# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 66 Fed. Reg. 53094 2001

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon May 24 18:50:46 2010

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

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 203/Friday, October 19, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

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

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

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

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

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

sources:

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

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

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining thatthe Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

redesignate thearea? V.What arethe effects ofredesignation to

attainment ofthe 1 -hourNAAQS? VI.Administrative Requirements.

I.What Is theBackground forThese Actions?

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

### 53094

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

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

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

A. CommentsRelatedto Whetherthe Area HasaFullyApprovedPlan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

area continues to attain the 1-hour

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

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

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

ozone standard.

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

### 53095

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

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

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

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

no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.

The suspension ofthe attainment demonstration requirements pursuant to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sources ofVOC," located within those

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

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

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

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

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

### 53096

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

area can do is to meetthe requirement

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

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

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

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

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

ozone nonattainment areas apply to

ozone attainment areas and to marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 53097

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53097 2001

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

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

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

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

ozone nonattainment area at such time

asthat area has an approved attainment demonstration.

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

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

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

Even iftheNSR program for Pittsburgh were not fully approved the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 53098

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53098 2001

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

(6) Approval ofthe NOx SIP Call

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, we do not agree thatthe NOx SIP call submission shouldbe construed
to be an applicable requirement for
purposes ofredesignation. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176) (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826) (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458) (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, 62741) (December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890) (June 19, 2000). (7)Photochemical Grid Modeling and Favorable Meteorology
Comment:The commenter asserts that neither the states nor EPAhave shown that air quality improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, asrequired by42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The commenter takes issue with the finding that this criteria is met because, although the Commonwealth has adopted measures that have produced some emission reductions, the commenter believes that EPA has not demonstrated that these reductions are responsible for the area's improved air quality or the absence of violations. The commenter claims that the only way to reliably make such a showing would be through photochemical grid modeling. The
commenter states thatno suchmodeling is presented or discussed in this proposal and that given the complex chemistry and meteorology ofozone formation, the combination ofNOx and VOC emission reductions that mightbe attributable to the citedmeasures could just as easily lead to increases in ozone concentrations. The lack ofviolations in 1998-2000, the commenter states, could just as wellbe due to weather patterns

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

area has attained the NAAQS, to be speculative.

Another commenter asserted the area

was aided in attainment by a 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 53099

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on ozone concentrations, both in terms ofincreasing ozone and decreasing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53100 2001

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

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

### 1974 TO 

### 2000

Average

Year Design expected monitor exceedances per year

1974-1976 Baden

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

... 5.7 1976-1978 Beaver Falls

... 13.2 1977-1979 Beaver Falls

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

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

.. Harrison 0.7 Township. 1993-1995

.. Harrison 3.0 Township. 1994-1996

.. Harrison 2.7 Township. 1995-1997

.. Harrison 3.3 Township. 1996-1998

.. Charleroi

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

.. Penn Hills

...... 1.3 1998-2000

.. Charleroi

........ 1.0

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

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

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

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

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

areas across the country into attainment.

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

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

The comment thatEPA should not

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

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

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

amaintenance demonstration based on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 53101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, any changes made by the Commonwealth to SIP approved

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

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

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

In afinal rulemaking actionpublished

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

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

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

measures to be implemented should the

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

assure correction ofany violations in the Pittsburgh area and thatthese

measures are onlyunder consideration. One commenter states that the VOC

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

measure could take up to two years.

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

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

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

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

sources and source operations, namely

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

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

### 53102

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

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

ensure that the contingency measures

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

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

an exceedance or increase in the emissions inventory provide further

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

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

are needed toprevent afuture 1-hour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response:Stage II, auto refinishing,

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

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

E.CommentsRelatedto theMonitoring DataandtheMonitoringNetwork

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

ozone datahad been quality assured.

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

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

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

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

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

EPA regulations contemplate that the monitoring network may change over 53103

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are no statutory orregulatory requirements that PADEP make its

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

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

ozone standards.

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

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

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

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

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

III. What Actions Are We Taking?

We are determining that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ozone seasons that demonstrate thatthe

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

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

ozone NAAQS has been attained, the

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. GeneralRequirements

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

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

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

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

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

new requirements on sources, or allows

a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter therelationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order donot apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meetthe criteria ofthe CAA. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when itreviews

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

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

B. Submission to Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

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

C.Petitions for JudicialReview

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

List ofSubjects

40 CFRPart52

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

40 CFRPart81

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

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

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

as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

on March 22, 1996 and supplemented

on February 18, 1997.
§52.2037 [Amended]

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

PART 81-[AMENDED]

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

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

* * * * *

PENNSYLVANIA-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area: Allegheny County

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

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

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

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

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

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

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

I.Background

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

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 53106 2001