Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37683 

show overhead slides or make 

computerized slide presentations unless 

we receive special requests in advance. 

Commenters should notify Ms. Crabtree 

if they will need specific audiovisual 

(AV) equipment. Commenters should 

also notify Ms. Crabtree if they need 

specific translation services for nonEnglish speaking commenters. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide 

written versions of their oral testimonies 

either electronically on computer disk 

or CD ROM or in paper copy. 

The hearing schedules, including lists 

of speakers, will be posted on EPA’s 

Web site for the proposal at http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/ 

actions.html prior to the hearings. 

Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and 

written statements will be included in 

the rulemaking dockets. 

How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

The EPA has established the official 

public docket for the ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ under 

Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–

0172. The EPA has also developed a 

Web site for the proposal at the address 

given above. Please refer to the 

proposal, published elsewhere in this 

Federal Register, for detailed 

information on accessing information 

related to the proposal. 

Dated: July 5, 2007. 

Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. E7–13526 Filed 7–10–07; 11:37 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0453; FRL–8336–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Area’s Maintenance 

Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory 

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: 

cripps.christopher@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0453, 

Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR–2007–

0453. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

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 cripps.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37684 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing 

To Take? 

II. What is the Background for These 

Proposed Actions? 

III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment? 

IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions? 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s 

Request and SIP Revision? 

VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and 

Identify Adequate and Approvable Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the 

Pittsburgh Area? 

VIII. Proposed Actions 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the Actions that EPA is 

Proposing To Take? 

On April 26, 2007, PADEP formally 

submitted a request to redesignate the 

Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to 

attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone. Concurrently, on April 26, 2007, 

PADEP submitted a maintenance plan 

for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision 

to ensure continued attainment of the 8- 

hour NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 

2002 base year inventory as a SIP 

revision on April 26, 2007. The 

Pittsburgh Area is currently designated 

as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area and is covered by a maintenance 

plan for the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and that it has met the 

requirements for redesignation pursuant 

to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA 

is, therefore, proposing to approve the 

redesignation request to change the 

designation of the Pittsburgh Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the Pittsburgh 

Area maintenance plan as a SIP 

revision, such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status. The maintenance 

plan is designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Pittsburgh Area for the 

next ten years. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 2002 base year inventory 

for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision. 

Additionally, EPA is announcing its 

action on the adequacy process for the 

MVEBs identified in the Pittsburgh Area 

maintenance plan, and proposing to 

approve the MVEBs identified for 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

II. What is the Background for These 

Proposed Actions? 

A. General 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

NOX and VOC react in the presence of 

sunlight to form ground-level ozone. 

The air pollutants NOX and VOC are 

referred to as precursors of ozone. The 

CAA establishes a process for air quality 

management through the attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). This new 

standard is more stringent than the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA 

designated, as nonattainment, any area 

violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the air quality data for the 

three years of 2001–2003. These were 

the most recent three years of data at the 

time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The 

Pittsburgh Area was designated as basic 

8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a 

Federal Register notice signed on April 

15, 2004 and published on April 30, 

2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its 

exceedance of the 8-hour health-based 

standard for ozone during the years 

2001–2003. On April 30, 2004, EPA 

issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) 

to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the Pittsburgh Area (as well as most 

other areas of the country) effective June 

15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 

23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 

44470 (August 3, 2005). 

However, on December 22, 2006, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule for the 8-hour 

Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 

2004). South Coast Air Quality 

Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 

(DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04–1201 

(hereafter ‘‘South Coast’’), in response to 

several petitions for rehearing, the DC 

Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule 

was vacated only with regard to those 

parts of the rule that had been 

successfully challenged. Therefore, the 

Phase 1 Rule provisions related to 

classifications for areas currently 

classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part 

D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment 

areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and 

the timing for emissions reductions 

needed for attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS remain effective. The 

June 8 decision left intact the Court’s 

rejection of EPA’s reasons for 

implementing the 8-hour standard in 

certain nonattainment areas under 

subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 

limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand 

EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard 

and those anti-backsliding provisions of 

the Phase 1 Rule that had not been 

successfully challenged. The June 8 

decision reaffirmed the December 22, 

2006 decision that EPA had improperly 

failed to retain four measures required 

for 1-hour nonattainment areas under 

the anti-backsliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) Section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain transportation conformity 

requirements for certain types of federal 

actions. The June 8 decision clarified 

that the Court’s reference to conformity 

requirements was limited to requiring 

the continued use of 1-hour motor 

vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour 

budgets were available for 8-hour 

conformity determinations. 

Elsewhere in this document, mainly 

in section VI. B. ‘‘The Pittsburgh Area 

Has Met All Applicable Requirements 

Under Section 110 and Part D of the 

CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,’’ EPA 

discusses its rationale why the decisions 

in South Coast are not an impediment 

to redesignating the Pittsburgh Area to 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two 

sets of provisions—subpart 1 and 

subpart 2—that address planning and 

control requirements for nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as 

‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains 

general, less prescriptive requirements 

for nonattainment areas for any 

pollutant—including ozone—governed 

by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA 

refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment) 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas are 

subject only to the provisions of subpart 

1. Other areas are also subject to the 

provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA’s 8- 

hour ozone implementation rule, signed 

on April 15, 2004, an area was classified 

under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour 

ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year 

average annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 

1-hour design value in the CAA for 

subpart 2 requirements). All other areas 

are covered under subpart 1, based upon 

their 8-hour design values. In 2004, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). See 69 FR 

23857, (April 30, 2004) for further 

information. Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet data completeness 

requirements. The data completeness 

requirements are met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR 

part 50. Based upon ozone monitoring 

data for the period 2003 through 2006 

(inclusive), the Pittsburgh Area has a 

design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year 

period 2003 through 2005 and has a 

design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year 

period 2004 through 2006. Therefore, 

the ambient ozone data for the 

Pittsburgh Area indicates no violations 

of the 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. The Pittsburgh Area 

The Pittsburgh Area is comprised of 

Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, 

Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland 

counties. Prior to its designation as an 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the 

Pittsburgh Area had been designated 

and classified as a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour 

standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, 

November 6, 1991. On October 19, 2001 

(66 FR 53094), EPA approved a request 

to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

and approved a maintenance plan SIP 

revision. 

On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested 

that the Pittsburgh Area be redesignated 

to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The redesignation request 

included 3 years of complete, qualityassured data for the period of 2003–

2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS 

for ozone had been achieved in the 

Pittsburgh Area. The data satisfies the 

CAA requirements when the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration (commonly referred to as 

the area’s design value) is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). Under the 

CAA, a nonattainment area may be 

redesignated if sufficient complete, 

quality-assured data is available to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements set 

forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). 

III. What are the Criteria for 

Redesignation to Attainment? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for 

redesignation, providing that: 

(1) EPA determines that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS; 

(2) EPA has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); 

(3) EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; 

(4) EPA has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and 

(5) The State containing such area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and Part D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Design Value Calculations,’’

Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 

1990; 

• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

• ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992; 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, October 

28, 1992; 

• ‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

• Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of Actual 

Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated November 

30, 1993; 

• ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

• ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? 

On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested 

redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. On April 26, 2007, PADEP 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision to 

assure continued attainment at least 10 

years after redesignation. EPA has 

determined that the Pittsburgh Area has 

attained the standard and has met the 

requirements for redesignation set forth 

in section 107(d)(3)(E). 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the designation of the 

Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also 

incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a 

2002 base year inventory and a 

maintenance plan ensuring continued 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the Pittsburgh Area for the next 10 

years. The maintenance plan includes 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37686 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS 

(should they occur), and identifies the 

MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 

transportation conformity purposes for 

the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs 

(2009 and 2018) are displayed in the 

following table: 

TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS

[Tons per day (rounded to two decimal 

places)] 

Year VOC 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 qualityassured 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 threeyear 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

Year 

Annual 4th 

High 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37687 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. See Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 

25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis). 

This section also sets forth EPA’s 

views on the potential effect of the 

Court’s rulings on this proposed 

redesignation action. For the reasons set 

forth below, EPA does not believe that 

the Court’s rulings alters any 

requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation, and do not prevent EPA 

from proposing or ultimately finalizing 

this redesignation. EPA believes that the 

Court’s December 22, 2006 and June 8, 

2007 decisions impose no impediment 

to moving forward with redesignation of 

this area to attainment, because even in 

light of the Court’s decisions 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

Act and longstanding policies regarding 

redesignation requests. 

1. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

• Submittal of a SIP that has been 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

public notice and hearing; 

• Provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

• Implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirement 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of Part D requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a State from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another State. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

States to establish programs to address 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX

SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) 

and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, 

the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for 

a State are not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification in that State. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classifications are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a State regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the State. 

Thus, we do not believe that these 

requirements should be construed to be 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes 

that the other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Pittsburgh Area will 

still be subject to these requirements 

after it is redesignated. The section 110 

and Part D requirements, which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification, are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

policy is consistent with EPA’s existing 

policy on applicability of conformity 

(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated 

fuels requirement. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings, (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 

FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 

50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly, 

with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, 

EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, 

that the NOX SIP Call rules are not ‘‘an 

‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of 

section 110(l) because the NOX rules 

apply regardless of an area’s attainment 

or nonattainment status for the 8-hour 

(or the 1-hour) NAAQS.’’ 69 FR 23951, 

23983 (April 30, 2004). 

EPA believes that section 110 

elements not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Any 

section 110 requirements that are linked 

to the Part D requirements for 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas are not yet 

due, because, as we explain later in this 

notice, no Part D requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under the 8-hour standard became due 

prior to submission of the redesignation 

request. 

Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies 

all of the applicable general SIP 

elements and requirements set forth in 

section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes that 

Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion 

of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 

110 of the Act. 

2. Part D Nonattainment Area 

Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Standard 

Sections 172–176 of the CAA, found 

in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements for all 

nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the 

CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, 

establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. 

Under an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 

FR 23951), EPA classified the Pittsburgh 

Area as a subpart 1 nonattainment area 

under the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA 

believes that no subpart 1 requirements 

need to be approved prior to 

redesignation. Of the nonattainment 

plan provisions due under section 172, 

none were due prior to submission of 

the complete redesignation request 

because EPA’s November 29, 2005 final 

rule (70 FR 71612) set the deadline for 

these requirements at 3 years after 

resignation, which for the Pittsburgh 

Area is June 15, 2007. 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

the Court’s rulings in South Coast 

rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying 

areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour 

standard, and remanded that matter to 

the Agency. Consequently, it is possible 

that this area could, during a remand to 

EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. 

Although any future decision by EPA to 

classify this area under subpart 2 might 

trigger additional future requirements 

for the area, EPA believes that this does 

not mean that redesignation cannot now 

go forward. This belief is based upon (1) 

EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time the request 

is submitted; and (2) consideration of 

the inequity of applying retroactively 

any requirements that might in the 

future be applied. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the Pittsburgh 

Area was classified under subpart 1 and 

was obligated to meet only subpart 1 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37688 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

requirements. Under EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to 

qualify for redesignation, states 

requesting redesignation to attainment 

must meet only the relevant SIP 

requirements that came due prior to the 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum (‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division). See also 

Michael Shapiro Memorandum, 

September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–12466 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004), which upheld this 

interpretation; and 68 FR 25418, 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

DC Circuit has recognized the inequity 

in such retroactive rulemaking, see 

Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 

(DC Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit 

upheld a District Court’s ruling refusing 

to make retroactive an EPA 

determination of nonattainment that 

was past the statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The Court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly, here it would be unfair to 

penalize the area by applying to it for 

purposes of redesignation additional SIP 

requirements under subpart 2 that were 

not in effect at the time it submitted its 

redesignation request. 

With respect to subpart 2 

requirements, if the Pittsburgh Area 

initially had been classified under 

subpart the first two-part D subpart 2 

requirements applicable to the 

Pittsburgh Area under section 182(a) of 

the CAA would be: (1) A base-year 

inventory requirement pursuant to 

section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, (2) 

the emissions statement requirement 

pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the 

CAA. 

As we have stated previously in this 

document, these requirements are not 

yet due for purpose of redesignation of 

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, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour 

standard that the Court found were not 

properly retained, the Pittsburgh Area is 

an attainment area subject to a 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the NSR, contingency 

measures (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) 

or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision 

requirements no longer apply to an area 

that has been redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus the decision in South Coast 

should not alter any requirements that 

would preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of this area. 

4. Transport Region Requirements 

All areas in the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR), both attainment and 

nonattainment, are subject to additional 

control requirements under section 184 

for the purpose of reducing interstate 

transport of emissions that may 

contribute to downwind ozone 

nonattainment. The section 184 

requirements include reasonably 

available control technology (RACT), 

NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M), and Stage II vapor 

recovery or a comparable measure. In 

the case of the Pittsburgh Area, which 

is located in the OTR, nonattainment 

NSR will continue to be applicable after 

redesignation as discussed previously in 

this document. 

EPA has also interpreted the section 

184 OTR requirements, including NSR, 

as not being applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. See the Reading, 

Pennsylvania redesignation proposed 

and final rules, 61 FR 53174, (October 

10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 

1997), respectively. The rationale for 

this is based on two considerations. 

First, the requirement to submit SIP 

revisions for the section 184 

requirements continues to apply to areas 

in the OTR after redesignation to 

attainment. Therefore, the State remains 

obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, 

and I/M even after redesignation. 

Second, the section 184 control 

measures are region-wide requirements 

and do not apply to the area by virtue 

of the area’s nonattainment designation 

and classification, and thus are properly 

considered not relevant to an action 

changing an area’s designation. See 61 

FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10, 

1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832 

(May 7, 1997). 

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 Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions 

attributable to these rules are shown in 

Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 

[In tons per day (tpd)] 

Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Year 2002 .................................................................................................................... 16.5 100.3 51.5 86.4 254.7 

Year 2004 .................................................................................................................... 15.5 98.1 48.8 73.3 235.7 

Diff. (02–04) ................................................................................................................. 1.0 2.2 2.7 13.1 19.0 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

Year 2002 .................................................................................................................... 250.4 11.5 86.1 173.9 522.0 

Year 2004 .................................................................................................................... 202.8 11.7 81.5 148.8 444.8 

Diff. (02–04) ................................................................................................................. 47.6 –0.2 4.6 25.1 77.2 

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC 

emissions were reduced by 19.0 tpd, 

and NOX emissions were reduced by 

77.2 tpd, due to the following 

permanent and enforceable measures 

implemented in the Pittsburgh Area: 

(1) Stationary Area Sources 

(a) Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, 

January 16, 2003), 

(b) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 

70893, December 8, 2004); 

(2) Highway Vehicle Sources 

(a) Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program (FMVCP), Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, 

June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, 

February 10, 2000), 

(b) Federal Heavy Duty Engines and 

Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694, 

October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, 

October 6, 2000), 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37690 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(c) National Low Emission Vehicle 

(NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28, 

1999), 

(d) Vehicle Emission Inspection/ 

Maintenance (I/M) Program (64 FR 

32411, June 17, 1999 and 70 FR 58313, 

October 6, 2005); 

(3) Nonroad Sources—Federal 

Nonroad Engine and Fuels (40 CFR 

parts 89 to 91, and 1039, 1048 and 

1051); and 

(4) Stationary Point Sources—

Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution 

Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR 

43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, 

September 29, 2006) (66 FR 43795, 

August 21, 2001 and 71 FR 57428, 

September 29, 2006). 

EPA believes that permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions are the 

cause of the long-term improvement in 

ozone levels and are the cause of the 

area achieving attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

D. The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

Pennsylvania submitted for approval 

under section 175A of the CAA the 

April 26, 2007, maintenance plan to 

fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for 

the 8-hour standard. Pennsylvania 

submitted this SIP revision to provide 

for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for at 

least 10 years after redesignation. Once 

approved, the maintenance plan for the 

ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP 

for the Pittsburgh Area meets the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the applicable ozone 

standards including the 8-hour 

standard. 

1. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A(a), the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after approval of a redesignation of 

an area to attainment. Section 175A(b) 

requires that eight years after the 

redesignation the State must submit a 

revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the next 

10-year period following the initial 10- 

year period. To address the possibility 

of future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation, as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the 

elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

Calcagni memorandum dated September 

4, 1992, provides additional guidance 

on the content of a maintenance plan. 

An ozone maintenance plan should 

address the following provisions: 

(1) An attainment emissions 

inventory; 

(2) A maintenance demonstration; 

(3) A monitoring network; 

(4) Verification of continued 

attainment; and 

(5) A contingency plan. 

2. Analysis of the Pittsburgh Area 

Maintenance Plan 

(a) Attainment Inventory—An 

attainment inventory includes the 

emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. An attainment year 

of 2004 was used for the Pittsburgh Area 

since it is a reasonable year within the 

3-year attainment period of 2003–2005 

and accounts for reductions attributable 

to implementation of the CAA 

requirements to date. 

PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC 

and NOX emissions inventories for the 

Pittsburgh Area, including point, area, 

mobile on-road, and mobile non-road 

sources for a base year of 2002. 

To develop the NOX and VOC base 

year emissions inventories, PADEP used 

the following approaches and sources of 

data: 

(i) Point source emissions—

Pennsylvania requires owners and 

operators of larger facilities to submit 

annual production figures and emission 

calculations each year. Throughput data 

are multiplied by emission factors from 

Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data 

System and EPA’s publication series 

AP–42 and are based on Source 

Classification Code (SCC). Each process 

has at least one SCC assigned to it. If the 

owners and operators of facilities 

provide more accurate emission data 

based upon other factors, these emission 

estimates supersede those calculated 

using SCC codes. 

(ii) Area source emissions—Area 

source emissions are generally 

estimated by multiplying an emission 

factor by some known indicator or 

collective activity for each area source 

category at the county level. 

Pennsylvania estimates emissions from 

area sources using emission factors and 

SCC codes in a method similar to that 

used for stationary point sources. 

Emission factors may also be derived 

from research and guidance documents 

if those documents are more accurate 

than FIRE and AP–42 factors. 

Throughput estimates are derived from 

county-level activity data, by 

apportioning national and statewide 

activity data to counties, from census 

numbers, and from county employee 

numbers. County employee numbers are 

based upon North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes to 

establish that those numbers are specific 

to the industry covered. 

(iii) On-road mobile sources—PADEP 

employs an emissions estimation 

methodology that uses current EPAapproved highway vehicle emission 

model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate 

highway vehicle emissions. The 

Pittsburgh Area highway vehicle 

emissions in 2004 were estimated using 

MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle 

type and roadway type. 

(iv) Mobile nonroad emissions—The 

2002 emissions for the majority of 

nonroad emission source categories 

were estimated using the EPA 

NONROAD 2005 model. The 

NONROAD model estimates emissions 

for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum 

gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled nonroad equipment types and 

includes growth factors. The NONROAD 

model does not estimate emissions from 

aircraft or locomotives. For 2002 

locomotive emissions, PADEP projected 

emissions from a 1999 survey using 

national fuel information and EPA 

emission and conversion factors. 

Commercial aircraft operations are 

significant in the Pittsburgh area. 

Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) 

accounts for all commercial operations 

in the Pittsburgh area. PADEP 

quantified the emissions at PIT with the 

Emissions and Dispersion Modeling 

System (EDMS) that is an EPA-approved 

model. For other 2002 aircraft 

emissions, PADEP estimated emissions 

using small aircraft operation statistics 

from 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 

NOX emissions for the Pittsburgh Area 

are summarized along with the 2009 

and 2018 projected emissions for this 

area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the 

demonstration of maintenance for this 

area. EPA has concluded that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 37691 

Pennsylvania has adequately derived 

and documented the 2004 attainment 

year VOC and NOX emissions for this 

area. 

(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On 

April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a SIP 

revision to supplement its April 26, 

2007, redesignation request. The 

submittal by PADEP consists of the 

maintenance plan as required by section 

175A of the CAA. The Pittsburgh Area 

plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that 

current and future emissions of VOC 

and NOX remain at or below the 

attainment year 2004 emissions levels 

throughout the Pittsburgh Area through 

the year 2018. The Pittsburgh Area 

maintenance demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See 

also, 66 FR at 53099–53100; 68 FR at 

25430–25432. 

Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Pittsburgh Area 

for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose 

2009 as an interim year in the 10-year 

maintenance demonstration period to 

demonstrate that the VOC and NOX

emissions are not projected to increase 

above the 2004 attainment level during 

the time of the 10-year maintenance 

period. 

TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD) 

Source category 2004 VOC 

emissions 

2009 VOC 

emissions 

2018 VOC 

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) 

Source category 2004 NOX

emissions 

2009 NOX

emissions 

2018 NOX

emissions 

Mobile* ................................................................................................................................................. 148.8 101 .53 41 .15 

Nonroad ............................................................................................................................................... 81.5 70 .5 55 .6 

Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 11.7 12 .1 12 .2 

Point ..................................................................................................................................................... 202.8 255 .2 273 .6 

Total .............................................................................................................................................. 444.8 439 .33 382 .55 

* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity. 

The following are permanent and 

enforceable control measures to ensure 

emissions during the maintenance 

period and are equal to or less than the 

emissions in the attainment year: 

(1) Pennsylvania’s Portable Fuel 

Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 

70893); 

(2) Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products 

(December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895); 

(3) Pennsylvania’s Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings 

(November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080); and 

(4) Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution 

Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR 

43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, 

September 29, 2006). 

Additionally, the following mobile 

programs are either effective or due to 

become effective and will further 

contribute to the maintenance 

demonstration of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS: 

(1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and 

light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline 

(2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 and Tier 

2; 

(2) NLEV Program, which includes 

the Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle 

Program for passenger vehicles and 

light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564, 

December 28, 1999); 

(3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/ 

2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006) (66 

FR 5002, January 18, 2001); 

(4) Non-road emissions standards 

(2008) and off-road diesel fuel (2007/ 

2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004); and 

(5) Pennsylvania’s vehicle emission 

inspection/maintenance program 

(October 6, 2005, 70 FR 58313). 

In addition to the permanent and 

enforceable measures, the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated 

May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) should 

have positive impacts on Pennsylvania’s 

air quality. CAIR, which will be 

implemented in the eastern portion of 

the country in two phases (2009 and 

2015) should reduce long range 

transport of ozone precursors and will 

have a beneficial effect on the air quality 

in the Pittsburgh Area. 

Pennsylvania and other nearby states 

are required to adopt a regulation 

implementing the requirements of CAIR 

or an equivalent program. On April 28, 

2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to 

reduce the interstate transport of NOX

and sulfur dioxides that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment and 

maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

NAAQS. If Pennsylvania has not 

adopted its own CAIR requirements and 

obtained EPA’s approval of the required 

SIP revision by September 2007, the FIP 

will impose the Federal program upon 

CAIR-affected electric generating units 

in Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Area 

does have several sources which are 

subject to regulation under CAIR. For 

the maintenance demonstration, 

Pennsylvania did not rely upon any 

reductions from CAIR from these 

facilities. However, the quality of air 

transported from upwind sources into 

the county would be improved. 

Based upon the comparison of the 

projected emissions and the attainment 

year emissions along with the additional 

measures, EPA concludes that PADEP 

has successfully demonstrated that the 

8-hour ozone standard should be 

maintained in the Pittsburgh Area. 

(c) Monitoring Network—Currently 

there are thirteen monitors measuring 

ozone in the Pittsburgh Area. 

Pennsylvania will continue to operate 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37692 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

an air quality monitoring network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

(d) Verification of Continued 

Attainment—The Commonwealth will 

track the attainment status of the ozone 

NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area by 

reviewing air quality and emissions 

during the maintenance period. The 

Commonwealth will perform an annual 

evaluation of two key factors, VMT data 

and emissions reported from stationary 

sources, and compare them to the 

assumptions about these factors used in 

the maintenance plan. The 

Commonwealth will also evaluate the 

periodic (every three years) emission 

inventories prepared under EPA’s 

Consolidated Emission Reporting 

Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) 

to see if the area exceed the attainment 

year inventory (2004) by more than 10 

percent. Based on these evaluations, the 

Commonwealth will consider whether 

any further emission control measures 

should be implemented. 

(e) The Maintenance Plan’s 

Contingency Measures—The 

contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to ensure that the 

State will promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the events that would 

‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and 

implementation of a contingency 

measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 

that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

measure(s). 

The ability of the Pittsburgh Area to 

stay in compliance with the 8-hour 

ozone standard after redesignation 

depends upon VOC and NOX emissions 

in the area remaining at or below 2004 

levels. The Commonwealth’s 

maintenance plan projects VOC and 

NOX emissions to decrease and stay 

below 2004 levels through the year 

2018. The Commonwealth’s 

maintenance plan outlines the 

procedures for the adoption and 

implementation of contingency 

measures to further reduce emissions 

should a violation occur. 

Contingency measures will be 

considered if for two consecutive years 

the fourth highest eight-hour ozone 

concentrations at the Pittsburgh Area 

design monitor are above 84 ppb. If this 

trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth 

will evaluate whether additional local 

emission control measures should be 

implemented in order to prevent a 

violation of the air quality standard. 

PADEP will analyze the conditions 

leading to the excessive ozone levels 

and evaluate what measures might be 

most effective in correcting the 

excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also 

analyze the potential emissions effect of 

Federal, state and local measure that 

have been adopted but no yet 

implemented at the time of excessive 

ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then 

begin the process of implementing any 

selected measures. 

Contingency measures will be 

adopted in the event that a violation of 

the 8-hour ozone standard occurs in the 

Pittsburgh Area. In the event of a 

violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, 

contingency measures will be adopted 

in order to return the area to attainment 

with the standard. Contingency 

measures to be considered for the 

Pittsburgh Area will include, but not 

limited to the following: 

Regulatory measures: 

—Additional controls on consumer 

products 

—Additional control on portable fuel 

containers 

Non-regulatory measures: 

—Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip 

reflash’’ ‘‘ installation software to 

correct the defeat device option on 

certain heavy duty diesel engines. 

—Diesel retrofit, including replacement, 

repowering or alternative fuel use, for 

public or private local onroad or 

offroad fleets. 

—Idling reduction technology for Class 

2 yard locomotives. 

—Idling reduction technologies or 

strategies for truck stops, warehouses 

and other freight-handling facilities. 

—Accelerated turnover of lawn and 

garden equipment, especially 

commercial equipment, including 

promotion of electric equipment. 

• Additional promotion of alternative 

fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating 

and agricultural use. 

The following schedule applies to the 

implementation of the regulatory 

contingency measures: 

—Within 1 month of the trigger, submit 

request to begin regulatory 

development process. 

—Within 3 months of the trigger, review 

of regulation by Air Quality Technical 

Advisory Committee (AQTAC), 

Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) and 

other advisory committees as 

appropriate. 

—Within 6 months of the trigger, 

Environmental Quality Board (EQB) 

meeting/action. 

—Within 8 months of the trigger, 

publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin 

for comment as proposed rulemaking. 

—Within 10 months of the trigger, 

public hearing takes place and 

comment period on proposed rule 

closes. 

—Within 11 months of the trigger, 

House and Senate Standing 

Committees and Independent 

Regulatory Review Commission 

(IRRC) comment on proposed rule. 

—Within 13 months of the trigger, 

AQTAC, CAC and other committees 

review responses to comments and 

draft final rulemaking. 

—Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB 

meeting/action. 

—Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC 

action on rulemaking. 

—Within 18 months of the trigger, 

Attorney General’s review/action. 

—Within 19 months of the trigger, 

publication in the Pennsylvania 

Bulletin as a final rulemaking and 

submit to EPA as a SIP revision. The 

regulation would become effective 

upon publication in the Pennsylvania 

Bulletin. 

The following schedule applies to the 

implementation of non-regulatory 

contingency measures: 

—Within 2 months of the trigger: 

Identify stakeholders for potential 

non-regulatory measures. 

—Within 3 months of the trigger, if 

funding is necessary, identify 

potential sources of funding and the 

timeframe under which funds would 

be available. In addition to non-Title 

V Clean Air funds, the following 

program may be able to provide 

funding: for transportation projects, 

the Federal Highway Administration, 

as allocated to the two municipal 

planning organizations in the 

Pittsburgh Area; for projects which 

will also have an energy efficient cobenefit, the Pennsylvania Energy 

Harvest program; for projects which 

would be undertaken by small 

business and are pollution prevention 

projects, the Small Business 

Advantage Grant and Small Business 

Pollution Prevention Loan programs; 

for projects which will involve 

alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling 

operations, the Alternative Fuel 

Incentive Grant program; for projects 

involving diesel emissions, Federal 

Energy Policy Act diesel reduction 

funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for 

which Pennsylvania or project 

sponsors may apply under a 

competitive process. 

—Within 6 months of the trigger, work 

with the area planning commissions 

to identify land use planning 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 

Revisions for Existing Areas; 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change’’

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA 

follows this guidance and rulemaking in 

making its adequacy determinations. 

The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area 

are listed in Table 1 of this document 

for the 2009, and 2018 years and are the 

projected emissions for the on-road 

mobile sources plus any portion of the 

safety margin allocated to the MVEBs. 

These emission budgets, when approved 

by EPA, must be used for transportation 

conformity determinations. 

B. What Is a Safety Margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The following example is for the 2018 

safety margin: The Pittsburgh Area first 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

during the 2002 to 2004 time period. 

The Commonwealth used 2004 as the 

year to determine attainment levels of 

emissions for the Pittsburgh Area. 

The total emissions from point, area, 

mobile on-road, and mobile non-road 

sources in 2004 were 235.7 tpd of VOC 

and 444.8 tpd of NOX. PADEP projected 

emissions out to the year 2018 and 

obtained totals of 183.91 tpd of VOC 

and 382.55 tpd of NOX from all sources 

in the Pittsburgh Area. The safety 

margin for the Pittsburgh Area for 2018 

would be the difference between these 

amounts. This difference is 51.79 tpd of 

VOC and 62.25 tpd of NOX. The 

emissions up to the level of the 

attainment year including the safety 

margins are projected to maintain the 

area’s air quality consistent with the 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

Inventory year VOC emissions (tpd) 

NOX emissions (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 NOX to the 2009 interim NOX onroad mobile source emissions projection 

to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 

2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 4.60 

tpd VOC and 3.32 tpd NOX from the 

2018 safety margins to the 2018 on-road 

mobile source emissions projections to 

arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once 

allocated to the mobile source budgets 

these portions of the safety margins are 

no longer available, and may no longer 

be allocated to any other source 

category. Table 7 shows the final 2009 

and 2018 MVEBS for the Pittsburgh 

Area. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
37694 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL

MVEBS FOR THE PITTSBURGH AREA

TONS PER DAY

[Rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd] 

Inventory year VOC emissions 

NOX 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 NOX 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to List 12 Penguin Species as 

Threatened or Endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list 12 

penguin species: emperor penguin 

(Aptenodytes forsteri), southern 

rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes 

chrysocome), northern rockhopper 

penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi (E. 

chrysocome moseleyi)), fiordland 

crested penguin (Eudyptes 

pachyrhynchus), snares crested penguin 

(Eudyptes robustus), erect-crested 

penguin (Eudyptes sclateri), macaroni 

penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), royal 

penguin (Eudyptes schlegeli), whiteflippered penguin (Eudyptula 

albosignata (E. minor albosignata)), 

yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes 

antipodes), African penguin 

(Spheniscus demersus), and Humboldt 

penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing 10 species of penguins may be 

warranted. We, therefore, are initiating 

a status review of 10 species of penguins 

to determine if listing under the Act is 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial 

information regarding these species. We 

find the petition does not provide 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing of 

two species may be warranted: snares 

crested penguin and royal penguin. 

Therefore, we will not be initiating a 

status review for these two species in 

response to this petition. However, we 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of these two 

species or threats to them or their 

habitat at any time. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before September 10, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, 

information, and questions by any one 

of the following methods: By mail to the 

Special Assistant to the Deputy 

Assistant Director, International Affairs, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Room 760, Arlington, VA 

22203; by fax to 703–358–2276; by email to DSApenguins@fws.gov; or 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Peter O. Thomas at the above address, 

or by telephone, 703–358–1708; or email, DSApenguins@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you 

submit information or comments, please 

include ‘‘Attn: Penguins’’ in the 

beginning of your message. Electronic 

attachments in standard formats (such 

as .pdf or .doc) are acceptable, but 

please name the software necessary to 

open any attachments in formats other 

than those given above. Also, please 

include your name and return address 

in your e-mail message. If you do not 

receive a confirmation from the system 

that we have received your e-mail 

message, please submit your comments 

in writing using one of the alternate 

methods described above. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this status review will be 

as accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party. We are opening a 60- 

day public comment period to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

provide information on the statuses of 

10 species of penguins: emperor 

penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), southern 

rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes 

chrysocome), northern rockhopper 

penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi (E. 

chrysocome moseleyi)), fiordland 

crested penguin (Eudyptes 

pachyrhynchus), erect-crested penguin 

(Eudyptes sclateri), macaroni penguin 

(Eudyptes chrysolophus), whiteflippered penguin (Eudyptula 

albosignata (E. minor albosignata)), 

yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes 

antipodes), African penguin 

(Spheniscus demersus), and Humboldt 

penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) 

throughout their range, including: 

(1) Information on taxonomy, 

distribution, habitat selection and 

trends (especially breeding and foraging 

habitats), diet, and population 

abundance and trends (especially 

current recruitment data) on these 

species; 

(2) Information on the effects of 

climate change and changing ocean or 

land or sea ice conditions on the 

distribution and abundance of these 

species and their principal prey species 

over the short and long term (especially 

information on known prey 

substitutions, and what their effects 

would be on these species); 

(3) Information on the effects of other 

potential threat factors, including 

commercial fishing activities, 

contaminants, habitat loss, harvest, 

predation by other animals, and 

diseases of these species or their 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS