[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37683-37695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3325]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453; FRL-8336-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour 
Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's 
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (Pittsburgh Area) be redesignated 
as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation 
request for Pittsburgh Area. In conjunction with its redesignation 
request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance 
plan for Pittsburgh Area that provides for continued attainment of the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is 
proposing to make a determination that the Pittsburgh Area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-
assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's 
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on 
its determination that the Pittsburgh Area has met the criteria for 
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 
addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Pittsburgh 
Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is also 
providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for 
the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the 
Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation 
conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA is proposing 
approval of the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the 
2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the 
requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0453 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b0819021b1b184508031902181f041b030e192b0e1b0a450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1477667d6464673a777c667d67607b647c7166547164753a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief, 
Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0453. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the 
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or 
by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b4a5bea7a7a4f9b4bfa5bea4a3b8a7bfb2a597b2a7b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1576677c6565663b767d677c66617a657d7067557065743b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

[[Page 37684]]

``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing To Take?
II. What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and SIP Revision?
VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and 
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing To Take?

    On April 26, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to 
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on April 26, 2007, PADEP 
submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision 
to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for at least 10 
years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year 
inventory as a SIP revision on April 26, 2007. The Pittsburgh Area is 
currently designated as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and is 
covered by a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 
determine that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to 
approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the 
Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Pittsburgh Area maintenance 
plan as a SIP revision, such approval being one of the CAA criteria for 
redesignation to attainment status. The maintenance plan is designed to 
ensure continued attainment in the Pittsburgh Area for the next ten 
years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory 
for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is 
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified 
in the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the 
MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) for transportation conformity purposes.

II. What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

A. General

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC react in the presence of sunlight 
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC 
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process 
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of 
the NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard 
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent 
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as 
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the 
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most 
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The 
Pittsburgh Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
status in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and 
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of 
the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. 
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to 
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area (as well as most 
other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 
3, 2005).
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule 
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South 
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). 
On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 
Docket No. 04-1201 (hereafter ``South Coast''), in response to several 
petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule 
was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been 
successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related 
to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of 
Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour 
attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 
decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for 
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under 
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let 
stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-
backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been 
successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 
22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain four 
measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-
backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 
Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour 
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour 
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented 
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward 
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; 
and (4) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain 
types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the 
Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring 
the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-
hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
    Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The 
Pittsburgh Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 
and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
of the CAA,'' EPA discusses its rationale why the decisions in South 
Coast are not an impediment to redesignating the Pittsburgh Area to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart 
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for 
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic'' 
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for 
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a 
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) 
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some 
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of 
subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. 
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004, 
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design 
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at 
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for 
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, 
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004,

[[Page 37685]]

Pittsburgh Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 
based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore, 
is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
    Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when 
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal 
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR 
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality 
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness 
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the 
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater 
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data 
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. Based upon 
ozone monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2006 (inclusive), the 
Pittsburgh Area has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period 
2003 through 2005 and has a design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year 
period 2004 through 2006. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the 
Pittsburgh Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B. The Pittsburgh Area

    The Pittsburgh Area is comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, 
Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Prior to its 
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh Area 
had been designated and classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment 
area for the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6, 
1991. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved a request to 
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
standard and approved a maintenance plan SIP revision.
    On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested that the Pittsburgh Area be 
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured 
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for 
ozone had been achieved in the Pittsburgh Area. The data satisfies the 
CAA requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to 
as the area's design value) is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment 
area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data 
is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and 
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in 
section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, 
allows for redesignation, providing that:
    (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
    (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for 
the area under section 110(k);
    (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions;
    (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
    (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    <bullet> ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' 
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
    <bullet> ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    <bullet> ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    <bullet> ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    <bullet> ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in 
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    <bullet> ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation 
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from 
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 
1993;
    <bullet> ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On 
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, 
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 
1993;
    <bullet> Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and 
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
    <bullet> ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994; and
    <bullet> ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. 
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 
1995.

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Pittsburgh 
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On April 26, 2007, 
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP 
revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after 
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Pittsburgh Area has attained 
the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth 
in section 107(d)(3)(E).

V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation 
of the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the 
Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year inventory and a maintenance plan 
ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 
Pittsburgh Area for the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes

[[Page 37686]]

contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour 
NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for NO<INF>X</INF> 
and VOC for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 
2018. These MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table:

                Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
             [Tons per day (rounded to two decimal places)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                            VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..............................................      54.54     101.53
2018..............................................      32.91      41.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and SIP Revision?

    EPA is proposing to determine that Pittsburgh Area has attained the 
8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have 
been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's April 26, 2007, 
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
CAA.

A. The Pittsburgh Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS

    In the Pittsburgh Area, there are currently thirteen monitors that 
measure air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation 
request, Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data which included 
the years 2003 through 2006 (the most recent years of data available as 
of the time of the redesignation request) for the Pittsburgh Area. This 
data has been quality assured and is recorded in Air Quality System 
(AQS).
    Based upon this data, EPA is proposing to determine that the 
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the 8-hour 
ozone standard, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance 
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete 
and consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality 
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value, which is 
the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area over 
each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the 
rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the 
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The 
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). PADEP uses the 
AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures 
the data transfers and content for accuracy. The monitors generally 
should have remained at the same location for the duration of the 
monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The fourth-
high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year 
average, are summarized in Table 2 for the four monitors with the 
highest 2005 and 2006 design values in the Pittsburgh area.

   Table 2.--Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
                                 Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual 4th
                                                                 High
                            Year                               Reading
                                                                (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monitor: California & 11th, Harrison Twp, Allegheny Co., AQS ID 42-003-
                                  1005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.081
2004.......................................................        0.076
2005.......................................................        0.087
2006.......................................................        0.088
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning, Armstrong Co., AQS ID 42-005-
                                  0001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.086
2004.......................................................        0.082
2005.......................................................        0.086
2006.......................................................        0.080
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.082 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Monitor: Route 168 & Tomlinson Road, Beaver Co., AQS ID 42-007-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.087
2004.......................................................        0.081
2005.......................................................        0.086
2006.......................................................        0.082
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monitor: Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID 42-
                                003-0010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.088
2004.......................................................        0.072
2005.......................................................        0.092
2006.......................................................        0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.080 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data show that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 
standard with a design value of 0.084 ppm for 2003 through 2005 and 
still is attaining the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm at the 
monitors with the highest design value for 2004 through 2006. The data 
collected at the Pittsburgh Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement 
that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. 
PADEP's request for redesignation for the Pittsburgh Area indicates 
that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In 
addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, 
PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58.

B. The Pittsburgh Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under 
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under 
Section 110(k) of the CAA

    EPA has determined that the Pittsburgh Area has met all SIP 
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under 
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all 
applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in 
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has 
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance 
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, 
EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area, and 
determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these 
requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We 
note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable 
requirements.
    The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. 
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States 
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA 
requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete 
redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of 
Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due 
subsequent to the area's

[[Page 37687]]

submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a 
redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to 
redesignation. See Section 175A(c) of the CAA. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of 
the Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the 
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings 
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to 
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or 
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's 
December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to 
moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because 
even in light of the Court's decisions redesignation is appropriate 
under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding 
policies regarding redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general 
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations 
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the 
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect 
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. 
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
    <bullet> Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State 
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
    <bullet> Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate 
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
    <bullet> Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for 
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD));
    <bullet> Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements 
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
    <bullet> Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
    <bullet> Provisions for public and local agency participation in 
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to 
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has 
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of 
air pollutants in accordance with the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, October 
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, May 
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the 
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that 
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular 
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements 
should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of 
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not 
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements 
for purposes of redesignation. The Pittsburgh Area will still be 
subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 
and Part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's 
designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate 
in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with 
EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for 
redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, 
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings, (61 FR 53174-53176, 
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, 
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the 
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 
50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NO<INF>X</INF> 
SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call rules are not ``an 
`applicable requirement' for purposes of section 110(l) because the 
NO<INF>X</INF> rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or 
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
    EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements 
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we 
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for 
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to 
submission of the redesignation request.
    Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable 
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), 
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set 
forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas. 
Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes 
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment 
classification.
    Under an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), EPA classified 
the Pittsburgh Area as a subpart 1 nonattainment area under the 8-hour 
ozone standard. EPA believes that no subpart 1 requirements need to be 
approved prior to redesignation. Of the nonattainment plan provisions 
due under section 172, none were due prior to submission of the 
complete redesignation request because EPA's November 29, 2005 final 
rule (70 FR 71612) set the deadline for these requirements at 3 years 
after resignation, which for the Pittsburgh Area is June 15, 2007.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's rulings in South 
Coast rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for 
the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. 
Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to 
EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by 
EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional 
future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean 
that redesignation cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) 
EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with 
the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2) 
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any 
requirements that might in the future be applied.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the 
Pittsburgh Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to 
meet only subpart 1

[[Page 37688]]

requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states 
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP 
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete 
redesignation request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum 
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation 
of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 
2004), which upheld this interpretation; and 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new 
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was 
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such 
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC 
Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling 
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that 
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have 
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The 
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment 
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed 
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would 
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and 
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even 
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, 
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for 
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation 
request.
    With respect to subpart 2 requirements, if the Pittsburgh Area 
initially had been classified under subpart the first two-part D 
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Pittsburgh Area under section 
182(a) of the CAA would be: (1) A base-year inventory requirement 
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, (2) the emissions 
statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.
    As we have stated previously in this document, these requirements 
are not yet due for purpose of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area, 
but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an 
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which covers all 
portions of the Pittsburgh Area and which EPA believes satisfies the 
emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard under section 
182(a)(3)(B). This regulation is codified at Section 135.21 ``Emission 
statements'' in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); see also 60 FR 
2881, January 12, 1995. With respect to the base year inventory 
requirement, in this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to 
approve the 2002 base year inventory SIP concurrently with the 
maintenance plan as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both 
section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that 
Pennsylvania's SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D 
of the CAA. In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable 
for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of 
the redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 
the general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval 
prior to redesignation.
    With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 
176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures 
to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the 
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to 
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and 
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the 
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all 
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). 
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity 
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability 
that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable 
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) 
since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and 
Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been 
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), 
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).
    In the case of the Pittsburgh Area, EPA has also determined that 
before being redesignated, the Pittsburgh Area need not comply with the 
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. EPA 
has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the 
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, 
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without 
Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position is described in a 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements 
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' See rulemakings for 
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-12468); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio 
(61 FR at 20458, 20469-20470); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 
53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 
31834-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of Pennsylvania, the Chapter 
127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 
52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 
of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the Ozone Transport Region 
(OTR). The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required 
for a marginal area. Nevertheless, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), 
EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of 
Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the 
Pittsburgh Area.
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    As stated previously in this document, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR 
53094), EPA approved a request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan 
SIP revision.
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Pittsburgh 
Area was an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section 175A 
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's decisions in 
South Coast do not impact redesignation requests for these types of 
areas, except to the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision 
clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions 
budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that 
those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations 
until replaced by 8-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs). To 
meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must 
comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations 
at 40 CFR part 93. As discussed elsewhere in this document,

[[Page 37689]]

EPA is proposing to approve 8-hour MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area. Once 
these 8-hour MVEBs are approved the 1-hour budgets will no longer apply 
under anti-backsliding.
    With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the 
1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the 
Pittsburgh Area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for 
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measures (pursuant to 
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no 
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the 
1-hour standard.
    Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter any requirements 
that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
4. Transport Region Requirements
    All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and 
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under 
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of 
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The 
section 184 requirements include reasonably available control 
technology (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M), and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of 
the Pittsburgh Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR 
will continue to be applicable after redesignation as discussed 
previously in this document.
    EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, 
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
See the Reading, Pennsylvania redesignation proposed and final rules, 
61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), 
respectively. The rationale for this is based on two considerations. 
First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation 
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as 
well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 
control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the 
area by virtue of the area's nonattainment designation and 
classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an 
action changing an area's designation. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of 
Redesignation
    EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of 
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall 
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it 
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR at 
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Pittsburgh Area was a 
1-hour maintenance area which had been a moderate nonattainment area at 
the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). No Part D submittal requirements have 
come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the 
area. Therefore, all Part D submittal requirements have been fulfilled. 
Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable 
for the purposes of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area, the 
applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP 
requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes that the section 
110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions 
and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that 
Pennsylvania has fulfilled all 8-hour Part D requirements applicable 
for purposes of redesignation.

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Pittsburgh Area Is Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control 
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the 
observed air quality improvement in the Pittsburgh Area is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted 
measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in 
Table 3.

                             Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004
                                             [In tons per day (tpd)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Year                              Point       Area     Nonroad     Mobile     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................       16.5      100.3       51.5       86.4      254.7
Year 2004................................................       15.5       98.1       48.8       73.3      235.7
Diff. (02-04)............................................        1.0        2.2        2.7       13.1       19.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................      250.4       11.5       86.1      173.9      522.0
Year 2004................................................      202.8       11.7       81.5      148.8      444.8
Diff. (02-04)............................................       47.6       -0.2        4.6       25.1       77.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 19.0 tpd, and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were reduced by 77.2 tpd, due to the following 
permanent and enforceable measures implemented in the Pittsburgh Area:
    (1) Stationary Area Sources
    (a) Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003),
    (b) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004);
    (2) Highway Vehicle Sources
    (a) Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), Tier 1 (56 FR 
25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000),
    (b) Federal Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694, 
October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000),

[[Page 37690]]

    (c) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28, 
1999),
    (d) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program (64 FR 
32411, June 17, 1999 and 70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005);
    (3) Nonroad Sources--Federal Nonroad Engine and Fuels (40 CFR parts 
89 to 91, and 1039, 1048 and 1051); and
    (4) Stationary Point Sources--Pennsylvania's Interstate Pollution 
Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 
57428, September 29, 2006) (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001 and 71 FR 
57428, September 29, 2006).
    EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions 
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the 
cause of the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

D. The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 
to Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area 
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted for 
approval under section 175A of the CAA the April 26, 2007, maintenance 
plan to fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard. 
Pennsylvania submitted this SIP revision to provide for maintenance of 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for at least 10 years 
after redesignation. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the ozone 
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Pittsburgh Area meets the 
requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable ozone 
standards including the 8-hour standard.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
Under section 175A(a), the plan must demonstrate continued attainment 
of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a 
redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A(b) requires that 
eight years after the redesignation the State must submit a revised 
maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be 
maintained for the next 10-year period following the initial 10-year 
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the 
maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a 
schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt 
correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the 
CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking 
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memorandum 
dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the content of 
a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the 
following provisions:
    (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
    (2) A maintenance demonstration;
    (3) A monitoring network;
    (4) Verification of continued attainment; and
    (5) A contingency plan.
2. Analysis of the Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan
    (a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the 
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data 
showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the 
Pittsburgh Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year 
attainment period of 2003-2005 and accounts for reductions attributable 
to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.
    PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
inventories for the Pittsburgh Area, including point, area, mobile on-
road, and mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
    To develop the NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC base year emissions 
inventories, PADEP used the following approaches and sources of data:
    (i) Point source emissions--Pennsylvania requires owners and 
operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and 
emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by 
emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System 
and EPA's publication series AP-42 and are based on Source 
Classification Code (SCC). Each process has at least one SCC assigned 
to it. If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate 
emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates 
supersede those calculated using SCC codes.
    (ii) Area source emissions--Area source emissions are generally 
estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or 
collective activity for each area source category at the county level. 
Pennsylvania estimates emissions from area sources using emission 
factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary 
point sources. Emission factors may also be derived from research and 
guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and 
AP-42 factors. Throughput estimates are derived from county-level 
activity data, by apportioning national and statewide activity data to 
counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers. County 
employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to 
the industry covered.
    (iii) On-road mobile sources--PADEP employs an emissions estimation 
methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission 
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions. The 
Pittsburgh Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using 
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 
vehicle type and roadway type.
    (iv) Mobile nonroad emissions--The 2002 emissions for the majority 
of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA 
NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel, 
gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-
fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD 
model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives. For 
2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey 
using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion 
factors. Commercial aircraft operations are significant in the 
Pittsburgh area. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) accounts for 
all commercial operations in the Pittsburgh area. PADEP quantified the 
emissions at PIT with the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 
(EDMS) that is an EPA-approved model. For other 2002 aircraft 
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small aircraft operation 
statistics from http://www.airnav.com, and emission factors and 
operational characteristics in EDMS. For PIT, growth was estimated 
using estimates of future operations at PIT from the FAA APO Terminal 
Area Forecast Detailed Report. For other aircraft operations, growth 
was calculated using estimates of small airport activity from the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s APO terminal area forecast 
detailed report.
    The 2004 attainment year VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for the 
Pittsburgh Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected 
emissions for this area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the 
demonstration of maintenance for this area. EPA has concluded that

[[Page 37691]]

Pennsylvania has adequately derived and documented the 2004 attainment 
year VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for this area.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration--On April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a 
SIP revision to supplement its April 26, 2007, redesignation request. 
The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by 
section 175A of the CAA. The Pittsburgh Area plan shows maintenance of 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future 
emissions of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> remain at or below the attainment 
year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Pittsburgh Area through the 
year 2018. The Pittsburgh Area maintenance demonstration need not be 
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. 
See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-25432.
    Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for the 
Pittsburgh Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose 2009 as an 
interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to 
demonstrate that the VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not projected 
to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-
year maintenance period.

            Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2004 VOC     2009 VOC      2018 VOC
        Source category           emissions     emissions     emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*........................         73.3         54.54         32.91
Nonroad........................         48.8         39.1          34.6
Area...........................         98.1         92.4          96.1
Point..........................         15.5         16.4          20.3
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................        235.7        202.44        183.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
  vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.


              Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2004 NOX     2009 NOX      2018 NOX
        Source category           emissions     emissions     emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*........................        148.8        101.53         41.15
Nonroad........................         81.5         70.5          55.6
Area...........................         11.7         12.1          12.2
Point..........................        202.8        255.2         273.6
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................        444.8        439.33        382.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
  vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

    The following are permanent and enforceable control measures to 
ensure emissions during the maintenance period and are equal to or less 
than the emissions in the attainment year:
    (1) Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 
FR 70893);
    (2) Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 
70895);
    (3) Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080); and
    (4) Pennsylvania's Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction 
Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, September 29, 
2006).
    Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or 
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance 
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
    (1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner 
gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)--Tier 1 and Tier 2;
    (2) NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle 
Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564, 
December 28, 1999);
    (3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road 
(2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001);
    (4) Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel 
(2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004); and
    (5) Pennsylvania's vehicle emission inspection/maintenance program 
(October 6, 2005, 70 FR 58313).
    In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) 
should have positive impacts on Pennsylvania's air quality. CAIR, which 
will be implemented in the eastern portion of the country in two phases 
(2009 and 2015) should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors 
and will have a beneficial effect on the air quality in the Pittsburgh 
Area.
    Pennsylvania and other nearby states are required to adopt a 
regulation implementing the requirements of CAIR or an equivalent 
program. On April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to reduce the interstate transport of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and sulfur dioxides that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment and maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. If 
Pennsylvania has not adopted its own CAIR requirements and obtained 
EPA's approval of the required SIP revision by September 2007, the FIP 
will impose the Federal program upon CAIR-affected electric generating 
units in Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Area does have several sources 
which are subject to regulation under CAIR. For the maintenance 
demonstration, Pennsylvania did not rely upon any reductions from CAIR 
from these facilities. However, the quality of air transported from 
upwind sources into the county would be improved.
    Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA 
concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour 
ozone standard should be maintained in the Pittsburgh Area.
    (c) Monitoring Network--Currently there are thirteen monitors 
measuring ozone in the Pittsburgh Area. Pennsylvania will continue to 
operate

[[Page 37692]]

an air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    (d) Verification of Continued Attainment--The Commonwealth will 
track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area 
by reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period. 
The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key factors, 
VMT data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare 
them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance 
plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three 
years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission 
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) to see if the area 
exceed the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent. 
Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any 
further emission control measures should be implemented.
    (e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency 
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the 
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires 
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should 
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and 
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the 
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    The ability of the Pittsburgh Area to stay in compliance with the 
8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the area remaining at or below 2004 levels. 
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. 
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce 
emissions should a violation occur.
    Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive 
years the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at the 
Pittsburgh Area design monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point 
occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local 
emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a 
violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the 
conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what 
measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone 
levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of 
Federal, state and local measure that have been adopted but no yet 
implemented at the time of excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will 
then begin the process of implementing any selected measures.
    Contingency measures will be adopted in the event that a violation 
of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs in the Pittsburgh Area. In the 
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, contingency measures 
will be adopted in order to return the area to attainment with the 
standard. Contingency measures to be considered for the Pittsburgh Area 
will include, but not limited to the following:
    Regulatory measures:

--Additional controls on consumer products
--Additional control on portable fuel containers

    Non-regulatory measures:

--Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' `` installation software to 
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy duty diesel engines.
--Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative 
fuel use, for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
--Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
--Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, 
warehouses and other freight-handling facilities.
--Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially 
commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
    <bullet> Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) 
for home heating and agricultural use.


    The following schedule applies to the implementation of the 
regulatory contingency measures:


--Within 1 month of the trigger, submit request to begin regulatory 
development process.
--Within 3 months of the trigger, review of regulation by Air Quality 
Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) 
and other advisory committees as appropriate.
--Within 6 months of the trigger, Environmental Quality Board (EQB) 
meeting/action.
--Within 8 months of the trigger, publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin 
for comment as proposed rulemaking.
--Within 10 months of the trigger, public hearing takes place and 
comment period on proposed rule closes.
--Within 11 months of the trigger, House and Senate Standing Committees 
and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comment on proposed 
rule.
--Within 13 months of the trigger, AQTAC, CAC and other committees 
review responses to comments and draft final rulemaking.
--Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB meeting/action.
--Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC action on rulemaking.
--Within 18 months of the trigger, Attorney General's review/action.
--Within 19 months of the trigger, publication in the Pennsylvania 
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and submit to EPA as a SIP revision. The 
regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania 
Bulletin.

    The following schedule applies to the implementation of non-
regulatory contingency measures:
--Within 2 months of the trigger: Identify stakeholders for potential 
non-regulatory measures.
--Within 3 months of the trigger, if funding is necessary, identify 
potential sources of funding and the timeframe under which funds would 
be available. In addition to non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following 
program may be able to provide funding: for transportation projects, 
the Federal Highway Administration, as allocated to the two municipal 
planning organizations in the Pittsburgh Area; for projects which will 
also have an energy efficient co-benefit, the Pennsylvania Energy 
Harvest program; for projects which would be undertaken by small 
business and are pollution prevention projects, the Small Business 
Advantage Grant and Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs; 
for projects which will involve alternative fuels for vehicles/
refueling operations, the Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant program; for 
projects involving diesel emissions, Federal Energy Policy Act diesel 
reduction funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for which Pennsylvania or 
project sponsors may apply under a competitive process.
--Within 6 months of the trigger, work with the area planning 
commissions to identify land use planning

[[Page 37693]]

strategies and projects with quantifiable and timely emission benefits. 
Work with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic 
Development and other State agencies to assist in these measures.
--Within 9 months of the trigger, enter into agreements with 
implementing organizations if state loans or grants are involved. 
Quantify projected emission benefits.
--Within 12 months of the trigger, submit a revised SIP to EPA.
--Within 12-24 months of the trigger, implement strategies and 
projects.

    (g) Summary of EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan
    EPA concludes that the April 26, 2007 maintenance plan meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and 
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These 
control strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration 
SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain 
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from 
on-road mobile sources. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs 
must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is the portion 
of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and 
transit vehicle use and emissions. A MVEB serves as a ceiling on 
emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB 
concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 
describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy 
SIPs and maintenance plans.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be 
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that 
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does 
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of 
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA 
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance 
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget 
contained therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation 
conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used 
by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed 
transportation projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining 
``adequacy'' of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic 
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment 
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the 
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the 
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity 
Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule 
Change'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and 
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area are listed in Table 1 of this 
document for the 2009, and 2018 years and are the projected emissions 
for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin 
allocated to the MVEBs. These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, 
must be used for transportation conformity determinations.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of 
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which 
the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety 
margin: The Pittsburgh Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
during the 2002 to 2004 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the 
year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the Pittsburgh 
Area.
    The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile 
non-road sources in 2004 were 235.7 tpd of VOC and 444.8 tpd of 
NO<INF>X</INF>. PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and 
obtained totals of 183.91 tpd of VOC and 382.55 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> 
from all sources in the Pittsburgh Area. The safety margin for the 
Pittsburgh Area for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts. 
This difference is 51.79 tpd of VOC and 62.25 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF>. 
The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the 
safety margins are projected to maintain the area's air quality 
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra 
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated 
for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels 
are maintained at or below the attainment levels. Table 6 shows the 
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

     Table 6.--2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Pittsburgh Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC           NOX
               Inventory year                   emissions     emissions
                                                  (tpd)         (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment.............................        235.7         444.8
2009 Interim................................        202.44        439.33
2009 Safety Margin..........................         33.26          5.47
2004 Attainment.............................        235.7         444.8
2018 Final..................................        183.91        382.55
2018 Safety Margin..........................         51.79         62.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP allocated 3.58 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC on-road mobile 
source emissions projection and 3.06 tpd NO<INF>X</INF> to the 2009 
interim NO<INF>X</INF> on-road mobile source emissions projection to 
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 4.60 
tpd VOC and 3.32 tpd NO<INF>X</INF> from the 2018 safety margins to the 
2018 on-road mobile source emissions projections to arrive at the 2018 
MVEBs. Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions of 
the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be 
allocated to any other source category. Table 7 shows the final 2009 
and 2018 MVEBS for the Pittsburgh Area.

[[Page 37694]]



Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area tons per day
                      [Rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC          NOX
                Inventory year                   emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 on-road mobile source projected emissions        50.96        98.47
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs.........         3.58         3.06
2009 MVEBs....................................        54.54       101.53
2018 on-road mobile source projected emissions        28.31        37.83
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs.........         4.60         3.32
2018 MVEBs....................................        32.91        41.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area are approvable 
because the MVEBs for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC, including the allocated 
safety margins, continue to maintain the total emissions at or below 
the attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation 
conformity regulations.

D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the 
Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan?

    The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan are being posted 
to EPA's conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal. The public 
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period 
for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing 
the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the 
MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part 
of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation 
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are 
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the 
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.
    If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the 
proposed approval of the Pittsburgh Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of 
our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond 
to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the 
adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Pittsburgh 
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, click on the ``Conformity'' button, 
then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh Area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the 
Commonwealth's April 26, 2007, request for the Pittsburgh Area to be 
designated to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA has 
evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that it 
meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring 
data demonstrate that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. 
The final approval of this redesignation request would change the 
designation of the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for 
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the 
associated maintenance plan and the 2002 base year inventory for 
Pittsburgh Area, submitted on April 26, 2007, as revisions to the 
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for 
the Pittsburgh Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A 
of the CAA as described previously in this notice. EPA is also 
proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the 
Pittsburgh Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is 
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. 
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR28355 (May 22, 2001)). This 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new 
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects 
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new 
regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to 
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not 
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not 
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the 
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed 
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area, 
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to 
avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter 
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an

[[Page 37695]]

action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not 
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of 
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this 
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order.
    This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Pittsburgh 
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated 
maintenance plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and the MVEBs 
identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxides, 
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 28, 2007.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-3325 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>