26046 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

66101. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule that is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hamilton at (913) 551–7039, or 

by e-mail at Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule that is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: April 30, 2007. 

John B. Askew, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. E7–8775 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0677b; FRL–8303–3] 

Revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan, Washoe County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Washoe County portion 

of the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

fugitive dust sources, such as open 

areas, unpaved roads, and construction 

activities. We are proposing to approve 

local rules to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by June 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0677b, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 

either (415) 947–4111, or 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses Washoe County 

Regulation 040.030–Dust Control. In the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving this 

local rule in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. 

However, if we receive adverse 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

address the comments in subsequent 

action based on this proposed rule. 

Please note that if we receive adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, we may adopt as 

final those provisions of the rule that are 

not the subject of an adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: March 29, 2007. 

Enrique Manzanilla, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E7–8694 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0862; FRL–8310–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Tioga County 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 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) is requesting that the Tioga 

County ozone nonattainment area (Tioga 

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 Tioga Area. In 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request, PADEP submitted a SIP 

revision consisting of a maintenance 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26047 

plan for Tioga 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 Tioga 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 Tioga 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 Tioga 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 Tioga 

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 June 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2006–0862 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0862, 

Linda Miller, 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–2006–

0862. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The 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 www.regulations.gov, your email 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 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: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Are the Actions 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? 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in the 

Maintenance Plan for the Tioga Area 

Adequate and Approvable? 

VIII. Proposed Action 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is 

Proposing to Take? 

On September 28, 2006, PADEP 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Tioga Area from 

nonattainment to attainment of the 8- 

hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, 

on September 28, 2006, PADEP 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

Tioga Area as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment for at least 10 

years after redesignation. PADEP also 

submitted a 2002 base year inventory as 

a SIP revision on September 28, 2006 

and a supplement submittal on 

November 14, 2006. The Tioga Area is 

currently designated as a basic 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Tioga 

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 Tioga Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the Tioga 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 Tioga Area for the 

next ten years. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 2002 base year inventory 

for the Tioga Area as a SIP revision. 

Additionally, EPA is announcing its 

action on the adequacy process for the 

MVEBs identified in the Tioga 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
26048 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Tioga 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 Tioga Area 

(as well as most other areas of the 

country) effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 

CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23966 (April 30, 

2004); 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), See, South Coast Air Quality 

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

(D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter ‘‘South 

Coast.’’). The Court held that certain 

provisions of EPA’s Phase 1 Rule were 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act. The Court rejected 

EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8- 

hour standard in nonattainment areas 

under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of 

Title I, Part D of the Act. The Court also 

held that EPA improperly failed to 

retain four measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding 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) the 

certain conformity requirements for 

certain types of federal actions. The 

Court upheld EPA’s authority to revoke 

the 1-hour standard provided there were 

adequate anti-backsliding provisions. 

Elsewhere in this document, mainly in 

section VI.B. ‘‘The Tioga Area Has Met 

All Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and 

Has Fully Approved SIP under Section 

110(k) of the CAA,’’ EPA discusses its 

rationale why the decision in South 

Coast is not an impediment to 

redesignating the Tioga 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, an 

area was classified under subpart 2 

based on its 8-hour ozone design value 

(i.e., the 3-year average annual fourthhighest 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, Tioga 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. The ozone monitoring data from 

the 3-year period of 2003–2005 

indicates that the Tioga Area has a 

design value of 0.081 ppm. Therefore, 

the ambient ozone data for the Tioga 

Area indicates no violations of the 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

B. The Tioga Area 

The Tioga Area consists of Tioga 

County, Pennsylvania. Prior to its 

designation as an 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, Tioga Area was an 

attainment/unclassifiable area for the 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment NAAQS. See 

56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). 

On September 28, 2006, PADEP 

requested that the Tioga Area be 

redesignated to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The redesignation 

request included 3 years of complete, 

quality-assured data for the period of 

2003–2005, indicating that the 8-hour 

NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in 

the Tioga 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, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26049 

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 September 28, 2006, PADEP 

requested redesignation of the Tioga 

Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. On September 28, 2006, 

PADEP submitted a maintenance plan 

for the Tioga Area as a SIP revision to 

assure continued attainment at least 10 

years after redesignation. EPA has 

determined that the Tioga Area has 

attained the standard and has met the 

requirements for redesignation set forth 

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

submitted a 2002 base year inventory 

concurrently with its maintenance plan 

as a SIP revision and supplemented on 

November 14, 2006. 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the designation of the 

Tioga 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 Tioga Area for the next 10 years. 

The maintenance plan includes 

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 2004, 2009 and 2018. These 

motor vehicle emissions (2004) and 

MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed 

in the following table: 

TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year NOX VOC 

2004 .................................. 4.8 3.0 

2009 .................................. 3.4 2.2 

2018 .................................. 1.6 1.3 

VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the 

State’s Request? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Tioga 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 September 28, 2006 submittal 

satisfies the requirements of section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

A. The Tioga Area Has Attained the 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. For ozone, 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 qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To 

attain this standard, the design value, 

which is the 3-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations, measured 

at each monitor within the area over 

each year must not exceed the ozone 

standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the 

rounding convention described in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard 

is attained if the design value is 0.084 

ppm or below. The data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

In the Tioga Area, there is one 

monitor that measures air quality with 

respect to ozone. As part of its 

redesignation request, Pennsylvania 

submitted ozone monitoring data for the 

years 2003–2005 (the most recent three 

years of data available as of the time of 

the redesignation request) for the Tioga 

Area. This data has been quality assured 

and is recorded in AQS. The fourth-high 

8-hour daily maximum concentrations, 

along with the three-year average, are 

summarized in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—TIOGA COUNTY NONATTAINMENT AREA FOURTH HIGHEST 8- 

HOUR AVERAGE VALUES; TIOGA

COUNTY MONITOR, AQS ID 42–

117–4000 

Year 

Annual 4th 

High Reading 

(ppm) 

2003 .......................... 0.084 

2004 .......................... 0.079 

2005 .......................... 0.080 

The average for the 3-year period 2003 

through 2005 is 0.081 ppm 

The air quality data for 2003–2005 

show that the Tioga Area has attained 

the standard with a design value of 

0.081 ppm. The data collected at the 

Tioga 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 Tioga Area 

indicates that the data was quality 

assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58. PADEP uses the AQS as the 

permanent database to maintain its data 

and quality assures the data transfers 

and content for accuracy. In addition, as 

discussed below with respect to the 

maintenance plan, PADEP has 

committed to continue monitoring in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In 

summary, EPA has determined that the 

data submitted by Pennsylvania and 

taken from AQS indicates that Tioga 

Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
26050 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

B. The Tioga 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 Tioga 

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 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the 

CAA. 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 action also sets forth EPA’s 

views on the potential effect of the 

Court’s ruling in South Coast on this 

redesignation action. For the reasons set 

forth below, EPA does not believe that 

the Court’s ruling alters any 

requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation, and does not prevent 

EPA from finalizing this redesignation. 

EPA believes that the Court’s decision, 

as it currently stands or as it may be 

modified based upon any petition for 

rehearing that has been filed, imposes 

no impediment to moving forward with 

redesignation of this area to attainment, 

because in either circumstance 

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 are 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 Tioga 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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26051 

2. Part D Nonattainment Area 

Requirements Under the 1-Hour and 8- 

Hour Standards 

The Tioga Area was designated a 

basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. Sections 172–176 of the 

CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set 

forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements for all nonattainment 

areas. As discussed previously, because 

the Tioga Area was designated 

unclassifiable/attainment under the 1- 

hour standard, and was never 

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour 

standard, there are no outstanding 1- 

hour nonattainment area requirements it 

would be required to meet. Thus, we 

find that the Court’s ruling does not 

result in any additional 1-hour 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

EPA notes that the Court’s ruling 

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 under subpart 2 might 

trigger additional future requirements 

for the area, EPA believes that this does 

not mean that redesignation of the area 

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. 

At the time the redesignation request 

was submitted, the Tioga Area was 

classified under subpart 1 and was 

obligated to meet subpart 1 

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. 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, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); 

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

Cir. 2004) (which upheld this 

interpretation); 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 

D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity in 

such retroactive rulemaking. See, Sierra 

Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 

2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld 

a District Court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive an EPA determination 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 

plan 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 resedignation additional SIP 

requirements under subpart 2 that were 

not in effect at the time it submitted its 

redesignation request. 

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, because no 8-hour ozone standard 

Part D requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation became due 

prior to submission of the redesignation 

request for the Tioga Area. Because the 

Commonwealth submitted a complete 

redesignation request for the Tioga Area 

prior to the deadline for any 

submissions required under the 8-hour 

standard, we have determined that the 

Part D requirements do not apply to the 

Tioga Area for the purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition to the fact that no Part D 

requirements applicable under the 8- 

hour standard became due prior to 

submission of the redesignation request, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 

the general conformity and NSR 

requirements of Part D 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 Tioga Area, EPA has 

also determined that before being 

redesignated, the Tioga Area need not 

comply with the requirement that a NSR 

program be approved prior to 

redesignation. The Part D NSR SIP 

revision does not come due until June 

15, 2007, see, 70 FR 71683, November 

29, 2005, and thus is not an applicable 

requirement with respect to 

redesignation. Additionally, 

Pennsylvania’s preconstruction 

permitting program regulations in 

Chapter 127.200–217 of the 

Pennsylvania Code (approved into the 

SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)), apply only to 

ozone nonattainment area sources that 

are located in areas classified as 

marginal or worse, i.e., to subpart 2 

nonattainment areas. Pennsylvania’s 

NSR regulations do not apply to sources 

in nonattainment areas classified as 

basic nonattainment under subpart 1. 

Consequently, sources in the Tioga Area 

are subject to Part D NSR requirements 

of Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k). Appendix 

S of 40 CFR part 51 contains the 

preconstruction permitting program that 

applies to major stationary sources in 

nonattainment areas lacking an 

approved Part D NSR program. 

Appendix S applies during the interim 

period after EPA designates an area as 

nonattainment, but before EPA approves 

revisions to a SIP to implement the Part 

D NSR requirements for that pollutant. 

See, 70 FR 71618 (November 29, 2005). 

The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations 

in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply 

to attainment areas within the Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR). See, Chapter 

127 in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); See, 66 FR 

53094, October 19, 2001. Therefore, 

after the Tioga Area is redesignated to 

attainment, sources in the Tioga Area 

will be subject to Part D NSR applicable 

under the permitting regulations in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
26052 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Chapter 127, because the Tioga Area is 

located in the OTR. 

All areas in the 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, and Stage II vapor 

recovery or a comparable measure. 

In the case of Tioga Area, which is 

located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR 

will continue to be applicable after 

redesignation. On October 19, 2001 (66 

FR 53094), EPA fully approved the 1- 

hour Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision 

consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter 

127 Part D NSR regulations that cover 

the Tioga Area. The Chapter 127 Part D 

NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP 

explicitly apply the requirements for 

NSR of section 184 of the CAA to 

attainment areas within the OTR. 

EPA has also interpreted the section 

184 OTR requirements, including the 

NSR program, as not being applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. The 

rationale for this is based on two factors. 

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, 

even after redesignation. Second, the 

section 184 control measures are regionwide requirements and do not apply to 

the Tioga Area by virtue of the area’s 

designation and classification. Rather, 

section 184 measures are required in the 

Tioga Area because it is located in the 

OTR. See, 61 FR 53174, 53175–53176 

(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 

24830–32 (May 7, 1997). 

3. The Tioga 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 also, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) 

and citations therein. 

The Tioga Area was a 1-hour 

attainment/unclassifiable area at the 

time of its designation as a basic 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 

2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the Tioga 

Area was a 1-hour attainment/ 

unclassifiable area, there are no 

previous Part D SIP submittal 

requirements. Also, 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 Tioga 

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 no 8-hour Part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation have yet become due for 

the Tioga Area, and therefore they need 

not be approved into the SIP prior to 

redesignation. 

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the 

Tioga 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 Tioga Area 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other State-adopted 

measures. Emissions reductions 

attributable to these rules are shown in 

Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Year 2002 .............................................. 0.6 2.7 2.1 3.4 8.8 

Year 2004 .............................................. 0.6 2.7 2.2 3.0 8.5 

Diff. (02–04) ........................................... 0.0 0.0 0.1 ¥0.4 ¥0.3 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

Year 2002 .............................................. 1.9 0.3 1.5 5.4 9.1 

Year 2004 .............................................. 2.0 0.3 1.5 4.8 8.6 

Diff. (02–04) ........................................... 0.1 0.0 0.0 ¥0.6 ¥0.5 

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC 

emissions were reduced by 0.3 tpd, and 

NOX emissions were reduced by 0.5 tpd. 

These reductions and anticipated future 

reductions are due to the following 

permanent and enforceable measures 

implemented or in the process of being 

implemented in the Tioga Area: 

1. Stationary Point Sources 

Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, 

August 21, 2001) 

2. Stationary Area Sources 

Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 

16, 2003) 

Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 

70893, December 8, 2004) 

3. Highway Vehicle Sources 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Programs (FMVCP) 

—Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991) 

—Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 

2000) 

Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles 

Standards (62 FR 54694, October 

21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 

6, 2000) 

National Low Emission Vehicle 

(NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28, 

1999) 

Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (70 

FR 58313, October 6, 2005) 

4. Nonroad Sources 

Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 

FR 38958, June 29, 2004) 

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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26053 

D. The Tioga Area Has a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Tioga Area to attainment 

status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for maintenance of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tioga 

Area for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. Pennsylvania is 

requesting that EPA approve this SIP 

revision as meeting the requirement of 

section 175A of the CAA. Once 

approved, the maintenance plan for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that 

the SIP for the Tioga Area meets the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the applicable 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

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, 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. 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 memo 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. 

Analysis of the Tioga 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 Tioga Area 

since it is a reasonable year within the 

3-year block of 2002–2004 and accounts 

for reductions attributable to 

implementation of the CAA 

requirements to date. The 2004 

inventory is consistent with EPA 

guidance and is based on actual ‘‘typical 

summer day’’ emissions of VOC and 

NOX during 2004 and consists of a list 

of sources and their associated 

emissions. 

PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC 

and NOX emissions inventories for the 

Tioga 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 Tioga 

Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 

were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and 

PENNDOT estimates of vehicles 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. There 

are no commercial aircraft operations in 

the Tioga Area. For 2002 aircraft 

emissions, PADEP estimated emissions 

using small aircraft operation statistics 

from http://www.airnav.com, and 

emission factors and operational 

characteristics in the EPA-approved 

model, Emissions and Dispersion 

Modeling System (EDMS). 

The 2004 attainment year VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Tioga 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 

Pennsylvania has adequately derived 

and documented the 2004 attainment 

year VOC and NOX emissions for this 

area. 

(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On 

September 28, 2006, PADEP submitted 

a SIP revision to supplement its 

September 28, 2006 redesignation 

request. The submittal by PADEP 

consists of the maintenance plan as 

required by section 175A of the CAA. 

The Tioga 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 

Tioga Area through the year 2018. A 

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 

25430–32. 

Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Tioga 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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
26054 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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

Source category 2004 VOC 

emissions 

2009 VOC 

emissions 

2018 VOC 

emissions 

Mobile* ............................................................................................................................. 3.0 2.2 1.3 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 1.5 1.36 1.0 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 2.7 2.4 2.6 

Point ................................................................................................................................. 0.6 0.5 0.6 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 8.4 7.1 6.0 

*Includes safety margin 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* ............................................................................................................................. 4.8 1.3 1.6 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 1.5 1.3 0.8 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Point ................................................................................................................................. 2.0 2.1 2.6 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 8.5 7.1 5.3 

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

The following programs are either 

effective or due to become effective and 

will further contribute to the 

maintenance demonstration of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS: 

1. Pennsylvania’s Portable Fuel 

Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 

2004) 

2. Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products 

(69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004) 

3. Pennsylvania’s Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings 

(69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004) 

4. Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, 

August 21, 2001) 

5. Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) 

6. FMVCP for passenger vehicles and 

light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline 

(2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 and Tier 

2 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991 and 65 FR 

6698, February 10, 2000) 

7. NLEV Program, which includes the 

Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program 

for passenger vehicles and light-duty 

trucks (69 FR 72564, December 28, 

1999)—proposed amendments to move 

the implementation to model year (MY) 

2008 

8. Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/ 

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

FR 5002, January 18, 2001) 

9. Non-road emissions standards 

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

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

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 Tioga Area. 

(c) Monitoring Network—There is 

currently one monitor measuring ozone 

in the Tioga Area. Pennsylvania will 

continue to operate its current air 

quality monitor 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 Tioga Area by reviewing 

air quality and emissions during the 

maintenance period. The 

Commonwealth will perform an annual 

evaluation of two key factors, vehicle 

miles traveled (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 exceeds 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 Tioga 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 Tioga Area 

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 not 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 

considered in the event that a violation 

of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at 

the Tioga County, Pennsylvania 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26055 

monitor. 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 Tioga Area will 

include, but not limited to the 

following: 

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 

Regulatory Measures 

—Additional controls on consumer 

products 

—Additional control on portable fuel 

containers 

The plan lays out a process to have 

any regulatory contingency measures in 

effect within 19 months of the trigger. 

The plan also lays out a process to 

implement the non-regulatory 

contingency measures within 12–24 

months of the trigger. 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in 

the Maintenance Plan for the Tioga 

Area Adequate and Approvable? 

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 ensuring 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 

consults this guidance and follows this 

rulemaking in making its adequacy 

determinations. 

The MVEBs for the Tioga Area are 

listed in Table 1 of this document for 

the 2004, 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 Tioga 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 Tioga Area. 

The total emissions from point, area, 

mobile on-road, and mobile non-road 

sources in 2004 equaled 7.7 tpd of VOC 

and 8.0 tpd of NOX. PADEP projected 

emissions out to the year 2018 and 

projected a total of 5.5 tpd of VOC and 

4.1 tpd of NOX from all sources in the 

Tioga Area. The safety margin for Tioga 

for 2018 would be the difference 

between these amounts, or 2.2 tpd of 

VOC and 3.9 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 TIOGA AREA

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2004 Attainment ............................................................................................................................................... 7.7 8.0 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
26056 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6.—2009 AND 2018 SAFETY MARGINS FOR THE TIOGA AREA—Continued 

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2009 Interim ..................................................................................................................................................... 6.7 6.2 

2009 Safety Margin ......................................................................................................................................... 1.0 1.8 

2004 Attainment ............................................................................................................................................... 7.7 8.0 

2018 Final ........................................................................................................................................................ 5.5 4.1 

2018 Safety Margin ......................................................................................................................................... 2.2 3.9 

PADEP allocated 0.2 tpd NOX and 0.1 

tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC 

projected on-road mobile source 

emissions projection and the 2009 

interim NOX projected on-road mobile 

source emissions projection to arrive at 

the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs 

the PADEP allocated 0.2 tpd NOX and 

0.2 tpd VOC from the 2018 safety 

margins 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 Tioga 

Area. 

TABLE 7.—2009 AND 2018 FINAL MVEBS FOR THE TIOGA AREA

Inventory year VOC emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX emissions 

(tpd) 

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions .......................................................................... 2.1 3.2 

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................ 0.1 0.2 

2009 MVEBs .................................................................................................................................................... 2.2 3.4 

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions .......................................................................... 1.1 1.4 

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs ........................................................................................................ 0.2 0.2 

2018 MVEBs .................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 1.6 

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? 

The 2004, 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for 

the Tioga 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 Tioga Area 

Maintenance Plan? 

The MVEBs for the Tioga 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 Tioga 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 Tioga 

Area MVEBs will also be announced on 

EPA’s conformity Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov.otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/index.htm (once there, click 

on ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP 

Submissions’’). 

VIII. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the Commonwealth’s 

September 28, 2006 request for the 

Tioga Area to be redesignated 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 Tioga 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 Tioga Area, submitted 

on September 28, 2006 and 

supplemented on November 14, 2006, as 

revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA 

is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Tioga Area 

because it meets the requirements of 

section 175A as described previously in 

this notice. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the MVEBs submitted by 

Pennsylvania for the Tioga 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 FR 28355 (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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26057 

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 allow 

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 

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 Tioga 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 Oxides, 

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: April 26, 2007. 

Judith Katz, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E7–8669 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0715; FRL–8310–9] 

Determination of Attainment, Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans and Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Clark and Floyd 

Counties 8-Hour Nonattainment Area 

to Attainment for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2006, the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request to redesignate the Indiana 

portion of the Louisville 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) nonattainment area (Clark and 

Floyd Counties) to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and a request for 

EPA approval of a 14-year maintenance 

plan for Clark and Floyd Counties. 

Today, EPA is making a determination 

that the Indiana portion of the 

Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This determination is based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 2003–2005 ozone seasons that 

demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS has been attained in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the request 

to redesignate Clark and Floyd Counties 

to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard based on its determination that 

the Louisville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has met the criteria 

for redesignation to attainment specified 

in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also 

proposing to approve Indiana’s 

maintenance plan which adequately 

supports continued attainment through 

2020 and, for purposes of transportation 

conformity, the Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the year 2003 and 2020. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2006–0715, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office’s official hours of 

operation are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS