvedbudgets. Normally, revisions to approved budgets
cannot be used for conformity purposes until we approve the revised budgets into the SIP. Therefore, we proposed to clarify that when our approval ofthis and certain other 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations isbased on a commitment to future revisions to the budget, our approval ofthe budget lasts onlyuntil revisions to satisfythose conditions are submitted and we find them adequate. (b) Second, we proposed thatStates may optto commit to revise their emissions budgets 1year after the release ofthe MOBILE6 model, as originally proposed on December 16, 1999; or, States may commit to anew option,i.e., to revise their budgets 2
years following the release ofthe MOBILE6 model, provided that conformity is not determined without adequate MOBILE6-derived SIP budgets duringthe second year. This second option did not affect the Philadelphia

area because Pennsylvania has submitted an enforceable commitment
to revise the motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year after the official release ofthe MOBILE6 model. (c) In addition, we reopened the
comment period totake comment on these two issues and to allow comment

on anyadditional materials that were placed in the dockets for the proposed actions, close to or after the initial
comment period closed on February 14, 2000 (65 FR at46383, July 28, 2000). For many ofthe areas, additional information had been placed in the docket close to or since the initial
comment period concluded. In general, these materials were identified as consisting ofmotor vehicle emissions budgets, andrevised or additional commitments orreaffirmations submittedby the States (65 FR at 46387, July 28, 2000). (2)On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44571), EPA published a SNPR for Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area. In that supplemental notice, we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's revision to the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of2005 which reflected the benefits ofthe Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. In that SNPR,

we also proposed to approve the Commonwealth's formal SIP commitment to perform amid-course review byDecember 31, 2003. We received no comments on that SNPR. (3)Asnoted earlier, on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568), EPA published a NPR proposing to approve Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plans for the Philadelphia area. We did not receive any comments on thatNPR. In this final rulemaking action, we are approving the Post 1996 ROP plans submittedby Pennsylvania from 1996 through the 2005 attainment year.

(4) On August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45797), EPA published a SNPR onthe attainment demonstration. In that supplemental notice, we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's RACM analysis and determination forthe Philadelphia

area. We received no comments on that SNPR.

F.When Did EPAMake a DeterminationRegarding theAdequacy ofthe AttainmentMotor Vehicle Emissions Budgets forthePhiladelphia Area?

Pennsylvania submitted arevision to the attainment plan SIP for the Philadelphia area onJuly 19, 2001. This revision contained revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of2005 that reflected the benefits ofthe Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule.1

On August 24, 2001 (66 FR44571), we proposed to approve and proposed to find adequate the budgets in Pennsylvania's July 19, 2001 submittal ofthe revised attainment plan. Our August 24, 2001 proposed rulemaking opened apublic comment period to take
comment on the approvability and adequacy ofthe budgets. No public
comments were received pursuant to the August 24, 2001 proposed rulemaking. We are fully approving and making a determination ofadequacy in this final rule forthe budgets for the Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia area submitted onJuly 19, 2001.

Pennsylvania has an acceptable commitment to revise the attainment year motorvehicle emissions budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one year afterthe release ofthe MOBILE6 model, and EPAis approving that commitment in this final rulemaking.

G. Upon What SIP Elements Did EPA Need to Take Final Action Before Full Approval ofthe Attainment Demonstration Could be Granted?

In the December 16, 1999 NPR for the Pennsylvania attainment demonstration SIP, EPAnoted in Tables 3through 6 the status ofmany ofthe control

measures orpart D requirements ofthe Act for serious and severe areas. The following provides the status ofthose SIP elements which are relied onin the attainment demonstration but which

1 Inthe December 16, 1999 NPR, we proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstration if Pennsylvania didnot submit motor vehicle emissions budgets for this area that EPA could find adequate by May 31, 2000 (see 64 FR at 70433). The budgets subject to this May 31, 2000 deadline did
notnecessarily have to account for Federal Tier 2/ Sulfurrle reductions. On February 25, 2000 Pennsylvania submitted a SIPrevision that included motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2005 attainment yearthat didnot include the benefits ofthe Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. EPA had determined that thesebudgets were adequate by the May 31, 2000 deadline (June8, 2000 at 65 FR 36438). Our findings ofadequacy and responses to comments can be accessed at www.epa.gov/otaq traq(once there, click on the "conformity" button). 

### 54145

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54145 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

were not fully approved as ofDecember 16, 1999:

(1) On December 28, 1999, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NLEV SIP (64 FR 72564). (2)On June 6, 2000, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NOx OTC MOU Phase II rule(65 FR 35842). (3)On August 21, 2001, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NOx Budget Rule (66 FR 43795). (4) On August 24, 2001, EPA approved Pennsylvania's, 15 percent VOC Reduction Plan (66 FR 44547). (5) On October 15, 2001, EPA signed

afinal rule converting its limited approval ofPennsylvania's generic NOx and VOC RACT regulations to a full approval asthey apply in the Philadelphia area. This final rule has been orwill be published in the Federal Register in the near future. As stated previously, in this final rulemaking action, we are approving the Post 1996 ROP plans submitted by Pennsylvania from 1996 through the 2005 attainment year. These plans demonstrate ROP for milestone years 1999, 2002, and 2005.

H.What Measures Are in theControl Strategy forthePost-1996 Plans andthe Attainment Demonstration?

TABLE 3.-CONTROL MEASURES IN THE 1-HOUR OZONE POST-1 

### 996 ROP AND ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR THE PHILADELPHIA NONATTAINMENT AREA

Control measure Type of measure Credited in post-1996 plan for Credited in attainment plan which milestone years

Enhanced Inspection & Mainte- Approved SIP

............................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

nance. Federal Motor Vehicle Control pro- Federal

.......................................... Tier 1-1999 through 2005

.......... Tiers 1 and 2

gram. NLEV 1

.................... ... .... .... ..... ..... ... Approved SIP opt-in

..................... Yes- 1999 through 2005

............. Yes Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 1 & Federal

.......................................... Phase 1-1999

............................. Phase 2

2). Phase 2-2002 and2005

............ Federal Non-road Gasoline Engine Federal

.......................................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

standards. Federal Non-road Heavy Duty die- Federal

.......................................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

sel engine standards. NOx RACT

..................................... Approved SIP

............................... Yes- 1999 through 2005

............. Yes VOC RACT

.................................... Approved SIP

............................... Yes- 1999 through 2005

............. Yes Stage II Vapor Recovery & On- Approved SIP

............................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

board Refueling Vapor Recovery Federal

.......................................... (ORVR). AIM Surface Coatings

.................... Federal

.......................................... Yes- 1999 through 2005

............. Yes Consumer & commercial products Federal

.......................................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes Rule Effectiveness for Point Approved SIP

............................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

Sources2. Shutdowns2

............... ... .... ..... ..... ... Approved SIP

............................... Yes- 1999 through 2005

............. Yes Autobody refinishing

...................... Federal/Approved SIP

.................. Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Federal

.......................................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

Facilities. Heavy Duty Diesel Engines (On- Federal

.......................................... Yes- 2005

.................................... Yes

road). Beyond RACT NOx Requirements Approved SIP

............................... Yes-1999 through 2005

............. Yes

on Utilities.

Notes: 1. To the extent NLEV not superseded by Tier 2. 2. These state initiatives and credits are approved as part the of the Post-96 ROP plan.

I. WhatArethe Approved TransportationConformity Budgets, andWhatEffects Does This Action Have on TransportationPlanning?
(1) WhatAre theApproved TransportationConformityBudgetsin thePost-1996POPPlanandthe AttainmentDemonstration?

EPA has determined that thebudgets in the Post-1996 ROP plan and the attainment demonstration are adequate. In this actionEPA is approving these budgets which are listed in Table 4. by type of control strategy SIP.2 Table 4. alsoprovides the amounts ofthe budgets in tons per day (TPD), the year

2Note thatthe 2005 ROPbudgets do notinclude the Federal Tier2/sulfur rule benefits. The 2005 attainment budgets do include the Federal Tier2/ sulfur rule benefits. associated with the budgets, andthe effective date ofEPA's adequacy determination forthose budgets. 

### 54146

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54146 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4.-TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE PHILADELPHIA AREA

Control strategy SIP Year VOC TPD NOx Date of adequacy determination

Post-1996 ROP Plan

.......................................... 1999 88.6 109.6 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000) Post-1996 ROP Plan

.......................................... 2002 69.52 93.13 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000) Post-1996 ROP Plan

.......................................... 2005 61.76 86.42 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000) Attainment Demonstration

.................................. 2005 60.18 77.46 November 26, 2001

For a conformity analysis foryear 2005, conformity must be shown toboth
sets of2005 budgets, which effectively

means that conformity mustbe demonstrated to the lower ofthe 2005 budgets. For conformity analysis year for any year after 2005, the attainment demonstration budgets are the applicable budgets.

EPA has concluded that these SIP revisions meet the requirements ofthe CAA applicable to the type ofcontrol strategy SIP, thatis, demonstrates attainment or ROP, with the applicable budgets and contains the measures necessary to support thesebudgets. In this final action, EPA is approving these budgets. (2)Isa RequirementtoRedetermine ConformityWithin 18-months Under Section 93.104 ofthe ConformityRule Triggered?

Our conformity rule establishes the frequency bywhich transportation plans andtransportation improvement programs must be found to conform to the SIP and includes trigger events tied
to both submittal and approval ofa SIP (40 CFR 93.104(e)). Both initial submission and initial approval trigger

aredetermination ofconformity. This final rule approves motorvehicle emissions budgets contained in the attainment demonstration and the Post 1996 ROP plans. We are advising affected transportation planning agencies thatthis final approval ofthe budgets in listed in Table 3will require

are-determination that existing transportation plans andTIPs conform within 18 months ofthe effective date listed in the DATE Section ofthis document. See 40 CFR 93.104(e). (3) WhatHappensto thePrior Restrictionson the UseoftheBenefits of

FederalTier2/SulfurRule in ConformityDeterminations

In our December 16, 1999 NPR, we allowed States to submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that did not reflect the benefits ofEPA's Tier 2/Sulfur rule. In that NPR, we explained that conformity analyses in the Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia area could begin including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits once EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur rule

was promulgated, provided that the attainment demonstration SIP and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets include the Tier 2/Sulfur benefits. For an area that requires all or
someportion ofthe Tier 2/Sulfur benefits to demonstrate attainment but had not yet included the benefits in the
motor vehicle emissions budgets, we noted that our adequacy finding will include a condition thatconformity determinations maynot take credit for Tier 2/Sulfur until the SIP budgets are revised toreflect Tier 2/Sulfur benefits. OnFebruary 25, 2000, the Commonwealth submitted 2005-year
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia area that did not include the benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur rule. These 2005-year motor vehicle emissions budgets applied to two separate types ofcontrol strategy SIP revisions: (1)rate-of-progress and (2) attainment. On May 31, 2000 (Letter from Katz to Salvaggio), EPA notified PADEP thatthe motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on February 25, 2000

were adequate (see 65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). That adequacy finding included

a condition precluding the use ofthe emission reduction benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur rule in conformity determinations.

As previously explained, onJuly 19, 2001, the Commonwealth submitted revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2005 attainment demonstration SIP for the Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia area that did include the benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur rule. We

are approving the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets submittedby the Commonwealth onJuly 19, 2001 (which

now reflect the Tier 2/Sulfur rule benefits). On November 26, 2001, the effective date ofthis approval ofthe 2005-year attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets submittedby Pennsylvania onJuly 19, 2001, supplant those attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on February 25, 2000, and become the budgets for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area to which all future transportation plans andtransportation improvement programs (TIPs)must conform (untilreplaced bythe revised budgets discussed in Section I.J.); and the restriction on the use ofthe benefits fromthe Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule in a conformity determination is removed.

J. WhatHappens to theApproved 2005 Budgets When States Change Their Budgets Using the MOBILE6 Model?

All states whose attainment demonstration includes the effects of the Tier 2/sulfur program have committed to revise and resubmit their
motorvehicle emissions budgets after EPAreleases the MOBILE6 model. On February 25, 2000, Pennsylvania submitted a commitment to revise the 2005 motor vehicle budgets in the attainment demonstration within one year ofEPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model. In this action, EPAis approving this commitment to revise the 2005
motorvehicle budgets in the attainment demonstration within one year ofEPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model. If Pennsylvania fails to meet its commitment to submit revised budgets using the MOBILE6 model, EPA could make a finding offailure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under section 179 ofthe Act.

As we proposed in our July 28, 2000 SNPR (65 FR 46383), today's final approval ofthe budgets contained in the 2005 attainment plan will be effective for conformity purposes onlyuntil such time as revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are submitted (pursuantto the commitment to submit revised budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one year ofEPA's release ofthat model) and

we have found those revised budgets adequate. We are only approving the attainment demonstration and its
current budgets because Pennsylvania has provided an enforceable commitment to revise the budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one year of EPA'srelease ofthat model. Therefore,

we are limiting the duration ofour approval ofthe current budgets only until such time as the revised budgets

are found adequate. Those revised budgets will be more appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the time being.

Similarly, EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration and its
current budgets because Pennsylvania has provided an enforceable commitment to submit new budgets as

a revision to the attainment SIP 

### 54147

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54147 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

consistent with any new measures submitted to fill any shortfall, ifthe additional control measures affect onroad motor vehicle emissions. Therefore, EPA islimiting the duration ofour approval ofthe current budgets onlyuntil such time as any such revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised budgets will be more appropriate than thebudgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the timebeing.

K. What Isthe Status ofPennsylvania's New Source Review (SIP)?

The EPA approved the Commonwealth's NSR program on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). As statedin the preamble ofthe proposed (62 FR 25060, May 2,1997) and final rulemaking notices, EPA's approval was limited in nature. EPA's sole reason for granting limited approval rather than full approval ofPennsylvania's NSR regulations was that they do not contain certain restrictions onthe use of emission reductions from the shutdown and curtailment ofexisting sources or units as NSR offsets. These restrictions, however, only apply in nonattainment

areas without an approved attainment demonstration [see 40 CFR part 51.165(a)(ii)(C)]. As EPAis, today, taking final action to approve Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia
area, the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR program's lack ofrestrictions on the use ofemission reductions from the shutdown and curtailment ofexisting

sources or units as NSR offsets, applicable only in nonattainment areas withoutan approved attainment demonstration, is a mootissue. EPA has already removed the limited nature of its approval ofPennsylvania's NSR program in all areas ofthe Commonwealth except for itsportion of the Philadelphia area (Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks counties). Now that we have approved the attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area, we intend to

remove the limited nature ofour approval ofthe Pennsylvania NSR program in Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks counties as well.

L. What Comments Were Received On theProposed Approvals andHow Has EPA Responded to Them?

EPA received comments from the public on the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPR)published on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) for Pennsylvania's ozone attainment demonstration. Comments were received from Robert E. Yuhnke on behalf ofEnvironmental Defense and Natural Resources Defense Council; the Midwest Ozone Group; the Clean Air Council; The Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club; and from PECO Energy. See Section II. ofthis document for a summary ofthese comments and EPA responses relevant to our approval of the Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration.

EPA also received comments from the public onthe supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383) on the attainment demonstrations, in which EPA clarified and expanded on two issues relating to the motorvehicle emissions budgets in the attainment demonstration SIPs. Comments were received from Environmental Defense, from ELM Packaging Co. and Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). See Section II. ofthis document for a summary ofthese comments and EPA responses relevant to our approval of the Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area.

We did not receive comments on our August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568) proposed approval ofthe Commonwealth's Post 1996 plans.Nor did we receive
comments on our August 24, 2001(66 FR 44571) SNPR for Pennsylvania's 2005 attainment demonstration, wherein we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's revision tothe motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of2005 which reflected the benefits ofthe Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule andthe Commonwealth's formal SIP commitment to perform a midcourse review by December 31, 2003. Last, we did not receive comments on

our August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45797) SNPR on the Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration, wherein we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's RACM analysis and determination for the area.
II. Response to Comments

The following discussion summarizes andresponds to the comments received

onDecember 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) andJuly 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383) proposed actions onthe Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration SIP for the one hour

ozone standard. These arethe only proposed actions for which we received
comments.

A. AttainmentDemonstration-Weight ofEvidence

Comment 1:The weight ofevidence approach does not demonstrate attainment ormeet CAA requirements for amodeled attainment demonstration. Commenters added several criticisms ofvarious technical aspects ofthe weight ofevidence approach, including certain specific applications ofthe approach to particular attainment demonstrations. These comments are discussed in the following response.

Response 1:Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) ofthe CAA, serious and severe
ozone nonattainment areas were required to submitby November 15, 1994, demonstrations ofhow they would attain the 1-hour standard. Section 182(c)(2)(A) provides that "[t]his attainment demonstration must be based onphotochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, to be at least as effective." As described in more detailbelow, the EPA allows states to supplement their photochemical modeling results, with additional evidence designed to account for uncertainties in the photochemical modeling, to demonstrate attainment. This approach is consistent with the requirement ofsection 182(c)(2)(A) that the attainment demonstration "be based

on photochemical grid modeling," because the modeling results constitute the principal component ofEPA's analysis, with supplemental information designed to account foruncertainties in the model. This interpretation and application ofthe photochemical modeling requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) finds furtherjustification in the broad deference Congress granted EPAto develop appropriate methods for determining attainment, as indicated in the last phrase of section 182(c)(2)(A).

The flexibility granted to EPA under section 182(c)(2)(A) is reflected in the regulations EPApromulgated for modeled attainment demonstrations. These regulations provide, "The adequacy ofa control strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in [40 CFR part 51 Appendix W] (Guideline on Air Quality Models)." 340 CFR 51.112(a)(1). However, the regulations further provide, "Where an air quality model specified in appendix W * * * is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model substituted [with approval byEPA, and after] notice and opportunity for public comment. * * *" Appendix W, in turn,provides that, "The Urban Airshed Model (UAM) is recommended for photochemical or

3TheAugust 12, 1996 version of"Appendix W
to Part 51-Guideline on Air Quality Models" was therule in effect for these attainment demonstrations. EPA is proposing updates to this rule, that willnot take effect until the rulemaking
process for them is complete. 

### 54148

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54148 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

reactive pollutant modeling applications involving entire urban areas," but further refers to EPA's modeling guidance for data requirements and procedures for operating the model. 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.a. The modeling guidance discusses the data requirements and operating procedures,

as well as interpretation ofmodel results as they relate to the attainment demonstration. This provision references guidance published in 1991, but EPA envisioned the guidance would change as we gained experience with model applications, which is why the guidance is referenced, but does not appear, in Appendix W. With updates in 1996 and 1999, the evolution of EPA's guidance has ledus to useboth the photochemical grid model, and additional analytical methods approved by EPA.

The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the level ofthe NAAQS. The results maybe interpreted through either oftwo modeled attainment or exceedance tests: the deterministic test or the statistical
test. Under the deterministic test, a predicted concentration above 0.124 parts per million (ppm)ozone indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year and a prediction at orbelow 0.124 ppm indicates that the area is expected to not exceed the standard. Under the statistical test, attainment is demonstrated when all predicted (i.e., modeled) 1-hour ozone concentrations inside the modeling domain are at, or below, an acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions (depending onthe severity of the episode modeled).4

In 1996, EPA issued guidance5to update the 1991 guidance referenced in 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, to make the modeled attainment test more closely reflect the form ofthe NAAQS (i.e., the statistical test described above), to consider the area's ozone design value andthe meteorological conditions accompanying observed exceedances, andto allow consideration ofother evidence to address uncertainties in the modeling databases and application. When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment, EPA has concluded that additional analyses maybe presented tohelp determine whether the area will attain the standard. As with other predictive

4Guidance on the Use ofModeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996.
5 Ibid. tools, there are inherent uncertainties associated with air quality modeling and its results. The inherent imprecision ofthe model means thatit may be inappropriate to viewthe specific numerical result ofthe model as the only determinant ofwhether the SIP controls are likely to lead to attainment. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, andprovides a means for considering other evidence to help

assess whether attainment ofthe NAAQS is likely tobe achieved. The process bywhich this is done is called

aweight ofevidence (WOE) determination. Under aWOE determination, the state can rely on, and EPA will consider in addition to the results ofthe modeled attainment test, otherfactors such as othermodeled output (e.g., changes in the predicted frequency and pervasiveness of 1-hour

ozone NAAQS exceedances, and predicted change in the ozone design value); actual observed air quality trends (i.e. analyses ofmonitored air quality data); estimated emissions trends; andthe responsiveness ofthe model predictions to further controls.

In 1999, EPA issued additional guidance 6that makes further use of model results for base case andfuture emission estimates to predict afuture design value. This guidance describes the use ofan additional component of the WOE determination, which requires, under certain circumstances, additional emission reductions that are or will be approved into the SIP,but that were not included in the modeling analysis, that will further reduce the modeled design value. An area is considered to monitor attainment ifeach monitor site has air quality observed ozone design values (4thhighest daily maximum ozone using the three most recent consecutive years ofdata) at orbelow the level ofthe standard. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA, when making a determination that

a control strategy will provide for attainment, to determine whether ornot the model predicted future design value is expected to be at orbelow the level ofthe standard. Since the form ofthe 1- hour NAAQS allows exceedances, it did
not seem appropriate for EPA torequire the test for attainment to be "no exceedances" inthe future model predictions.

The method outlined in EPA's 1999 guidance uses the highest measured

6"Guidance for Improving Weight ofEvidence Through Identification of AdditionalEmission Reductions, NotModeled." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web Site: http://www.epa.govlttnscruam. design value across all sites in the nonattainment area for each ofthree years. These three "design values" represent the air quality observed during the time period used to predict

ozone for the base emissions. This is appropriate because the model is predicting the change in ozone from the base period to the future attainment date. The three yearly design values (highestacross the area) are averaged to account for annual fluctuations in meteorology. The result is an estimate of

an area's base year design value. The base year design value is multiplied by

a ratio ofthe peak model predicted

ozone concentrations in the attainment
year (i.e., average ofdaily maximum concentrations from all days modeled)
to the peakmodel predicted ozone concentrations in thebase year (i.e.,
average ofdaily maximum concentrations from all days modeled). The result is an attainment year design value based onthe relative change in peakmodel predicted ozone concentrations from the base year to the attainment year. Modeling results also show that emission control strategies designed to reduce areas ofpeak ozone concentrations generally resultin similar ozone reductions in all core

areas ofthe modeling domain, thereby providing some assurance ofattainment
at allmonitors.

In the event that the attainment year design value is above the standard, the 1999 guidance provides a method for identifying additional emission reductions, not modeled, which at a minimum provide an estimated attainment year design value at the level ofthe standard. This step uses alocally derived factor which assumes a linear relationship between ozone and the
precursors.

A commenter criticized the 1999 guidance asflawed on grounds thatit allows the averaging ofthe three highest air quality sites across aregion, whereas EPA's 1991 and 1996 modeling guidance requires that attainment be demonstrated at each site. Thishas the effect ofallowing lower air quality concentrations tobe averaged against higher concentrations thus reducing the total emission reduction needed to attain at the higher site. The commenter does not appear to have described the guidance accurately. The guidance does
notrecommend averaging across a region or spatial averaging ofobserved data. The guidance does recommend determination ofthe highest site in the region for each ofthe three-year periods, determined by thebase year modeled. Forexample, ifthe base year is 1990, it is the amount ofemissions in 1990 that
mustbe adjusted or evaluated (by 

### 54149

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54149 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

accounting for growth and controls) to determine whether attainment results. These 1990 emissions would contribute
to three design value periods (1988-90, 1989-91 and 1990-92).

Under the approach ofthe guidance document, EPA determined the design value for each ofthose three-year periods, andthen averaged those three designvalues, to determine the base designvalue. This approach is appropriate because, asjust noted, the 1990 emissions contributed to each of those periods, and there is no reason to believe the 1990 (episodic) emissions resulted in the highest or lowest ofthe three design values. Averaging the three
years isbeneficial for another reason: It allows consideration ofa broader range ofmeteorological conditions-those that occurred throughout the 1988-1992 period, rather than the meteorology that

occurs in one particular year or even

one particular ozone episode within that year. Furthermore, EPArelied on threeyear averaging onlyfor purposes of determining one component, i.e.-the small amount of additional emission reductions not modeled-ofthe WOE determination. The WOE determination, in turn, is intended to be part of a qualitative assessment ofwhether additional factors (includingthe additional emissions reductions not modeled), taken as awhole, indicate that the area ismore likely than not to attain.

A commenter criticized the component ofthis WOE factor that estimates ambient improvement because it does not incorporate complete modeling ofthe additional emissions reductions. However, the regulations do
not mandate, nor does EPA guidance suggest, that States must model all control measures being implemented. Moreover, a component ofthis technique-the estimation offuture designvalue-should be considered a model-predicted estimate. Therefore, results from this technique are an extension of"photochemical grid" modeling and are consistent with Section 182(c)(2)(A). Also, a commenter believes that EPA has not provided sufficient opportunity to evaluate the calculations used to estimate additional emission reductions. EPAprovided a full 60-day period for comment on all aspects ofthe proposed rule. EPA has received several comments on the technical aspects ofthe approach and the results ofits application, as discussed above and in the responses to the individual SIPs.

A commenter states that application ofthe method of attainment analysis used for the December 16, 1999 NPRs will yield a lower control estimate than ifwe relied entirely on reducing maximum predictions in every grid cell
to less than or equal to 124 ppb on every modeled day. However, the commenter's approach may overestimate needed controls because the form ofthe standard allows up to 3 exceedances in 3years in every grid cell. Ifthe model over predicts observed concentrations, predicted controls may be further overestimated. EPA has considered other evidence, as described above through the weight ofevidence determination.

When reviewing a SIP, the EPA must make a determination thatthe control

measures adopted arereasonably likely
to lead to attainment. Reliance on the WOE factors allows EPAto make this determination based on agreater body ofinformation presented by the States and available toEPA. This information includes model results for the majority ofthe control measures. Although not allmeasures were modeled, EPA reviewed the model's response to changes in emissions as well as observed air quality changes to evaluate the impact ofafew additional measures, not modeled. EPA's decision was further strengthened by each State's commitment to check progress towards attainment in amid-course review and
to adopt additional measures, ifthe anticipated progress is not being made.

A commenter further criticized EPA's technique for estimating the ambient impact ofadditional emissions reductions not modeled ongrounds that EPA employed a "rollback" modeling technique that, according tothe commenter, isprecluded under EPA regulations. The commenter explained that 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.e. provides, "Proportional (rollback/ forward) modeling is not an acceptable procedure for evaluating ozone control strategies." Section 14.0 ofappendix W defines "rollback" as "a simple model that assumes that ifemissions from each

source affecting a given receptor are decreased bythe same percentage, ambient air quality concentrations decrease proportionately." Under this approach if20% improvement in ozone is needed for the area to reach attainment, itis assumed a 20% reduction in VOC would be required. There was no approach for identifying NOx reductions.

The "proportional rollback" approach is based on a purely empirically/ mathematically derived relationship. EPA did not rely on this approach in its evaluation ofthe attainment demonstrations. The prohibition in Appendix W applies to the use ofa rollback method which is empirically/ mathematically derived and independent ofmodel estimates or observed air quality and emissions changes as the sole method for evaluating control strategies. Forthe demonstrations under proposal, EPA used alocally derived (as determined by the model and/or observed changes in air quality) ratio ofchange in emissions
to change in ozone to estimate additional emission reductions to achieve an additional increment of ambient improvement in ozone.

For example, ifmonitoring or modeling results indicate that ozone

was reduced by 25 ppb during a particular period, andthat VOC and NOx emissions fellby 20 tons per day and 10 tons per day respectively during thatperiod, EPA developed a ratio of

ozone improvement related to reductions in VOC and NOx. This formula assumes a linear relationship between the precursors and ozone for a small amount ofozone improvement, but it is not a "proportional rollback" technique. Further, EPA uses these locally derived adjustment factors as a component to estimate the extent to which additional emissions reductions-not the core control strategies-would reduce ozone levels and thereby strengthen the weight of evidence test.EPA uses the UAM to evaluate the core control strategies.

This limited use ofadjustment factors is more technically sound than the unacceptable use ofproportional rollback to determine the ambient impact ofthe entire set ofemissions reductions required underthe attainment SIP. The limited use of adjustment factors is acceptable for practical reasons: it obviates the need to expend more time and resources to perform additional modeling. In addition,the adjustment factoris a locally derived relationship between

ozone andits precursors based on air quality observations and/or modeling which is more consistent with recommendations referenced by Appendix W and does not assume a direct proportional relationship between

ozone andits precursors. Last, the requirement that areas perform a midcourse review (a check ofprogress toward attainment) provides a margin of safety.

A commenter expressed concerns that EPAused a modeling technique (proportional rollback) that was expressly prohibited by40 CFR part 51 Appendix W,without expressly proposing to do so in anotice of proposed rulemaking. However, the
commenter is mistaken. As explained above, EPA did notuse or rely upon a proportional rollback technique in this rulemaking, but used UAM to evaluate 

### 54150

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54150 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

the core control strategies and then applied its WOE guidance. Therefore, because EPA did not use an "alternative model" toUAM, it did not trigger an obligation to modify Appendix W. Furthermore, EPA did propose the use the November 1999 guidance "Guidance for Improving Weight ofEvidence Through Identification ofAdditional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled" in the December 16, 1999 NPR and has responded to all comments received on that guidance elsewhere in this document.

A commenter also expressed concern that EPA applied unacceptably broad discretion in fashioning and applying the WOE determinations. For all ofthe attainment submittals proposed for approval in December 1999 concerning serious and severe ozone nonattainment
areas, EPA first reviewed the UAM results. In all cases, the UAMresults did
not pass the deterministic test.In two cases-Milwaukee and Chicago-the UAM results passed the statistical test; in the rest ofthe cases, the UAM results failed the statistical test.The UAM has inherent limitations that, in EPA's view,

were manifest in all these cases. These limitations include: (1)Only selected time periods were modeled, not the entire three-year period used as the definitive means for determining an area's attainment status; (2)inherent uncertainties in the model formulation and model inputs such as hourly emission estimates, emissions growth projections, biogenic emission estimates, and derived wind speeds and directions. As a result, for all areas, even Milwaukee and Chicago, EPA examined additional analyses to indicate whether additional SIP controls wouldyield meaningful reductions in ozone values. These analyses did not point tothe need for additional emission reductions for Springfield, Greater Connecticut, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Chicago andMilwaukee, but did point to the need for additional reductions, in varying amounts, in the other areas. As

aresult, the other areas submitted control requirements to provide the indicated level ofemissions reductions. EPA applied the same methodology in these areas, but because ofdifferences in the application ofthe model tothe circumstances ofeach individual area, the results differed on a case-by-case basis.

As another WOE factor, for areas within the NOx SIP call domain, results from the EPAregional modeling for NOx controls as well as the Tier2/Low Sulfur program were considered. Also, for all ofthe areas, EPA considered
recent changes in air quality and emissions. For some areas, this was helpful because there were emission reductions in the most recent years that couldbe related to observed changes in air quality, while for other areas there appeared tobe little change in either air quality or emissions. For areas in which air quality trends, associated with changes in emissions levels, couldbe discerned, these observed changes were used to help decide whether or not the emission controls in the plan would provide progress towards attainment.

The commenter also complained that EPA has applied the WOE determinations to adjust modeling results onlywhen those results indicate nonattainment, and not when they indicate attainment. First, we disagree with thepremise ofthis comment: EPA does not apply the WOE factors to adjust model results. EPA applies the WOE factors as additional analysis to compensate for uncertainty in the air quality modeling. Second, EPA has applied WOE determinations to all of the attainment demonstrations proposed for approval in December 1999. Although for mostofthem, the air quality modeling results by themselves indicated nonattainment, for two metropolitan areas-Chicago and Milwaukee, including parts ofthe States ofIllinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, the air quality modeling did indicate attainment onthe basis ofthe statistical
test.

The commenter further criticized EPA's application ofthe WOE determination ongrounds that EPA ignores evidence indicating that continued nonattainment is likely, such
as, according to the commenter, monitoring data indicating that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or wider than those predicted by the UAM. EPA has reviewed the evidence provided bythe
commenter. The 1999 monitor values do
not constitute substantial evidence indicating thatthe SIPs will not provide for attainment. These values do not reflect either the local orregional control programs which are scheduled for implementation in the next several years. Once implemented, these controls

are expected to lower emissions and thereby lower ozone values. Moreover, there is little evidence to support the
statement that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS bymargins as wide or wider than those predicted by the UAM. Since areas did not model 1999 ozone levels using 1999 meteorology and 1999 emissions which reflect reductions anticipated by control measures, that are
orwill be approved into the SIP, there is no way to determine how the UAM predictions for 1999 compare to the 1999 air quality. Therefore, we can not determine whether or notthe monitor values exceed the NAAQS by awider margin than the UAMpredictions for 1999. In summary, there is little evidence to support the conclusion that high exceedances in 1999 will continue
to occur after adopted control measures

are implemented.

In addition, the commenter argued that in applying the WOE determinations, EPAignored factors showing that the SIPs under-predict future emissions, and the commenter included as examples certain mobile

source emissions sub-inventories. EPA did not ignore possible under-prediction in mobile emissions. EPA is presently evaluating mobile source emissions data

as part ofan effort toupdate the computer model for estimating mobile

source emissions. EPA is considering various changes to the model, and isnot prepared to conclude at this time that the net effect ofall these various changes would be to increase or decrease emissions estimates. For attainment demonstration SIPs that rely

on the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment or otherwise (i.e., reflect these programs intheir motorvehicle emissions budgets), States have committed to revise their motor vehicle emissions budgets after the MOBILE6 model is released. EPA will work with States on a case-by-case basis ifthe new emission estimates raise issues about the sufficiency ofthe attainment demonstration. Ifanalysis indicates additional measures are needed, EPA will take the appropriate action.

Comment2:We received comments asserting that the attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area did not model the requisite number of episodes. The comments state that only
two episodes were modeled.

Response2:EPA did note that only
two episodes were modeled in our December 16, 1999 proposed rule andin the TSD prepared for theproposed rule. EPA did not consider the lack ofa third episode tobe a deficiency due tothe severity ofthe two episodes modeled. In both the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking and the associated TSD, we noted the following:

(1)Both ofthe episodes in the local UAM modeling represent very severe

ozone events with meteorological ozone forming potential rankings ofless than 80 out of all days over the last fifty years (Cox and Chu 1996).

(2)Given the severity ofthese episodes, they are likely to be the controlling episodes in the Philadelphia

area in the determination ofemission reductions needed for attainment. 

### 54151

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54151 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

(3)These episodes also represent the meteorological regime most frequently responsible for elevated ozone concentrations in the Philadelphia area.
B. Relianceon theNOx SIPCallandthe Tier2/SulfurRule

Comment:Several commenters stated that given the uncertainty surrounding the NOx SIP Call at the time ofEPA's proposals on the attainment demonstrations, there is no basis for the conclusion reached by EPAthat states should assume implementation ofthe NOx SIP Call, or rely on it as a part of their demonstrations. One commenter claims thatthere were errors in the emissions inventories used for the NOx SIP Call Supplemental Notice (SNPR) andthat these inaccuracies were carried

over to the modeling analyses, estimates ofair quality based on that modeling, and estimates ofEPA's Tier 2tailpipe emissions reduction program not modeled in the demonstrations. Thus, because ofthe inaccuracies in the inventories used for the SIP Call, the attainment demonstration modeling is also flawed. Finally, one commenter suggests that modeling data demonstrates thatthe benefits of imposing NOx SIP Call controls are limited to areas near the sources controlled.

Response:These comments were submittedprior to several court decisions largely upholding EPA's NOx SIP Call,Michiganv. UnitedStatesEnv. Prot.Agency, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, U.S., 121 S.Ct. 1225, 149 L.Ed. 135 (2001); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert.denied, U.S. ,121 S.Ct. 1225, 149 L.Ed. 135 (2001); AppalachianPowerv.EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2001). In those cases, the
courtlargely upheld the NOx SIP Call. Although a few issues were vacated or remanded to EPA for further consideration, these issues do not

concern the accuracy ofthe emission inventories relied on for purposes ofthe SIP Call. Moreover, contrary tothe commenter's suggestion, the SIP Call modeling data bases were not used to develop estimates ofreductions from the Tier 2/Sulfur program for the severe

area one-hour attainment demonstrations. Accordingly, the commenter's concerns that inaccurate inventories for the SIP Call modeling lead to inaccurate results for the severearea one-hour attainment demonstrations are inapposite.

The remanded issues do affect the ability ofEPA and the States to achieve the full level ofthe SIP Call reductions by May 2003. First, the courtvacated the rule as it applied to two statesMissouri andGeorgia-and also remanded the definition ofa cogenerator andthe assumed emission limit for internal combustion engines. EPA has informed the states thatuntil EPA addresses the remanded issues, EPA will accept SIPs that do not include those small portions ofthe emission budget. However, EPA isplanning to propose a rule shortly to address the remanded issues and ensure that emission reductions from these States andthe emission reductions represented by the two source categories are addressed in time to benefit the severe nonattainment areas. Also, althoughthe
courtin the Michigancase subsequently issued an order delaying the implementation date to no later than May 31, 2004, and theAppalachian Powercase remanded an issue concerning computation ofthe EGU growth factor, it is EPA's view that States should assume that the SIP Call reductions will occur in time to ensure attainment in the severe nonattainment

areas. Both EPA and the States are moving forward to implement the SIP Call.

Finally, contrary tothe commenter's conclusions, EPA's modeling to determine theregion-wide impacts of the NOx SIP call clearly shows that regional transport ofozone and its
precursors is impacting nonattainment

areas several states away. This analysis

was upheld bythe court inMichigan.

C.RACM (IncludingTransportation ControlMeasures)

Comment:Several commenters have statedthat there is no evidence in several states that they have adopted reasonably available control measures (RACM) orthat the SIPs have provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Specifically, the lack of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)was cited in several comments, but commenters alsoraised concerns about potential stationary source controls. One commenter statedthat mobile source emission budgets in the plans are by definition inadequate because the SIPs donot demonstrate timely attainment or contain the emissions reductions required for all RACM. That commenter claims that EPA may not find adequate a motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) thatis derived from a SIP thatis inadequate for the purpose for which it is submitted. The commenter alleges that none ofthe MVEBs submittedby the states thatEPA is considering for adequacy is consistent with the level ofemissions achieved by implementation of allRACM; nor are they derived from SIPs that provide for attainment. Some commenters stated that for measures that are not adopted into the SIP, the State mustprovide a justification for why they were determined to not be RACM.

Response:EPAreviewed the initial SIP submittals forthe Philadelphia area and determined thatthey did not include sufficient documentation concerning available RACM measures. For all ofthe severe areas for which EPA proposed approval in December 1999, EPA consequently issuedpolicy guidance memorandum to have these States address the RACM requirement through an additional SIP submittal. (Memorandum ofDecember 14, 2000, fromJohn S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, re: "Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs").

OnJuly 19, 2001 the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania formally submitted a supplement to its 2005 attainment demonstration SIP consisting ofan analysis and determination ofRACM. OnAugust 30, 2001 (66FR 45797), EPA proposed to approve this supplement to the attainment demonstration SIP as meeting the RACM requirements. EPA did not receive any comments on its August 30, 2001 proposal. Please see the discussion in I.E. ofthis document.

Section 172(c)(1) ofthe Act requires SIPs to contain RACM and provides for

areas to attain as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the requirements of 172(c)(1). See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA indicated its interpretation that potentially available measures that would not advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. EPA also indicated in that guidance that states should consider all potentially available measures to determine whether they were reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they would advance the attainment date. Further,
states should indicate in their SIP submittals whether measures considered were reasonably available or not, and ifmeasures are reasonably available they mustbe adopted as RACM.

Finally, EPAindicated that states could rejectmeasures as notbeing RACMbecause they would not advance the attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts, would be economically

or technologically infeasible, or would be unavailable based on local considerations, including costs. The EPA also issued a recent memorandum re-confirming the principles in the earlier guidance, entitled, "Guidance on 

### 54152

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54152 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttnl oarpg/tlpgm.html.

The analysis submittedby Pennsylvania on July 19, 2001, as a supplement to its attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia
area, addresses the RACM requirement. Pennsylvania convened a stakeholders
group (the Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Group) to examine

awide variety ofpotential stationary and mobile source controls. The stationary/area source controls that were considered included the adoption of South Coast Air Quality Management District/California Air Resources Board's (SCAQMD/CARB) limits for certain VOC source categories that are

more stringent than the already adopted control technique guideline (CTG) limits, e.g., fabric/paper, magnet wire, vinyl, miscellaneous metal parts, coil and metal furniture coating; limits on

area source categories not covered by a CTG, e.g., adhesives, motor vehicle refinishing, surface/cleaning degreasing, underground storage tank vents; rule effectiveness improvements; wood furniture coating (Pennsylvania has a SIP-approved rule consistent with RACT limitsrecommended under the CTG; under consideration for the RACM analysis was expanding the applicability ofthose limits to sources smaller than those covered by the CTG); "beyond RACT" controls on major stationary sources ofNOx; and other potential measures.

The mobile source control measures considered included the national low emissionvehicle program, accelerated replacement ofolder buses with cleaner buses, compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled buses, and emissions-based vehicle registration fees. Mobile source controls also included control measures aimed at reducing vehicle trips, travel or congestion via land use planning, traffic flow improvements (signalization, ramp metering, speed limit restriction enforcement), improved mass transit, expanded parking at rail stations, telecommuting, bicycle lanes or access improvements atrail stations, parking taxes/surcharge, and increased gasoline
taxes or miles travelbased fees.

Pennsylvania considered an extensive list ofpotential control measures and chose measures for implementation which wentbeyond the Federally mandated controls, which were found to be cost effective and technologically feasible. From the list ofmeasures considered, therules andmeasures adopted and submittedby Pennsylvania, as analyzed and examined by the stakeholders group, are
asfollows:

(1)Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the Commonwealth's rule for vehicle refinishing. The rule includes VOC
content limits for motor vehicle refinishing coatings, application standards and storage andhousekeeping work practices. This rule goes beyond the Federal rule in content limits and application and workpractices standards. Compliance with this rule

was required in 2000. (2)Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the Commonwealth's rule requiring the sale ofvehicles under the national lowemission vehicle program.

(3)Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the Commonwealth's rule to implement Phase II NOx controls under the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU). This rule established afixed cap on

ozone-season NOx emissions from major point sources ofNOx. The rule grants each source afixed number ofNOx allowances, applies state-wide, and requires compliance during the ozone

season. The implementation ofthis rule commenced May 1, 1999 and reduces NOx emissions both inside and outside the Philadelphia area. (4) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the Commonwealth's rule to implement the NOx SIP call. The Pennsylvania rule requires compliance commencing with the start ofthe 2003 ozone season. (This

measure was identified as Phase III control under the OTC MOU on NOx control in the RACM submittal because the evaluation occurred in 1996, well before the SIP call proposal.) (5)Pennsylvania has also adopted rule effectiveness improvements for the implementation ofregulations through the attainment year of2005 for its portion ofthe Philadelphia area aspart ofitspost 1996 Rate ofProgress Plans which EPAis approving in this final rulemaking.

Pennsylvania considered anumber of

measures that have the potential to achieve benefits but concluded that

some were not cost effective, thatothers have the potential for substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts andthat one measure, a mandatory ban on residential lawn care activities onhigh ozone days, was infeasible due to the impracticability of effective enforcement. These are explained in further detail in the docket for this rulemaking. For the reasons explained in our August 30, 2001 SNPR, EPA concluded that no additional

measures could advance the attainment date forthe Philadelphia area prior to full implementation of all controls scheduled for implementation by 2005.

Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires implementation of additional measures for the Philadelphia area, this conclusion is not necessarily valid for other areas. Thus, a determination of RACM is necessary on a case-by-case basis and will depend on the circumstances for the individual area. In addition,ifin the future EPAmoves forward to implement another ozone standard, thisRACM analysis would not control what is RACM for these or any other areas for that other ozone standard.

Also, EPA has long advocated that States consider the kinds ofcontrol

measures thatthe commenters have suggested, andEPA has indeed provided guidance onthose measures. See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/otaql transp.htm.In order to demonstrate that they will attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable,

some areas may need to consider and adopt anumber ofmeasures-including the kind that Pennsylvania itself evaluated in its RACM analysis-that

even collectively do not result in many emission reductions. Furthermore, EPA encourages areas to implement technically available and economically feasible measures to achieve emissions reductions in the short term-even if suchmeasures donot advance the attainment date-since such measures will likelyimprove air quality. Also,

over time, emission control measures that may not be RACM nowfor an area may ultimatelybecome feasible forthe

same area due to advances in control technology or more cost-effective implementation techniques. Thus, areas should continue to assess the state of control technology as they make progress toward attainment and consider new control technologies that
may in factresult in more expeditious improvement in air quality.

Because EPA is finding thatthe SIP
meets the CAA's requirement for RACM and thatthere areno additional reasonably available control measures that can advance the attainment date, EPA concludes thatthe attainment date being approved is expeditiously as practicable.

The motor vehicle emissions budgets

are adequate. The SIP includes all
necessary RACM and provides for expeditious attainment as explained herein. 54153

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54153 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

D.Approval of Attainment DemonstrationsThatRely on State CommitmentsorStateRulesFor EmissionLimitationstoLower Emissionsin theFuturenotyetAdopted byaState and/or ApprovedbyEPA
Comment:Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to approve states' attainment and rate of progress demonstrations because (a) not all ofthe emissions reductions assumed in the demonstrations have actually taken place, (b) are reflected in rules yet to be adopted and approved by a state and approvedby EPA as part ofthe SIP, (c) are credited illegally as part ofa demonstration because they are not approved byEPA as part ofthe SIP, or (d)the commenter maintains that EPA does not have authority to accept enforceable state commitments to adopt

measures in the future in lieu ofcurrent adopted measures to fill a near-term shortfall ofreductions.

Response:EPA disagrees with the comments, andbelieves-consistent with pastpractice-that the CAA allows approval ofenforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances exist thatwarrant the use ofsuch commitments in place of adopted measures. 7 Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPAbelieves that three factors shouldbe considered in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (1)Whether the commitment addresses a limited portion ofthe statutorily-required program; (2)whether the state is capable offulfilling its commitment; and (3) whether the commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.

It is also noted that while the Commonwealth does rely on commitments to adopt additional

measures for the purpose of demonstrating attainment, itdoes not rely on commitments to demonstrate

7 These commitments are enforceable by theEPA and citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 ofthe CAA. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions against states that failed to comply with those commitments. See, e.g., AmericanLung Ass'n ofN.J v.Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), affd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cih. 1989); ARDCv. N.Y. StateDept.ofEnvs. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens foraBetterEnv'tv. Deukmejian,731 F. Supp. 1448, recon.granted in
part, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition forCleanAirv.South Coast Air Quality Mgt.Dist.,
No. CV 97-6916 HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, ifa state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding offailure to implement the SIPunder section 179(a) ofthe Act, which starts

an 18-month period for the State to begin implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed. ROP. See 66 FR 44568, August 24, 2001. The Commonwealth's Post 1996 plans demonstrate ROP with VOC andNOx emission reductions achieved within the nonattainment area by the implementation offully promulgated Federal and fully adopted, SIP-approved

state measures.

As an initial matter, EPA believes that present circumstances for the New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Houston nonattainment areas warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments. The Northeast states that make up the New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia nonattainment areas submitted SIPs that they reasonably believed demonstrated attainment with fully adopted measures. After EPA's initial review ofthe plans, EPA recommended to these areas that additional controls would be necessary
to ensure attainment. Because these

areas had already submitted plans with
many fully adopted rules and the adoption of additional rules would take

some time, EPA believed it was appropriate to allow these areas to supplement their plans with enforceable commitments to adopt and submit control measures to achieve the additional necessary reductions. For Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area, EPA has determined that the submission ofenforceable commitments in place of adopted control measures for these limited sets ofreductions will not interfere with each area's ability to meet its 2005 attainment obligations.

EPA's approach here ofconsidering enforceable commitments that are limited in scope is not new. EPA has historically recognized that under certain circumstances, issuing full approval may be appropriate for a submission that consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. See, e.g., 62 FR 1150, 1187, Jan. 8, 1997 (ozone attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin; 65 FR 18903, Apr. 10, 2000 (revisions to attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 63 FR 41326, Aug. 3, 1998 (federal implementation plan for PM-10 for Phoenix); 48 FR 51472 (state implementation plan for New Jersey). Nothing in the Act speaks directly to the approvability ofenforceable commitments. 8 However, EPA believes

8 Section 110(k)(4)provides for "conditional approval" ofcommitments thatneednot be enforceable. Under that section, aState may commit to "adopt specific enforceable measures" within one-year ofthe conditional approval. Rather than enforcing such commitments against the State, the Act provides thatthe conditional approval will convert to adisapproval if"the Statefails tocomply with such commitment." that its interpretation is consistent with provisions ofthe CAA. For example, section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP "shall include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,

means ortechniques * * * as wellas schedulesandtimetables for compliance,as maybe necessary or appropriate to met the applicable requirement ofthe Act." (Emphasis added). Section 172(c)(6) ofthe Act requires, as a rule generally applicable
to nonattainment SIPs, that the SIP "include enforceable emission limitations and such other control
measures, means or techniques * * * as maybenecessaryorappropriate to provide for attainment * * *by the applicable attainment date * * * " (Emphasis added). The emphasized
terms mean that enforceable emission limitations and other control measures do notnecessarily need to generate reductions in the full amount needed to attain. Rather, the emissions limitations and other control measures maybe supplemented with other SIP rules-for example, the enforceable commitments EPAis approving today-as long asthe entire package ofmeasures and rules provides for attainment.

As provided, after concluding that the circumstances warrant consideration of

an enforceable commitment-as they do for the Philadelphia area-EPA would consider three factors in determining whether to approve the submitted commitments. First, EPAbelieves that the commitments must be limited in scope. In 1994, in considering EPA's authority under section 110(k)(4) to conditionally approve unenforceable commitments, the Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit struck down an EPApolicy that would allow States to submit (under limited circumstances) commitments for entire programs. Natural ResourcesDefense Councilv.EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994). While EPA does not believe that

case is directly applicable here, EPA agrees with the Court that other provisions in the Act contemplate that

a SIP submission will consist ofmore than amere commitment. SeeNRDC,22 F.3d at 1134.

In the present circumstances, the commitments address only a small portion ofthe plan. Forthe Philadelphia
area, the commitment addresses only 10.60% ofthe VOC and 0.70% ofthe NOx emissions reductions necessary to attain the standard. A summary ofthe adopted control measures and other components credited in Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration submission are discussed in Sections G. andH. ofthis document. These adopted andimplemented control

measures are the majority ofthe 

### 54154

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54154 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment.

As tothe second factor, whether the State is capable offulfilling the commitment, EPA considered the
current or potential availability of

measures capable of achieving the additional level ofreductions represented by the commitment. Forthe New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore nonattainment areas, EPA believes that there are sufficient untapped sources of emission reductions that could achieve the minimal levels ofadditional reductions thatthe areas need. This is supported bythe recent recommendation ofthe Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) regarding specific controls that could be adopted to achieve the level ofreductions needed for each ofthese three nonattainment

areas. Thus, EPAbelieves thatthe States will be able to find sources of reductions to meet the shortfall. The States that comprise the New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore nonattainment areas are making significant progress toward adopting the

measures to fillthe shortfall. The OTC has met and on March 29, 2001 recommended a set ofcontrol measures. Currently, the States are working through their adoption processes with respect to those, and in some cases other, control measures.

The Commonwealth is well into the adoption process for these measures. Although EPA has evidence that the Commonwealth may not make the submission on or before the date to which ithas committed, EPAbelieves that itis making sufficient progress to support approval ofthe commitment because the Commonwealth will adopt and implement the measures within a time period fully consistent with the Philadelphia area attaining the standard by its approved attainment date.

The third factor, EPA has considered in determining to approve limited commitments for the Philadelphia attainment demonstration is whether the commitment isfor a reasonable and appropriate period. EPArecognizes that both the Act and EPAhave historically emphasized the need for submission of adopted control measures in order to

ensure expeditious implementation and achievement ofrequired emissions reductions. Thus, to the extent that other factors-such as the need to consider innovative control strategiessupport the consideration ofan enforceable commitment in place of adopted control measures, the commitment shouldprovide for the adoption ofthe necessary control

measures on an expeditious, yet practicable, schedule. As provided above, for New York, Baltimore andPhiladelphia, EPA proposed thatthese areas have time to work within the framework ofthe OTC
to develop, ifappropriate, aregional control strategy to achieve the necessary reductions and then to adopt the controls on a state-by-state basis. In the proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstrations, EPA proposed that these areas would have approximately 22 months to complete the OTC and state-adoption processes-a fairly ambitious schedule-i.e., until October 31, 2001. As a starting point in suggesting this time frame for submission ofthe adopted controls, EPA first considered the CAA "SIP Call" provision ofthe CAA-section 110(k)(5)-which provides States with
up to 18 months to submit a SIP after EPA requests a SIP revision. While EPA may have ended its inquiry there, and provided for the States to submitthe

measures within 18 months ofit's proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstrations, EPA further considered that these areas were all located with the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and determined thatit was appropriate toprovide these areas with additional time to workthrough the OTR process to determine ifregional controls would be appropriate for addressing the shortfall. See e.g., 64 FR 70428. EPA believed that allowing these States until 2001 to adopt these additional measures would not undercut their attainment dates of November 2005 or 2007. EPA still believes that this a reasonable schedule for the states to submit adopted control

measures that will achieve the additional necessary reductions.

The enforceable commitments submittedby Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia nonattainment area, in conjunction with the other SIP measures and other sources ofemissions reductions, constitute the required demonstration of attainment andthe commitments willnot interfere withthe area's abilityto make reasonable progress under section 182(c)(2)(B) and (d). EPAbelieves that the delay in submittal ofthe final rules is permissible under section 110(k)(3) because the Commonwealth has obligated itselfto submitthe rules by specified short-term dates, andthat obligation is enforceable byEPA and the public. Moreover, as discussed in the December 16, 1999 proposal, its Technical Support Document (TSD), and Sections G. and H. ofthis document, the SIP submittal approved today contains major substantive components submitted as adopted regulations and enforceable orders.

EPA believes that the Pennsylvania SIP meets the NRDC consent decree definition ofa "full attainment demonstration." The consent decree defines a "full attainment demonstration" as a demonstration according to CAA section 182(c)(2). As

a whole, the attainment demonstration-consisting of photochemical grid modeling, adopted control measures, an enforceable commitment with respect to alimited portion ofthe reductions necessary to attain, and other analyses and documentation-is approvable since it "provides for attainment ofthe ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date." See section 182(c)(2)(A).

E.Adequacy of MotorVehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment:Wereceived a number of
comments about the process and substance ofEPA's review ofthe adequacy ofmotor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity
purposes.

Response:EPA's adequacy process for
mostofthese SIPs hasbeen completed, and we have found the motor vehicle emissions budgets in all ofthese SIPs to be adequate. Wehave already responded to any comments related to adequacy ofthe ROP budgets that we

are approving in this action, when we issued our adequacy findings, and therefore we are not listing the individual comments or responding to them here.

On August 24, 2001 (66 FR44571), we proposed to approve and to determine adequate the revised 2005 attainment budgets, shown in Table 4, which were submittedby the Commonwealth on July 19, 2001. We received no comments

on the August 24, 2001 proposal. Inthis final rule we are finding therevised budgets ofthe 2005 attainment demonstration SIP submittedby the Commonwealth adequate, and are approving them.

All ofour findings ofadequacy and responses to comments can be accessed
at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq(oncethere, click on the "conformity" button). At the web site, EPA regional contacts are identified.

Comment2:We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania has not provided a clear indication ofhow the conformity requirements ofthe Clean AirAct are being met. Conformity is an important tool to ensure that transportation programs orpolicies are fully developed with Clean AirAct obligations inmind. 

### 54155

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54155 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Response2:The attainment demonstration SIP is not required to describe how conformity requirements

are being met. Demonstrations of conformity are a separate process and mandate upon certain recipients of Federal funds thatare independently enforceable under the CAA andEPA regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7506. The SIP does identify motorvehicle emissions budgets thatwill be used for the purposes ofdetermining conformity in the future. EPAhas found all the budgets adequate for conformity
purposes as discussed in Sections I.F. and I.I. and in this action is approving the attainment demonstration and ROP plans each ofwhich contain motor vehicle emissions budgets. Comment3:We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania's motor vehicle emissions budgets do not provide sufficient emission reductions
to demonstrate attainment.

Response3:In our December 16, 1999 NPR, we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area. For thereasons outlined in our December 16, 1999 NPR and in
responses to comments regarding the weight ofevidence, EPA concluded that Pennsylvania had adequate modeling demonstrating attainment for the Philadelphia area provided that Pennsylvania commit to adopting additional measures to strengthen the weight ofevidence. Pennsylvania has adopted such an enforceable commitment andEPA is approving this commitment. In addition, approval under the December 16, 1999 NPR was contingent upon approval into the SIP ofrules upon which the modeling demonstration and upon adoption of adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets thatreflected the benefits from the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. EPA has approved into the SIP the needed rules and is determining in this action that Pennsylvania has adopted and submitted adequate budgets incorporating thebenefits from the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. The adequacy criteria include a determination that the motor vehicle emissions budgets, when considered together with all other emissions
sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for attainment. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration because itis supported by an adequate modeling demonstration andbecause the measures upon which the modeling demonstration isbased are creditable and because the motor vehicle emissions budgets are consistent with the measures in the SIP and the attainment demonstration.

F.AttainmentDemonstrationandRate ofProgress MotorVehicleEmissions Inventories
Comment:Several commenters stated that the motor vehicle emissions inventory is not current, particularly with respect tothe fleetmix. Commenters stated thatthe fleet mix does not accurately reflect the growing proportion ofsport utility vehicles and gasoline trucks, which pollute more than conventional cars. Also, a commenter statedthat EPA and states have not followed aconsistent practice in updating SIP modeling to account for changes in vehicle fleets. For these
reasons, commenters recommend disapproving the SIPs.

Response:All ofthe SIPs on which

we are taking final action are based on the mostrecent vehicle registration data available at the time the SIP was submitted. The SIPs use the same vehicle fleet characteristics that were used in the mostrecent periodic inventory update. The Commonwealth modeled vehicle age distributions from 1993. EPA requires the most recent available data tobe used, but we donot require it tobe updated on a specific schedule. Therefore, different SIPs base their fleet mix on different years ofdata. Our guidance does not suggest that SIPs shouldbe disapproved onthis basis. Nevertheless, we do expect that revisions to these SIPs that are submitted using MOBILE6 (as required in those cases where the SIP is relying

on emissions reductions from the Tier 2 standards) will use updated vehicle registration data appropriate for use with MOBILE6, whether itis updated local data or the updated national default data that will be part of MOBILE6.

G. VOCEmissionReductions

Comment:For States that need additional VOC reductions, one commenter recommends a process to achieve these VOC emission reductions, which involves the use ofHFC-152a (1,1 difluoroethane) as theblowing agent in manufacturing ofpolystyrene foam products such as food trays and egg cartons. The commenter states that HFC-152a could be used instead of hydrocarbons, a known pollutant, as a blowing agent. Use ofHFC-152a, which is classified asVOC exempt, would eliminate nationwide the entire 25,000 tons/year ofVOC emissions from this industry.

Response:EPA has met with the
commenter andhas discussed the technology described bythe company to reduce VOC emissions frompolystyrene foamblowing throughthe use ofHFC152a (1,1 difluoroethane), which is a VOC exempt compound, as a blowing agent. Since the HFC-152a isVOC exempt, its use would give aVOC reduction compared tothe use ofVOCs such apentane or butane as ablowing agent. However, EPA has not studied this technology exhaustively. Itis each State's prerogative to specify which

measures itwill adopt in order to achieve the additional VOC reductions itneeds. In evaluating the use ofHFC152a, States may want to consider claims that products made with this blowing agent are comparable in quality
to products made with otherblowing agents. Also the question ofthe over-all long term environmental effect of encouraging emissions offluorine compounds would be relevant to consider. This is atechnology which States may want to consider, but ultimately, the decision ofwhether to require this particular technology to achieve the necessary VOC emissions reductions must be made by each affected State. Finally, EPA notes that underthe significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program, created under CAA §612, EPAhas identified acceptable foam blowing agents man of which are not VOCs (http:// www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/).

H. Credit forMeasuresnotFully Implemented

Comment:States shouldnot be given credit for measures that are not fully implemented. Forexample, the States

are being given full credit for Federal coating, refinishing and consumer product rules that have been delayed or weakened.

Response:Architecturaland Industrial Maintenance(AIM) Coatings: OnMarch 22, 1995 EPAissued a memorandum9that provided that States could claim a 20% reduction in VOC emissions from the AIM coatings category in ROP and attainment plans based onthe anticipated promulgation ofa national AIM coatings rule. In developing the attainment andROP SIPs for their nonattainment areas, States relied on this memorandum to estimate emission reductions from the anticipated national AIM rule. EPA promulgated the final AIMrule in September 1998, codified at40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D. In the preamble toEPA's final AIM coatings regulation, EPA

9Creditfor the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans forReductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rules," March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofair Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X. 

### 54156

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54156 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

estimated thatthe regulation will result in 20% reduction ofnationwide VOC emissions from AIM coatings categories (63 FR 48855). The estimated VOC reductions from the final AIM rule resulted in the same level as those estimated in the March 1995 EPApolicy memorandum. In accordance with EPA's final regulation, States have assumed a 20% reduction from AIM coatings source categories in their attainment and ROP plans. AIM coatings manufacturers were required to be in compliance with the final regulation within one year of promulgation, except for certain pesticide formulations which were given an additional year to comply. Thus all manufacturers were required to comply, atthe latest,by September 2000. Industry confirmed in comments

onthe proposed AIM rule that 12 months between the issuance ofthe final rule and the compliance deadline would be sufficient to "use up existing label stock" and "adjust inventories" to conform to therule. 63 FR 48848 (September 11, 1998). In addition, EPA determined that, after the compliance date, the volume ofnonconforming products would be very low (less than

one percent) and would be withdrawn from retail shelves anyway.

Therefore, EPA believes that compliant coatings were in useby the Fall of 1999 with full reductions to be achieved by September 2000 andthat it

was appropriate for the States totake credit for a 20% emission reduction in their SIPs.

AutobodyRefinish CoatingsRule: Consistent with a November 27, 1994 EPA policy 10, many States claimed a 37% reduction from this source category based ona proposed rule. However, EPA's final rule, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings," published onSeptember 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), did not regulate lacquer topcoats and will result in a smaller emission reduction of around 33% overall nationwide. The 37% emission reduction from EPA's proposed rule was

an estimate ofthe total nationwide emission reduction. Since this number is an overall national average, the actual reduction achieved in any particular

area could vary depending on the level ofcontrol which already existedin the

area. For example, in California the reduction from the national rule is zero because California's rules are more

10"Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress
Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule," November 29, 1994, John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to AirDivision Directors, Regions I-X. stringent than the national rule. In the proposed rule, the estimated percentage reduction for areas that were unregulated before the national rule was about 40%. However as aresult ofthe lacquer topcoat exemption added between proposal and final rule, the reduction is now estimated to be 36% for previously unregulated areas. Thus,
most previously unregulated areas will need to make up the approximately 1% difference between the 37% estimate of reductions assumed by States, following EPA guidance based on the proposal, andthe 36% reduction actually achieved bythe final rule for previously unregulated areas. EPA's best estimate ofthereduction potential ofthe final rule was spelled outin a September 19, 1996 memorandum entitled "Emissions Calculations for the Automobile Refinish Coatings Final Rule" from Mark Morris to Docket No. A-95-18. The Commonwealth revised the autobody rulein 1999, and EPA approved the revisions onAugust 14, 2000 [65 FR 49501]. The revised rule will achieve the 37% assumed reduction from the measure. EPAfound the PADEP achieves a 36% reduction for milestone 1999 and 37% for years 2002 and 2005.

ConsumerProductsRule:Consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA guidance ", States claimed a 20% reduction from this source category based on EPA's proposed rule. The final rule, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products," (63 FR 48819), published on September 11, 1998, has resulted in a 20% reduction after the December 10, 1998 compliance date. Moreover, these reductions largely occurred by the Fall of 1999. In the

consumer products rule, EPA determined andthe consumer products industry concurred, that a significant proportion ofsubject products have been reformulated in response to State regulations and in anticipation ofthe final rule (63 FR 48819). That is, industry reformulated theproducts covered by the consumer products rule in advance ofthe final rule. Therefore, EPA believes that complying products in accordance with the rule were in use by the Fall of 1999. It was appropriate for the States to take credit for a 20% emission reduction for the consumer products rule in their SIPs.

L EnforcementofControlPrograms
Comment:The attainment demonstrations do not clearly set out

""Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and Commercial Products under section 183(e)ofthe Clean Air Act," June 22, 1995, John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions
I-X. programs for enforcement ofthe various control strategies relied on for emission reduction credit.

Response:Ingeneral, state enforcement, personnel andfunding program elements are contained in SIP revisionspreviously approved by EPA under obligations setforth in section 110(a)(2)(c) ofthe Clean Air Act. Once approved by the EPA, there is no need for states to readopt andresubmit these programs with each and every SIP revision generally required by other sections ofthe Act. Pennsylvania has previously received approval ofits section 110(a)(2) SIPs. In afinal rulemaking action published on February 26, 1985, EPA approved Pennsylvania's financial and manpower

resource commitments for Southeast Pennsylvania (50 FR 7772, 7775), after having proposed approval ofthese commitments on February 3, 1983 (48 FR 5096, 5099). In addition, emission control regulations will also contain specific enforcement mechanisms, such

as recordkeeping andreporting requirements, and may also provide for periodic state inspections and reviews ofthe affected sources. EPA'sreview of these regulations includes review ofthe enforceability ofthe regulations. Rules that are not enforceable are generally
not approved bythe EPA. To the extent thatthe ozone attainment demonstration depends on specific state emission control regulations, these individual regulations have undergone review by the EPA inpast approval actions.

J.MOBILE6 andMotorVehicle EmissionsBudgets (MVEBS)
Comment 1:One commenter generally supports a policy ofrequiring motor vehicle emissions budgets to be recalculated when revised MOBILE models are released.

Response 1:The attainment demonstrations that rely on Tier 2 emission reduction credit contain commitments to revise the motor vehicle emissions budgets after MOBILE6 is released.

Comment2:The revised budgets calculated using MOBILE6 will likely be submitted afterthe MOBILE5 budgets have already been approved. EPA's policy is that submitted SIPs may not replace approved SIPs.

Response2:This is the reason that EPAproposed in the July 28, 2000, SNPR (65 FR 46383) thatthe approval ofthe MOBILE5 budgets for conformity
purposes would last onlyuntil MOBILE6 budgets had been submitted and found adequate. In this way,the MOBILE6 budgets can apply for conformity purposes as soon as they are found adequate. 

### 54157

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54157 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Comment3:Ifa State submits additional control measures that affect the motor vehicle emissions budget, but does not submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget, EPA should not approve the attainment demonstration.

Response3:EPA agrees. The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Philadelphia attainment demonstration reflect the motor vehicle control

measures in the attainment demonstration. In addition, Pennsylvania has committed to submit

new budgets as a revision tothe attainment SIP consistent with any new

measures submitted to fill any shortfall, ifthe additional control measures affect on-road motor vehicle emissions.

Comment4:EPA should make itclear that the motor vehicle emissions budgets tobe used for conformity
purposes will be determined from the total motor vehicle emissions reductions required in the SIP, even ifthe SIP does
not explicitly quantify a revised motor vehicle emissions budget.

Response4:EPA will not approve SIPs without motorvehicle emissions budgets thatare explicitly quantified for conformity purposes. The Philadelphia attainment demonstration contains explicitly quantified motor vehicle emissions budgets.

Comment5:Ifa state fails to follow through on its commitment to submit the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets using MOBILE6, EPA could make a finding offailure to submit a portion ofa SIP, which would trigger a sanctions clock under section 179.

Response5:Ifa state fails to meet its commitment, EPA could make a finding offailure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under section 179 ofthe Clean Air Act.

Comment6:Ifthe budgets recalculated using MOBILE6 are larger than the MOBILE5 budgets, then attainment should be demonstrated again.

Response6:As EPA proposed in its December 16, 1999 notices, we will work with States on a case-by-case basis ifthe new emissions estimates raise issues about the sufficiency ofthe attainment demonstration.

Comment7: Ifthe MOBILE6 budgets

are smaller than the MOBILE5 budgets, the difference between thebudgets shouldnot be available for reallocation
to other sources unless air quality data show thatthe area is attaining, and a revised attainment demonstration is submitted that demonstrates that the increased emissions are consistent with attainment and maintenance. Similarly, the MOBILE5 budgets should not be retained (while MOBILE6 isbeing used for conformity demonstrations) unless the above conditions are met.

Response 7:EPA agrees that if recalculation using MOBILE6 shows lower motor vehicle emissions than MOBILE5, then these motor vehicle emission reductions cannot be reallocated to other sources orassigned
to the motor vehicle emissions budget as
a safety margin unless the area

reassesses the analysis in its attainment demonstration and shows that itwill still attain. In other words, the area must

assess howits original attainment demonstration isimpacted by using MOBILE6 versus MOBILE5 before it reallocates any apparent motor vehicle emission reductions resulting from the

use ofMOBILE6. In addition, Pennsylvania will be submitting new budgets based on MOBILE6, so the MOBILE5 budgets will not be retained in the SIP indefinitely.

K.MOBILE6 GracePeriod
Comment 1:We received a comment

onwhether the grace period before MOBILE6 is required in conformity determinations willbe consistent with the schedules for revising SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets within 1 or 2 years ofMOBILE6's release.

Response 1:This comment is not germane to this rulemaking, since the MOBILE6 grace period for conformity determinations is not explicitly tiedto EPA's SIP policy and approvals. However, EPA understands that a longer
grace period would allow some areas to better transition to new MOBILE6 budgets. EPA is considering the maximum 2-year grace period allowed by the conformity rule, and EPA will address this in the future when the final MOBILE6 emissions model andpolicy guidance is released. Comment2:One commenter asked EPA to clarify in the final rule whether MOBILE6 will be required for conformity determinations once new MOBILE6 budgets are submitted and found adequate.

Response2:This comment is not germane to this rulemaking. However, it is important to note that EPAintends to clarify its policy for implementing MOBILE6 in conformity determinations when the final MOBILE6 model is released. EPA believes thatMOBILE6 shouldbe used in conformity determinations once new MOBILE6 budgets are found adequate.

L. Two-Year OptionTo Revise the MVEBs
Comment:One commenter did not prefer the additional option for asecond year before the state has torevise the conformity budgets withMOBILE6, since new conformity determinations and new transportationprojects could be delayed in the second year.

Response:EPAproposed the additional option to provide further flexibility in managing MOBILE6 budget revisions. The supplemental proposal did not change the original option to revise budgets within one year of MOBILE6's release. State andlocal governments can continue to use the 1-
year option,ifdesired, or submit anew commitment consistent with the alternative 2-year option. EPA expects that state andlocal agencies have consulted on which option is appropriate and have considered the impact on future conformity determinations. Pennsylvania has committed to revise itsbudgets within one-year ofMOBILE6's release.

M. Unapproved Measures
Comment 1:We received comments that objected to crediting the SIP with reductions from measures not approved into the SIP. The comments specifically mentioned conditionally approved RACT rules and asserted that credit should notbe given for thisprogram until EPA completes review and approval ofall case-by-case RACT. The
comments also specifically mentioned Phase II NOx controls under the OTC MOU. We also received comments, which stated that NOx RACT shouldbe extended to 25 ton-per-year sources.

Response 1:On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions imposed in the conditional limited approval ofits generic NOx and VOCRACT regulations. In thatrulemaking, EPA removed the conditional status ofits approval ofthe Commonwealth's generic VOC and NOx RACT regulations

on a statewide basis. On October 15, 2001, the Regional Administrator of Region III signed a final rule converting

our limited approval ofthe Pennsylvania generic VOC and NOx RACT regulation to a full approval as it applies in the Philadelphia area. This final rule hasbeen recently orwill be shortly published in the Federal Register. OnJune 6, 2000, EPA approved Pennsylvania's rule that implements the Phase II controls under the OTC MOU (65 FR 35840). Finally, the applicability threshold for RACT in Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic NOx and VOC RACT regulations for the Philadelphia area is 25 tonper year as required in a severe nonattainment area thus NOx RACT extends to sources that emit 25 tons-per-year.

Comment2:We received comments asserting that because Pennsylvania had 

### 54158

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54158 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

not adopted Phase IINOx reductions as agreed to in the OTC MOU, has abandoned the NOx SIP call strategy, and was behind in submitting its RACT submittals the SIP should notbe credited with these measures.

Response2:As discussed in the
response to the previous comment, EPA has approved Pennsylvania's NOx RACT and OTC MOU rules. As discussed in Section I.I. ofthis document, Pennsylvania submitted a revision to its SIP to address the requirements ofthe NOx SIP Call. EPA fully approved this SIP (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).

N. AttainmentandPost-1999Rateof Progress Demonstrations
Comment1: One commenter claims that the plans fail to demonstrate emission reductions of3percent per year over each 3-year period between November 1999 and November 2002; andNovember 2002 and November 2005; andthe 2-year period between November 2005 and November 2007, as required by42 U.S.C. section 7511a(c)(2)(B). The states have not even attempted to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, and EPA has
not proposed to find that they have been
met. The commenter states thatEPA has absolutely no authority to waive the statutory mandate for 3percent annual reductions and thatthe statute does not allow EPAto use the NOx SIP call or 126 orders as an excuse for waiving ROP deadlines. The commenter asserts that the statutory ROP requirement is for emission reductions-not ambient reductions. The commenter asserts that emission reductions in upwind states do
not waive the statutory requirement for 3percent annual emission reductions within the downwind nonattainment

area.

Response1:Under no condition is EPA waiving the statutory requirement for 3percent annual emission reductions. For many areas, EPA did not propose approval ofthe post-99 ROP demonstrations at the same time as EPA proposed action on the area's attainment demonstration. EPA proposed to approve the Commonwealth Post 1996 ROP plans, which include ROP demonstrations for milestone years 1999, 2002, and 2005, on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568). We received no comments on that proposal. In this final rulemaking, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's Post 1996 ROP plans. Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plans demonstrate ROP byrelying upon VOC andNOx emissions reductions achieved within the nonattainment area from fully promulgated Federal and fully adopted SIP-approved state measures. Comment2: We received comment that the "limited approval" status ofthe Commonwealth's Post 1996 ROP plan is
not authorized under the CAA.

Response2: The comment is now moot, because EPA withdrew its previous action proposing "limited approval" ofthe Commonwealth's Post 1996 plan in the NPR it published on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568). EPA reproposed full approval ofthe Post-1996 plan onAugust 24, 2001, and did not receive any comments on this proposal. In this final rulemaking, EPAis fully approving Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plan which relies only upon VOC and NOx emissions reductions achieved within the nonattainment area from fully promulgated Federal and fully adopted SIP-approved state measures.
0. Commentson SpecificArea and PointSourceMeasures
Comment 1:We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania has not adopted the OTC NOx MOU's Phase II/ IIIreductions andthe NOx SIP Call requirements.

Response 1: EPAhas fully approved the Pennsylvania's NOx Allowance Requirements as a SIP revision (65 FR 35840, June 6, 2000). These requirements implement Phase II ofthe OTC's MOU to control NOxfor the years 1999-2002. The Phase III reductions under the OTC MOU have been superceded by Pennsylvania's SIPapproved NOx SIP Call rule. Compliance with thatrule is required starting in 2003. EPAhas fully approved the Pennsylvania Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction Plan as meeting the non-remanded portions ofthe NOx SIP Call rule (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001). Pennsylvania's Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction Plan establishes a NOx budgettrading program for fossilfired combustion boilers with a maximum design heat input greater than 250 MMBTU per hour and electric utility generators with a capacity greater than 25 megawatts. Pennsylvania's Phase INOx SIP Call trading rule is consistent with the reductions modeled in the attainment demonstration and with EPA's requirements to establish an emission rate of0.15 lb/MMBtu for electric generating units and 0.17 lb/ MMBTU for non-electric generating units. OnMarch 3, 2000, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision onthe NOx SIP Call ruling in favor ofEPA on allthe major issues. SeeMichiganv. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). However, the Court remanded certain matters for further rulemaking byEPA. EPA expects to publish aproposal that addresses the remanded portion ofthe NOx SIP Call Rule. Pennsylvania will adopt and submit controls to meet the portions of the SIP call budget reflected by reduction from both internal combustion engines and cement kilns in the remanded portions ofthe NOx SIP Call rule consistent with any schedule EPA establishes in response to the remand.

Comment2: We received comments that express concerns about the accountability ofthe reductions from the implementation ofthe 126 petitions

as compared to those assumed inthe attainment demonstration.

Response2: As notedin the December 16, 1999 proposal, Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration assumed NOx reductions consistent with those called forby EPA's NOx SIP Call. In consideration ofrecent court decisions

on the NOx SIP Call as previously described and as explained inEPA's response to comments on "Reliance on NOx SIP Call andTier 2Modeling", EPAbelieves itis appropriate to allow
states to continue to assume the reductions from the NOx SIP Call. The fact that EPA has granted section 126 petitions does not remove the obligations ofstates subject to the NOx SIP Call toreduce NOx emissions as called for in thatrule. Furthermore, implementation ofeither the section 126 rules (described in later Sections) orthe NOx SIP Call achieves emission reductions prior to the applicable attainment deadline, 2005. Under recent rulings by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit both the 126 rule and the NOx SIP Call must be implemented early in the ozone season in 2004.

On August 14-15, 1997, we received petitions submitted individually by eight Northeastern States under section 126 ofthe CAA. Each petitionrequests

us to make afinding that sources in certain categories of stationary sources in upwind States emit orwould emit NOx in violation ofthe prohibition in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) on emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in the petitioning State. OnMay 25, 1999, we promulgated a final rule (May 1999 Rule) determining thatportions ofthe petitions are approvable under the one-hour and/or eight-hour ozone NAAQS based on their technical merit (64 FR 28250). Based on the affirmative technical determinations for the one-hour ozone NAAQS made in the May 1999 Rule, we promulgated a final rule on January 18, 2000 (January 2000 Rule) making section 126 findings that a number oflarge electric generating units (EGUs) and large industrialboilers and turbines named in 

### 54159

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54159 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

the petitions emit in violation ofthe CAA prohibition against significantly contributing to nonattainment or maintenance problems in the petitioning States (65 FR 2674). In the January 2000 Rule, we also finalized the Federal NOxBudget Trading Program as the control remedy for sources affected by the rule. This requirement replaces the default remedy in the May 1999 Rule. The January 2000 Rule establishes Federal NOx emissions limits that

sources must meet through a cap-andtrade program byMay 1, 2003. The January 2000 rule affects sources located in the District ofColumbia, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, NewJersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and parts ofIndiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York. All ofthe affected sources are located in States that are subject to the NOx SIP Call.

On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA promulgated the "Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes ofReducing Regional Transport of Ozone," commonly referred to asthe NOx SIP Call. On March 3, 2000, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on the NOx SIP Call largely upholding the rule. See Michiganv. EPA, supra. On June 22, 2000, the Court ordered that we allow the States and the District ofColumbia 128 days from June 22, 2000 to submit their SIPs. Accordingly, 19 States and the District ofColumbia were required
to submit SIPs in response to the NOx SIP Callby October 30, 2000.12 On August 30, 2000, the D.C. Circuit ordered thatthe June 22, 2000 Order be amended to extend the deadline for implementation ofthe NOx SIP Call from May 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004. In

a separate rulemaking, we are addressing the Court's remand ofthe definition ofelectricity generating units, the control level for large stationary internal combustion engines and the SIP submittal and compliance dates for these actions, which affect less than 10 percent ofthe total emission reductions called forby the NOx SIP Call.

Furthermore, as noted in the response to a previous comment in this document, Pennsylvania has a state regulation in place to implement the SIP Call requirements. This state rule is in the approved Pennsylvania SIP and requires compliance commencing May 1, 2003.

Comment3:We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania has failed to

12October 30, 2000 is the first business day following the expiration ofthe 128-day period. implement RACT in an expeditious

manner.

Response3:The Pennsylvania SIP has long included approved RACT regulations for sources and source categories ofVOCs covered by the CTGs issued prior to 1990, byCAA section 182(b)(2)(A) and bythe CTGs issued after 1990 as required by CAA section 182(b)(2)(B). Additional RACT regulations requiring RACT for all major

sources ofVOC, not covered bya CTG (non-CTG), and ofNOx were to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions by November 15, 1992 and compliance required byMay of 1995. OnFebruary 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP (25 Pa Code Chapters 129.91 through 129.95) requiring major sources ofNOx andnon-CTG VOC sources to implement RACT. These regulations require major sources ofNOx and VOC
to submit toPADEP, by no later than July 15, 1994, awritten RACT proposal.

In the Philadelphia area, Pennsylvania's RACTregulations require non-CTG sources thathave the potential to emit 25 tpy or more ofVOC and sources which have the potential to emit 25 tpy or more ofNOx comply with RACT. The regulations contain technology-based or operational "presumptive RACT emission limitations" for certain major NOx

sources. For other major NOx sources, and allmajor VOC sources (not otherwise already subject toRACT pursuant to a source category regulation under the Pennsylvania SIP), the regulations contain a "generic" RACT provision. Ageneric RACT regulation is

one that does not,itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead allows for caseby-case RACT determinations. The generic provisions ofPennsylvania's regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by case RACT determinations that

are then to be submitted toEPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. The Commonwealth's rule requires thatthe covered sources, upon PADEP's notification of approval oftheir RACT proposal, mustimplement the RACT "as expeditiously aspracticable", but no later than May 31, 1995.

EPA granted conditional limited approval ofthe Commonwealth's VOC andNOx RACTregulations on March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), andremoved the conditional aspect ofthe approval

onMay 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123). On September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46571), EPA proposed to remove the limited nature ofits approval ofPennsylvania generic VOC andNOx RACT regulations as they apply in the Philadelphia area on the basis that EPAwould have approved source-specific or category-specific RACT rules for all sources subject to the CAA RACT requirement. We received

no comments onthat proposal. On October 15, 2001, the Regional Administrator ofRegion III signed a final rule converting our limited approval ofPennsylvania's generic VOC and NOx RACT regulations to a full approval because EPAhas SIP-approved all ofthe case-by-case RACT determinations submittedby PADEP for affected major sources ofNOx and/or VOC sources located in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties, the five counties that comprise the Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia area.

Comment3:We received comments criticizing the use ofrule effectiveness

as part ofthe demonstration. The
comments assertthat EPA shouldbe skeptical ofthe reductions from this programbased onthe Commonwealth's past enforcement history. Other
comments claim thatwith implementation ofRACT on a case-bycase basis the change in rule effectiveness from 80 percent to 90 percent is unrealistic. These comments havebeen submitted in the form of
statements with no accompanying analyses to support them.

Response3:The EPA disagrees thatit is inappropriate to allow credit for improved rule effectiveness (RE) in the attainment demonstration. The Commonwealth has supplied to EPA a protocol thathasbeen implemented at the sources forwhich increased RE credits have been claimed. EPA conducted its evaluation of Pennsylvania's RE credits aspart ofour proposed approval ofthe Post-1996 ROP plans. That supporting documentation, namelythe TSD for the Post-1996 ROP plan approval, is part ofthe docketfor this final rulemaking. No comments

were received on EPA'sproposed action
to approve the Commonwealth's Post 1996 ROP plans which included our proposed approval ofthe RE credits claimed by the Commonwealth. No one hasbroughtto EPA's attention credible evidence thatPennsylvania is not implementing RE at the sources for which RE improvement credits are claimed. Itwould not be appropriate for EPAto discount credit from a state initiativesbased upon unsubstantiated speculation that such a state will not enforce its own SIP.

EPA disagrees with the comment asserting that implementation ofRACT

on case-by-case basis, is reason to

assume that 90 percent RE is unrealistic. To the contrary, EPAbelieves that RACT rules tailored to specific sources
are much more likely to be implemented successfully because any factors that 

### 54160

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54160 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

could interfere with implementation of RACT would be considered bythe Commonwealth under the SIP-approved provisions of25 Pa Code Chapters 129.91 through 129.95 when imposing the source-specific RACT determinations.

Comment4:We received comments expressing the opinion that Stage II controls in Pennsylvania are performing far belowthe stated efficiency. Therefore, EPA is granting too much credit to Pennsylvania for its Stage II controls. EPA should determine the present efficiency ofthese controls and

use that level in the attainment demonstration. These comments have been submitted in the form of
statements with no accompanying analyses to support them.

Response4:Pennsylvania has adopted the Stage II control program recommended byEPA. No one has brought toEPA's attention any credible evidence that Pennsylvania is implementing their program in a

manner inconsistent with EPA guidance, which might lower the expected reductions below levels which

are conforming to pastEPA estimates of Stage II efficiency.

P. Comments on SpecificMobileSource Measures
Comment:We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania is not fully implementing its SIP approved enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program and thatEPA shouldnot approve a demonstration that includes benefits from a program that is not fully implemented. The
comments claim that Pennsylvania has
not implemented all pass-fail standards

on schedule in the Philadelphia area.

Response:EPA advised the Commonwealth, in a letter dated April 12, 2001 (Oge to Serian), that itshould
not implement final acceleration simulation mode (ASM) cutpoints on 1995 and oldervehicles. EPA is currently conducting additional research onthe effects of implementation offinal ASM cutpoints

on 1995 and oldervehicles and will issue guidance in the near future. The issuance ofthis guidance will allow the Commonwealth to implement final ASM cutpoints for 1995 and older vehicles at least oneyear prior tothe area's attainment date. This will allow the Commonwealth to complete at least

one full cycle oftests at final cutpoints prior to the areas' attainment date. The Commonwealth has already implemented final cutpoints for 1996 and newer vehicles. Since allvehicles subject to the program will receive at least one inspection at final cutpoints prior to the area's attainment date, the Commonwealth will achieve the emission reductions that ithas planned for in its attainment demonstration. At this time, EPA does not believe thatit is necessary orjustifiable to delay approval ofthe Commonwealth's attainment demonstration due to the fact thatthe Commonwealth has not implemented all pass-fail standards on schedule in the Philadelphia area. The Commonwealth has provided EPA

assurances that itwill implement the final cutpoints upon issuance ofthe guidance referenced herein. The Commonwealth has implemented a successful enhanced I/Mprogram and continues to workwith EPA on technical issues regarding the ASM program. EPAbelieves that the Commonwealth has achieved andwill continue to gain air qualitybenefits from its enhanced I/M program as necessary for the Philadelphia area to achieve attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. 

## Q.NOx Substitution

Comment:We received comments that suggest that EPA should not allow States the opportunity to substitute NOx reductions for the VOC reductions specifically required by section 182(c)(2)(B) ofthe CAA. In general, the
commenter contends that methodology in EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance is
not "at least as effective" as photochemical grid modeling for making attainment demonstrations. The
comment states thatNOx substitution ignores one ofthe Ozone Transport Assessment Group's (OTAG)key conclusions that "VOC controls are effective in reducing ozone locally and

are most advantageous to urban nonattainment areas." Additionally, the
commenter notes that some data suggest that progress towards attainment in urban areas may not take place, or may

evenbe reversed, by the substitution of NOx reductions for required VOC reductions. Finally, the commenter states thatEPA should not allow NOx substitution aspart ofthe attainment demonstration under section 182 (c)(2)(A). In particular, the commenter is opposed to the States being allowed to utilize, carteblanche,NOx substitution for section 182(c)(2)(A) attainment demonstrations without undergoing an additional, more rigorous analytic test that considers local conditions and potential impacts to real world attainment.

Response:The EPA disagrees with the
comment thatthe Agency should not allow NOx substitution under section 182(c)(2)(B), Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration. Section 182(c)(2)(C) specifically allows NOx substitution where the resulting reductions "in ozone concentrations"

are "at least equivalent" to that which would result fromthe VOC reductions required in the demonstration of reasonable further progress (RFP) under section 182(c)(2)(B). The second
sentence of section 182(c)(2)(C) requires EPAto issue guidance "concerning the conditions under which NOx control maybe substituted for [or combined with] VOC control." In particular, the Agency is authorized to address in the guidance the appropriate amounts of VOC control and NOx control needed, in combination, "in order to maximize the reduction in ozone airpollution." Further, the Act explicitly provides that the guidance may permit RFP demonstrations which allow a lower percentage ofVOC emission reductions. In light ofthe entire set oflanguage and Congress's evident intent under this subsection to maximize the opportunity for ozone reductions, EPAbelieves that section 182(c)(2)(C) confers on the Agency the discretion to select, for
purposes ofdetermining equivalent reductions, a percentage ofNOx emission reductions which is reasonably calculated to achieve both the ozone reduction and attainment progress goals intended by Congress. This approach is described in detail in EPA's 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance. Based on ourreview ofall the information submitted in these attainment demonstrations and consistent with the 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance, EPAbelieves thatthe percentage ofozone reduction benefits achieved by application ofNOx controls is at least equivalent asthat achieved by application ofVOC controls because both the NOx andVOC controls

are necessary ifthe areas are to attain the NAAQS. That is, the basis for equivalency is the ability ofagiven control strategy (i.e., any particular mix ofNOx and VOC emission reductions)
to effect attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by the designated attainment year (NOx Substitution Guidance, EPA452/R-93-015, January 1994, at page 2).

In addition to the OTAG conclusion

as notedby the commenter, the States further concluded that widespread NOx reductions are needed in order to enable
many areas to attain the ozone NAAQS. EPA subsequently made the same determination through the NOx SIP Call rulemaking. Thus, NOx substitution is generally consistent with OTAG's and EPA's conclusions thatNOx reductions

are effective in reducing ozone concentrations.

As described inthe NOx SIP call rulemaking, the OTAG process included 

### 54161

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54161 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

lengthy discussions on the potential increase in local ozone concentrations in some urban areas that mightbe associated with a decrease in local NOx emissions. The OTAG modeling results indicate that urban NOx emissions decreases produce increases in ozone concentrations locally, but the magnitude, time, and location ofthese increases generally do not cause or contribute to high ozone concentrations. In particular, for the NOx emissions reductions due tothe NOx SIP call budgets, EPA determined thatany disbenefits are expected tobe very limited compared to the extent ofthe air quality benefits expected from these budgets.

Regarding section 182(c)(2)(A), Attainment Demonstration, EPA believes that NOx substitution for VOC emissions deemed to be required as "additional emission reductions" is permissible as part ofthe Weight of Evidence analysis. The EPA agrees with the comment that such NOx substitution
must bejustified through additional analyses. For example, ifmodelpredicted peaks show greater improvement when low level NOx emissions are reduced versus VOC or elevated NOx emissions, then substituting an equal amount oflow level NOxreductions for the otherwise required "additional emissions reductions" ofVOC would be acceptable.

R. Measures Under LegalReview
Comment:We received comments asserting thatbecause the Tier 2/Sulfur andNOx SIP call rules are under legal review EPA should not credit the attainment demonstrations with reductions from these programs.

Response:EPA disagrees with the
comment. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA promulgated the "Finding ofSignificant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes ofReducing Regional Transport of Ozone," commonly referred to asthe NOx SIP call. OnMarch 3, 2000, the DC Circuit issued its decision on the NOx SIP Call regarding the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ruling in favor ofEPA on all the major issues. SeeMichiganv. EPA,supra.On June 22, 2000, the Court ordered that we allow the States andthe District of Columbia 128 days from June 22, 2000
to submit their SIPs. Accordingly, 19 States and the District ofColumbia were required to submit SIPs in response to the NOx SIP Call by October 30, 2000.13

13October 30, 2000 is the first business day following the expiration ofthe 128-day period. OnAugust 30, 2000, the D.C. Circuit ordered thatthe June 22, 2000 Order be amended to extend the deadline for implementation ofthe NOx SIP Call from May 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004. In

a separate rulemaking, we are addressing the Court's remand ofthe definition ofelectricity generating units, the control level for large stationary internal combustion engines andthe SIP submittal and compliance dates for these actions, which affect less than 10 percent ofthe total emission reductions called for bythe NOx SIP Call. Likewise, onFebruary 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), EPA promulgated the "Control of Air Pollution From NewMotor Vehicles: Tier 2Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements," commonly referred to asthe Tier 2/ Sulfur rule.

S. ContingencyMeasures

Comment:We received comments asserting that the Post-1996 ROP andthe attainment demonstration SIP lacks contingency measures asrequired under the CAA.

Response:EPAbelieves the contingency measure requirements of sections172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) ofthe CAA are independent requirements from the rate-of-progress requirements under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) andthe attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A). The contingency measure requirements are to address the possibility that an area will fail to meet arate-of-progress milestone orwill fail to attain. The contingency measure requirements have

no bearing onwhether a state has submitted a SIP thatprojects that the SIP contains enough control measures to achieve sufficient rate-of-progress towards attainment or to attain the NAAQS. The ROP SIP provides a demonstration thatthe ROP requirement oughtto be fulfilled, but the contingency measure SIP requirements

concern what will happen onlyifROP is not actually achieved. The attainment demonstration SIP provides a demonstration thatthe attainment requirement oughtto be fulfilled, but the contingency measure SIP requirements concern what will happen onlyifthe area fails to attain. EPA acknowledges that contingency

measures are arequired SIP revision, but does not believe thatthese measures must be approved as part ofan attainment demonstration. Consequently, EPAbelieves it can approve this attainment demonstration

eventhough therequired contingency

measures have not yet been submitted. Pennsylvania will still be required to submit contingency measures andEPA will act upon them when submitted.

T.Measures for the 1-HourNAAQS and forProgressToward8-Hour NAAQS
Comment:One commenter notes that EPAhasbeen working toward promulgation of arevised eight-hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)because the Administrator deemed attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS is not adequate
to protect public health. Therefore, EPA
must ensure that measures be implemented now that will be sufficient
to meet the one-hour standard andthat make as much progress toward implementing the eight-hour ozone standard as the requirements ofthe CAA and implementing regulations allow.

Response:The one-hour standard remains in effect for all ofthese areas and the SIPs that have been submitted

are for the purpose of achieving that NAAQS. Congress has provided the States with the authority to choose the

measures necessary to attain the NAAQS and EPA cannot second guess the States' choice ifEPA determines that the SIP meets the requirements ofthe CAA. EPAbelieves thatthe SIPs for the

severe areas meet the requirements for attainment demonstrations for the onehour standard and thus, could not disapprove them even ifEPAbelieved other control requirements might be

more effective for attaining the eighthour standard.However, EPA generally believes that emission controls implemented to attain the one-hour

ozone standard will be beneficial towards attainment ofthe eight-hour

ozone standard as well. This is particularly true regarding the implementation ofNOx emission controls resulting from EPA'sNOx SIP Call. Finally, EPAnotes that although the eight-hour ozone standard has been adoptedby the EPA, implementation of this standard hasbeen delayed while certain aspects ofthe standard remain before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The States and the EPA have yet to define the eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas and the EPA has yet to issue guidance andrequirements for the implementation ofthe eight-hour

ozone standard.

U.OtherComments

Comment:Wereceived comments that oppose the removal ofany of Pennsylvania's 67 counties from the Ozone Transport Region on the grounds thatthe south-central and central counties have a significant impact on intrastate transport and attainment in Philadelphia. 

### 54162

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54162 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Response:The comment isnot germane to this action. EPAis approving the attainment demonstration and Post1996 ROP plans for the Philadelphia area. EPAis not approving removal ofany Pennsylvania counties from the Ozone Transport Region.

III. Final Action

A. AttainmentDemonstration

EPA isfully approving the Pennsylvania's one hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area which was submitted

onApril 30, 1998, and supplemented on August 21, 1998, February 25, 2000, and July 19, 2001, including its RACM analysis and determination. The attainment demonstration meets the requirements ofsection 182 (c)(2) and (d) ofthe Act and establishes an attainment date ofNovember 15, 2005 for the Philadelphia area.

B. Commitments

EPA is approving the Pennsylvania commitments made onJuly 31, 1998, February 25, 2000, and July 19, 2001. The commitments are to: (1) Submit measures by October 31, 2001 for additional emission reductions

asrequired in the attainment demonstration test, andto revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets by October 31, 2001 ifthe additional

measures affect the motorvehicle emissions inventory, (2)Revise the SIP andmotor vehicle emission budgets usingMOBILE6 within one year after itis issued, and

(3)Perform amid-course review by December 31, 2003.

C.Post-1996 ROPPlan

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's Post1996 ROP plans as a SIP revision for the Philadelphia area.These revisions

were submitted on April 30, 1998, July 31, 1998, and supplemented on February 25, 2000.

D.MobileBudgetsofthe Control StrategyPlans

EPA is approving the following mobilebudgets ofthe Post-1996 ROP plans and the 2005 attainment demonstration plan:

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE PHILADELPHIA AREA

Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOx (TPD) Date of adequacy determination

Post-1996 ROP Plan

.......................................... 1999 88.6 109.6 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). Post-1996 ROP Plan

.......................................... 2002 69.52 93.13 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). Post-1996 ROP Plan

.......................................... 2005 61.76 86.42 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). Attainment Demonstration

................................. 2005 60.18 77.46 November 26, 2001.

Please note that EPAis only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration and its current budgets because the Commonwealth has provided an enforceable commitment to revise the budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one year ofEPA's release ofthat model. Therefore, we are limiting the duration ofour approval ofthe
current budgets onlyuntil such time as the revised budgets are found adequate. Those budgets will be more appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the timebeing.

Similarly, EPAis only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration and its
current budgets because Pennsylvania provided enforceable commitments to adopt additional measures to strengthen the attainment demonstration by October 31, 2001 and to submit revised budgets by October 31, 2001 ifthe additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions inventory. Therefore,

we are limitingthe duration ofour approval ofthe current budgets only until such time as any such revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised budgets will be more appropriate than thebudgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the timebeing.

IV. 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 bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. This action merely approves state lawas meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601
etseq.).Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does
not significantly oruniquely affect the communities oftribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will
not have substantial direct effects onthe States, on the relationship between the national government andthe States, or

onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alterthe relationship or the distribution ofpower andresponsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also isnot subject to Executive Order 13045 (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 meet the criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure
to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPAhas taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPAhas complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications ofthe rule in accordance with the "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation ofRisk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe 54163

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54163 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submissionto Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will 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 States prior to publication ofthe rule in the FederalRegister. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

C.Petitions forJudicialReview
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 26, 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 to approve the Post-1996 ROP plan, and the one hour

ozone attainment demonstration as SIP revisions for the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area submitted bythe Commonwealth may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: October 15, 2001. James W.Newsom, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIlL 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Section 52.2037 is amended by revising the sectionheading and adding paragraphs (i), (j) and (k)to read as follows:
§52.2037 Control strategyand rate-ofprogress plans: ozone.

(i) EPA approves the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania's Post 1996 (ROP) plan SIP revision for milestone years 1999, 2002, and 2005 for the Pennsylvania portion ofthe Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton severe ozone nonattainment area. These revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on April 30, 1998, July 31, 1998 and supplemented

on February 25, 2000.

(j)EPA approves the one hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton area submittedby the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection

on April 30, 1998, August 21, 1998, February 25, 2000 andJuly 19, 2001 including its RACM analysis and determination. EPA is approving the enforceable commitments made tothe attainment plan forthe PhiladelphiaWilmington-Trenton severe ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection onJuly 31, 1998, February 25, 2000 andJuly 19, 2001. The enforceable commitments are to:(1) Submit measuresby October 31, 2001 for additional emission reductions

as required in the attainment demonstration test, andto revise the SIP and motorvehicle emissions budgets by October 31, 2001 ifthe additional

measures affect the motor vehicle emissions inventory,

(2)Revise the SIP andmotor vehicle emission budgets usingMOBILE6 within one year after itis issued, and

(3)Perform amid-course review by December 31, 2003.

(k)EPA approves the following mobilebudgets ofthe Post-1996 plans and the 2005 attainment plan:

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE PHILADELPHIA AREA

VOC NO× Type of Control Strategy SIP Year (TPD) (TPD) Date of adequacy determination

Post-1996 ROP Plan

................................................... 1999 88.6 109.6 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). Post-1996 ROP Plan

................................................... 2002 69.52 93.13 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). Post-1996 ROP Plan

................................................... 2005 61.76 86.42 June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June 8, 2000). Attainment Demonstration

........................................... 2005 60.18 77.46 November 26, 2001.

(1)Please note thatEPA is only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration and its current budgets because the Commonwealth has provided an enforceable commitment to revise the budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one year ofEPA's release ofthat model. Therefore, we are limiting the duration ofour approval ofthe
current budgets onlyuntil such time as the revised budgets are found adequate. Those budgets will be more appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the timebeing.

(2) Similarly, EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration and its current budgets because Pennsylvania provided enforceable commitments to adopt additional

measures to strengthen the attainment demonstration by October 31, 2001 and
to submit revised budgets by October 31, 2001 ifthe additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions inventory. Therefore, we are limitingthe duration ofour approval ofthe current budgets only until such time as any suchrevised budgets are found adequate. Those revised budgets will be

more appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the time being. [FR Doc. 01-26679 Filed 10-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODFE 6560-SO-P 

### 54164

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54164 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 208/Friday, October 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64 [CC Docket No. 92-105; FCC 00-257]
Require 711 Dialing for Nationwide Access to Telecommunications Relay Services; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY: This document corrects certain rules ofthe Federal Communications Commission (Commission)that concern access to telecommunications relay services (TRS). Regulations are corrected to add

a definition for "711" telephone service, andto renumber the other definitions in the section. This definition, promulgated in CC Docket No. 92-105,

was inadvertently omitted by the conflicting effective dates of amendments promulgated in CC Docket No. 98-67. Regulations are corrected to add a sentence in the undesignated introductory paragraph that was promulgated in CC Docket No. 92-105 but that was inadvertently omitted by the conflicting effective date of amendments promulgated in CC Docket No. 98-67. DATES: Effective on October 12, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Magnotti, (202) 418-2320 (voice), (202) 418-0484 (TTY), smagnott@fcc.gov,Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Commission promulgated new rules to increase the type and quality of telephone relay service available to individuals with hearing and speech disabilities in CC Docket No. 98-67, TelecommunicationsRelay Servicesand Speech-to-Speech Services for Individualswith Hearing andSpeech Disabilities,(released March 6, 2000), 65 FR 38432 (June 18, 2000). Some ofthese rules were subject to a delayed effective date ofDecember 18, 2000. Shortly after these rules were published, the Commission promulgated new rules to establish "711" as a uniform, abbreviated dialing code for telephone relay service in CC Docket No. 92-105, The UseofNil CodesandOther AbbreviatedDialing Arrangements, (released August 9, 2000), 65 FR 54799 (September 11, 2000). The new "711" rules were not subject to a delayed effective date, and became effective on October 11, 2000. Need for Correction
Section 64.601's definition for "711" telephone service, added in CC Docket No. 92-105, was omitted by the later effective date of amendments to §68.601 promulgated in CC Docket No. 98-67. This corrected amendment adds the definition backinto the rule and renumbers the definitions (1)through (13) to (2)through (14).

Section 64.603 was amended in CC Docket No. 92-105 to add a sentence in the undesignated introductory paragraph that was omitted bythe later effective date of amendments to §64.603 promulgated in CC Docket No. 98-67. Accordingly, anew third sentence shouldbe added to the undesignated introductory text of §64.603 as follows:" * * *In addition, each

common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services shall provide, not later than October 1, 2001,

access via the 711 dialing code to all relay services as a toll free call * * * ."

List ofSubjects in 47 CFRPart 64

Communications common carriers, Individuals with disabilities, Relay service, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission. Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary.

Accordingly, 47 CFR part 64 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 64-MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

1.The authority citation for part 64 continues to read asfollows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 47 U.S.C. 225, 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1).

2.In §64.601, redesignate the definitions in paragraphs (1)through (13) as paragraphs (2)through (14) and add new paragraph (1)toread as follows:
§64.601 Definitions.

(1) 711. The abbreviated dialing code for accessing all types ofrelay services anywhere in the United States.

3.In §64.603, revise the undesignated introductory text to read as follows:
§64.603 Provisionof services.

Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services shall provide, not later than July 26, 1993, in compliance with the regulations prescribed herein, throughout the area in which it offers services, telecommunications relay services, individually, through designees, through a competitively selected vendor, orin concert with other carriers. Speech-to-speech relay service and interstate Spanish language relay service shall be provided by March 1, 2001. In addition, each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services shall provide, not later than October 1, 2002, access vial the 711 dialing code to allrelay services as a toll free call. Acommon carrier shall be considered to be in compliance with these regulations:

[FR Doc. 01-26942 Filed 10-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635
[I.D. 102201D]

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Coastwide General category closure.
SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that the 2001 fishingyear Atlantic bluefin
tuna (BFT) coastwide General category quota will be attained by October 23, 2001. Therefore, the coastwide General category fishery willbe closed effective 11:30 p.m. on October 23, 2001. This action is being taken to prevent overharvest ofthe adjusted coastwide General category quota of816.7 metric
tons (mt). DATES: Effective 11:30 p.m. local time

on October 23, 2001, through May 31, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad McHale or Pat Scida, 978-281-9260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations implemented under the authority ofthe Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16U.S.C. 971 etseq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 etseq.) governing the harvest ofBFTby persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas amongthe various 

### 54165

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 54165 2001