Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27265 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

rulemaking is withdrawn on May 15, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 

(305) 415–6743. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 3, 2006, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Little River (S–20) Bridge, Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway Mile 347.3, Horry 

County, SC’’ in the Federal Register (71 

FR 16527). The rulemaking concerned 

changing the current ‘‘on demand’’

schedule to an on the hour, twenty 

minutes past the hour and forty minutes 

pass the hour schedule. 

Withdrawal 

A new high level fixed bridge was 

constructed within close proximity of 

the moveable bridge, thereby providing 

an alternative for existing traffic and 

allowing for a reduction of vehicular 

traffic on the moveable bridge. The 

Little-River Bridge crosses the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway and has an 

average of fewer than two openings per 

hour. Additionally, all of the comments 

received during the comment period of 

the notice of proposed rulemaking were 

in favor of keeping the current ‘‘on 

demand’’ schedule. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 

Stat. 5039. 

Dated: September 19, 2006. 

J.A. Watson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

on May 10, 2007. 

[FR Doc. E7–9267 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0840; FRL–8314–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Lancaster 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Associated 

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 Lancaster 

ozone nonattainment area (‘‘Lancaster 

Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) be redesignated as 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The Area is comprised of Lancaster 

County, Pennsylvania. EPA is proposing 

to approve the ozone redesignation 

request for the Lancaster Area. In 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request, the Commonwealth submitted a 

SIP revision consisting of a maintenance 

plan for the Lancaster Area that 

provides for continued attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for 11 years after 

redesignation. EPA is proposing to make 

a determination that the Lancaster Area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

based upon three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2003–2005. EPA’s 

proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request is based on its 

determination that the Lancaster Area 

has met the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment specified in the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). In addition, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has 

also submitted a 2002 base-year 

inventory for the Lancaster Area, and 

EPA is proposing to approve that 

inventory for the Lancaster Area 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 maintenance plan 

for the Lancaster Area for purposes of 

transportation conformity, and is also 

proposing to approve those MVEBs. 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

redesignation request and of the 

maintenance plan and 2002 base-year 

inventory SIP revisions in accordance 

with the requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2006–0840 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0840, 

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–

0840. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through 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 e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27266 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034, or by 

e-mail at wentworth.ellen@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 

Commonwealth’s Request? 

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Established and Identified in the 

Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Area 

Adequate and Approvable? 

VIII. Proposed Actions 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is 

Proposing To Take? 

On September 20, 2006, as 

supplemented on November 8, 2006, the 

PADEP formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Lancaster Area from 

nonattainment to attainment of the 8- 

hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, 

Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance 

plan for the Lancaster Area as a SIP 

revision to ensure continued attainment 

in the Area for at least 11 years after 

redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 

2002 base-year inventory for the 

Lancaster Area as a SIP revision. The 

Lancaster Area is comprised of the 

County of Lancaster. It is currently 

designated a marginal 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the Lancaster 

maintenance plan as a SIP revision for 

the Area (such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status). The maintenance 

plan is designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Lancaster Area for the 

next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 2002 base-year inventory 

for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision. 

Additionally, EPA is announcing its 

action on the adequacy process for the 

MVEBs identified in the Lancaster Area 

maintenance plan, and proposing to 

approve the MVEBs identified for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the Lancaster 

Area 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 standard. EPA 

designated, as nonattainment, any area 

violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the air quality data for the 

three years of 2001–2003. These were 

the most recent three years of data at the 

time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The 

Lancaster Area was designated a 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area 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 healthbased standard for ozone during the 

years 2001–2003. In July 2004, 

Pennsylvania requested that the EPA 

reclassify the Lancaster Area to a 

‘‘marginal’’ 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

Area in accordance with section 

181(a)(4) of the CAA, which allows a 

state to request reclassification if the 

design value in the nonattainment area 

is five percent greater or five percent 

less than the level on which the 

classification is based. The Lancaster 

Area was reclassified by EPA as a 

‘‘marginal’’ 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 

56697). 

On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final 

rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster 

Area (as well as most other areas of the 

country) effective June 15, 2005. See 40 

CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 

2004); 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 Lancaster Area Has 

Met All Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and 

Has a Fully Approved SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA,’’ EPA 

discusses its rationale why the decision 

in South Coast is not an impediment to 

redesignating the Lancaster 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27267 

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 were covered under subpart 1, 

based upon their 8-hour design values. 

In 2004, the Lancaster Area was 

classified a marginal 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area based on air quality 

monitoring data from 2001–2003. 

Therefore, the Lancaster Area is subject 

to the requirements of subpart 2 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 

indicates that the Lancaster Area has a 

design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year 

period of 2003–2005, using complete, 

quality-assured data. Therefore, the 

ambient ozone data for the Lancaster 

Area indicates no violations of the 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

B. The Lancaster Area 

The Lancaster Area consists of the 

County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, the Lancaster 

Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment Area, and therefore was 

subject to requirements for marginal 

nonattainment areas pursuant to section 

182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 

(November 6, 1991). 

On September 20, 2006 and 

supplemented on November 8, 2006, the 

PADEP requested that the Lancaster 

Area be redesignated to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. The 

redesignation request included three 

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 Lancaster Area. 

The data satisfies the CAA requirements 

that 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), 

must be 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 

redesignations in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

• ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Design Value Calculations,’’

Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June, 

18, 1990; 

• ‘‘Maintenance Plans for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

• ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

• ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992; 

• ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

• ‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) 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 20, 2006, the PADEP 

requested redesignation of the Lancaster 

Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. On September 20, 2006, as 

supplemented on November 8, 2006, 

PADEP submitted a maintenance plan 

for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision 

to ensure continued attainment at least 

11 years after redesignation. PADEP also 

submitted a 2002 base-year inventory 

concurrently with its maintenance plan 

as a SIP revision, which is an applicable 

requirement for the Lancaster Area for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27268 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

purposes of redesignation. EPA has 

determined that the Lancaster Area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard and 

has met the requirements for 

redesignation set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

the Lancaster 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 Lancaster 

Area for the next 11 years. The 

maintenance plan includes contingency 

measures to remedy any future 

violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should 

they occur), and identifies the NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for transportation 

conformity purposes for the years 2009 

and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed 

in the following table: 

TABLE 1.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year VOC NOX

2009 ............ 14.3 22.3 

2018 ............ 7.8 9.0 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Commonwealth’s Request? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Lancaster Area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone standard, and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met. 

The following is a description of how 

the PADEP’s September 20, 2006 and 

November 8, 2006 submittals satisfy the 

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

the CAA. 

A. The Lancaster Area Has Attained the 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Lancaster 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, 

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 Lancaster Area, there is one 

ozone monitor, located in Lancaster 

County that measures air quality with 

respect to ozone. As part of its 

redesignation request, Pennsylvania 

referenced ozone monitoring data for 

the years 2003–2005 for the Lancaster 

Area. This data has been quality assured 

and is recorded in the AQS. The fourthhigh 8-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, along with the threeyear average are summarized in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—LANCASTER AREA FOURTH

HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE VALUES

LANCASTER COUNTY MONITOR/AQS 

ID 42–071–0007 

Year 

Annual 4th 

highest reading 

(ppm) 

2003 .................................. 0.083 

2004 .................................. 0.081 

2005 .................................. 0.085 

The average for the 3-year period 2003– 

2005 is 0.083 ppm. 

The air quality data for 2003–2005 

show that the Lancaster Area has 

attained the 8-hour standard with a 

design value of 0.083 ppm. The data 

collected at the Lancaster Area monitor 

satisfies the CAA requirement that the 

3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm. EPA believes this 

conclusion remains valid after review of 

the available 2006 data because the 

design value for 2004–2006 would be 

0.083 ppm. The PADEP’s request for 

redesignation for the Lancaster Area 

indicates that the data is complete and 

was quality assured in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. The 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 

data taken from AQS indicate that the 

Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

B. The Lancaster 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 

Lancaster 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 which requirements are 

applicable to the Lancaster 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 came 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). 

Requirements of the CAA that are 

applicable 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 at 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

St. Louis). 

This section also sets forth EPA’s 

views on the potential effect of the 

Court’s 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27269 

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 

the 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 requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of part D requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

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

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a State from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another State. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX

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

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

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

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

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

a State are not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification in that State. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classifications are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the State. 

Thus, we do not believe that these 

requirements should be construed to be 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes 

that the other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Lancaster 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, 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 

(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 

53099, 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(1) 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. As 

explained later in this notice, two part 

D requirements applicable for purposes 

of redesignation under the 8-hour 

standard became due prior to the 

submission of the redesignation request. 

2. Part D Requirements Under the 8- 

Hour Standard 

Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final 

rule (69 FR 23951), the Lancaster Area 

was designated a marginal 

nonattainment area under subpart 2 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 applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 

of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part 

D, establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

we do not believe that any part of the 

court’s opinion in South Coast would 

require that this subpart 2 classification 

be changed upon remand to EPA. 

However, even assuming for present 

purposes that the Lancaster Area would 

become subject to a different 

classification under a classification 

scheme created in a future role in 

response to the court’s decision, that 

would not prevent EPA from finalizing 

a redesignation for this area. For the 

reasons set forth below, we believe that 

any additional requirements that might 

apply based on that different 

classification would not be applicable 

for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

redesignation requests in accordance 

only with the requirements due at the 

time the request was submitted; and (2) 

consideration of the inequity of 

applying retroactively any requirements 

that might be applied in the future. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the Lancaster 

Area was classified under subpart 2 and 

was required to meet the subpart 2 

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, but 

which might later become applicable. 

The D.C. Circuit has 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27270 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1The Clean Air Act section 176(c )(4)(E) currently 

requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to 

reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for 

determining transportation conformity. 

Transportation conformity SIPs are different from 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are 

established in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

determination of nonattainment that 

was past the statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The Court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

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

Similarly, here it would be unfair to 

penalize the Area by applying to it for 

purposes of redesignation any 

additional requirements that were not in 

effect at the time it submitted its 

redesignation request, but that might 

apply in the future. 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

two part D subpart 2 requirements 

became due for the Lancaster Area 

under section 182(a) of the CAA prior to 

redesignation—a 2002 base-year 

inventory, and the emissions statement 

requirement pursuant to section 

182(a)(3)(B). Pennsylvania already has 

in its approved SIP an emissions 

statement rule for the 1-hour standard 

that covers all portions of the designated 

8-hour nonattainment area, and that 

satisfies the emissions statement 

requirement for the 8-hour standard. 

See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 

40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 

1995. EPA is proposing to approve the 

2002 base-year inventory for the 

Lancaster Area, which was submitted on 

September 30, 2006, and supplemented 

on November 8, 2006, concurrently with 

its maintenance plan, into the 

Pennsylvania SIP. A detailed evaluation 

of Pennsylvania’s 2002 base-year 

inventory for the Lancaster Area can be 

found in a Technical Support Document 

(TSD) prepared by EPA for this 

rulemaking. EPA has determined that 

the emission inventory and emissions 

statement requirements for the 

Lancaster Area have been satisfied. 

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 the 

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 Lancaster Area, 

which is located in the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR), nonattainment NSR 

requirements will continue to be 

applicable after redesignation. On 

October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA 

approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP 

revision for the Lancaster Area. This 

revision imposes the OTR NSR 

requirements in marginal and 

incomplete data ozone nonattainment 

areas and ozone attainment areas within 

the Commonwealth. The OTR 

requirements are more stringent than 

those required in marginal ozone 

nonattainment areas because a lower 

threshold for what constitutes a major 

stationary source of VOC emissions is 

required and a higher offset ratio is 

required. Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP also 

imposes the NSR requirements on major 

sources of NOX emissions as required by 

section 182(f) of the CAA. 

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 

considerations. First, the requirement to 

submit SIP revisions for the section 184 

requirements continues to apply to areas 

in the OTR after redesignation to 

attainment. Therefore, the State remains 

obligated to have NSR, as well as 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT), and Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance programs even after 

redesignation. Second, the section 184 

control measures are region-wide 

requirements and do not apply to 

Lancaster by virtue of the Area’s 

designation and classification. See, 61 

FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10, 

1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–32 (May 

7, 1997). 

3. Part D Requirements Under the 1- 

Hour Standard 

In its December 22, 2006 decision in 

South Coast, the Court also addressed 

EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. The current status of the 

revocation and associated antibacksliding rules is dependent on 

whether the Court’s decision stands as 

originally issued or is modified in 

response to any petition for rehearing or 

request for clarification that has been 

filed. As described more fully below, 

EPA believes that the Area has attained 

the 1-hour standard and has met all of 

the requirements under the 1-hour 

standard that would apply even if the 1- 

hour standard is deemed to be 

reinstated and, those requirements are 

viewed as applying under the statute 

itself. Thus, the Court’s decision, as it 

currently stands, imposes no 

impediment to moving forward with the 

redesignation of this Area to attainment 

of the 8-hour standard. Further, even if 

the court’s decision were modified 

based upon any petition for rehearing 

that has been filed, such that the 

ultimate decision requires something 

less than compliance with all applicable 

1-hour requirements, since the area 

meets all such requirements as 

explained below, it would certainly 

meet any lesser requirements and thus 

similarly redesignation could proceed. 

The conformity portion of the Court’s 

ruling does not impact the redesignation 

request for the Lancaster Area because 

there are no conformity requirements 

that are relevant to a redesignation 

request for any standard, including the 

requirement to submit a transportation 

conformity SIP.1 As we have previously 

noted, under longstanding EPA policy, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 

the conformity SIP requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request under section 

107(d) because state conformity rules 

are still required after redesignation and 

federal conformity rules apply where 

state rules have not been approved. 40 

CFR 51.390. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida 

redesignation). 

With respect to the requirement for 

submission of contingency measures for 

the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does 

not require contingency measures for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27271 

marginal areas, and, therefore, that 

portion of the Court’s ruling does not 

impact the redesignation request for the 

Lancaster Area. 

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, the Lancaster 

Area was designated a marginal 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour 

standard. With respect to the 1-hour 

standard, the applicable requirements of 

subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D 

(section 182) for the Lancaster Area are 

discussed in the following paragraphs: 

Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP 

revisions to correct or amend RACT for 

sources in marginal areas, such as the 

Lancaster Area, that were subject to 

control technique guidelines (CTGs) 

issued before November 15, 1990 

pursuant to CAA section 108. On 

December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved 

into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections 

required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of 

the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 

1994). EPA believes that this 

requirement applies only to marginal 

and higher classified areas under the 1- 

hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 

amendments to the CAA; therefore, this 

is a one-time requirement. After an area 

has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) 

requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, 

there is no requirement under the 8- 

hour NAAQS. 

Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the 

savings clause for vehicle inspection 

and maintenance (I/M). It requires 

marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M 

programs. This provision was not 

applicable to the Lancaster Area because 

this area did not have and was not 

required to have an I/M program before 

November 15, 1990. 

Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a 

triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory 

for the nonattainment area. The most 

recent inventory for the Lancaster Area 

was compiled for 2002 and submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision with the 

maintenance plan for the Lancaster 

Area. 

Section 182(a)(2)(C) required 

Pennsylvania to adopt a NSR Permit 

Program or to correct its existing 

program to meet EPA guidance 

requirements issued prior to 1990. As 

discussed previously, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret the NSR 

requirements of part D as not requiring 

approval prior to redesignation. 

However, as noted previously, EPA has 

fully approved Pennsylvania’s NSR 

program for the Lancaster Area. 

Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources 

of VOCs and NOX in the nonattainment 

area to submit Emissions Statements 

regarding the quantity of emissions from 

the previous year. As discussed 

previously, Pennsylvania already has in 

its approved SIP a previously approved 

emissions statement rule for the 1-hour 

standard which applies to the Lancaster 

Area. 

Section 182(a)(1) provides for the 

submission of a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources, as described 

in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with 

guidance provided by the 

Administrator. In this proposed rule, 

EPA is proposing to approve a 2002 

base-year emissions inventory for the 

Lancaster Area as meeting the 

requirement of section 182(a)(1). While 

EPA generally required that the baseyear inventory for the 1-hour standard 

be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes 

that Pennsylvania’s 2002 inventory 

fulfills this requirement because it 

meets EPA’s guidance and because it is 

more up to date than 1990. EPA also 

proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour 

standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 

2002 base-year inventory for the 8-hour 

standard will provide an acceptable 

substitute for the base-year inventory for 

the 1-hour standard. 

As noted previously, EPA believes it 

is reasonable to interpret the general 

conformity requirements of part D as not 

requiring approval prior to 

redesignation. 

EPA has previously determined that 

the Lancaster Area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS by the November 

15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, 

January 17, 1995), and we further 

believe that the Lancaster Area is still in 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

based upon the ozone monitoring data 

for the years 2003–2005. To demonstrate 

attainment, i.e., compliance with this 

standard, the annual average of the 

number of expected exceedances of the 

1-hour standard over a three-year period 

must be less than or equal to 1. Table 

3 provides a summary of the number of 

expected exceedances for each of the 

years 2003 through 2005 and three-year 

annual average. 

TABLE 3.—LANCASTER NONATTAINMENT AREA NUMBER OF EXPECTED

EXCEEDANCES OF THE 1-HOUR

OZONE STANDARD; LANCASTER

COUNTY MONITOR/AQS ID 42–071–

0007 

Year 

Number of 

expected 

exceedances 

2003 ......................................... 1.0 

2004 ......................................... 0.0 

2005 ......................................... 0.0 

The average number of expected 

exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 

through 2005 is 0.3. 

In summary, EPA has determined that 

the data submitted by Pennsylvania and 

taken from AQS indicates that the 

Lancaster Area is maintaining air 

quality that conforms to the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA believes this 

conclusion remains valid after review of 

the available 2006 data because no 

exceedances were recorded in the 

Lancaster Area in 2006. 

4. Transport Region Requirements 

All areas in the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR), both attainment and 

nonattainment, are subject to additional 

control requirements under section 184 

for the purpose of reducing interstate 

transport of emissions that may 

contribute to downwind ozone 

nonattainment. The section 184 

requirements include RACT, enhanced 

vehicle inspection and maintenance, 

and Stage II vapor recovery or a 

comparable measure. 

In the case of the Lancaster Area, 

which is located in the OTR, 

nonattainment NSR will be applicable 

after redesignation. On October 19, 2001 

(66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved 

Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision 

consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter 

127 part D NSR regulations that cover 

the Lancaster 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. See, 61 

FR 53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 

24826, May 7, 1997 (Reading, 

Pennsylvania Redesignation). The 

rationale for this is based on two 

considerations. First, the requirement to 

submit SIP revisions for the section 184 

requirements continues to apply to areas 

in the OTR after redesignation to 

attainment. Therefore, the State remains 

obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, 

and I/M even after redesignation. 

Second, the section 184 control 

measures are region-wide requirements 

and do not apply to the Area by virtue 

of the Area’s designation and 

classification. See, 61 FR 53174 at 

53175–53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 

FR 24826 at 24830–24832 (May 7, 1997). 

5. Lancaster Has a Fully Approved SIP 

for Purposes of Redesignation 

EPA has fully approved the 

Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of 

this redesignation. EPA may rely on 

prior SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request, Calcagni Memo, 

p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27272 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989–

90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 

3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action. 

See, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations therein. 

The Lancaster Area was a 1-hour 

ozone marginal nonattainment area at 

the time of its designation as a marginal 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area on 

September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697). As 

stated previously, two subpart 2 part D 

requirements became due for the 

Lancaster Area prior to redesignation—

a 2002 base-year inventory, and the 

emissions statement requirement. 

PADEP has submitted concurrently with 

its maintenance plan, a 2002 base-year 

inventory as a SIP revision. In this 

action, EPA is proposing approval of 

this inventory. The emissions statement 

requirement for Lancaster was fulfilled 

under the 1-hour standard. Because 

there are no outstanding SIP submission 

requirements applicable for the 

purposes of the redesignation of 

Lancaster, the applicable 

implementation plan satisfies all 

pertinent SIP requirements. 

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the 

Lancaster 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 Lancaster 

Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions 

attributable to these rules are shown in 

Table 4. 

TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2004 IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Year Point * Area Nonroad Mobile Total 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

2002 ......................................................................................................... 8.5 24.5 17.4 23.4 73.8 

2004 ......................................................................................................... 8.1 24.4 17.3 19.8 69.6 

Diff. (02–04) ............................................................................................. 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.6 4.2 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

2002 ......................................................................................................... 3.6 2.6 13.7 36.9 56.8 

2004 ......................................................................................................... 3.9 2.6 13.2 32.3 52.0 

Diff (02–04) .............................................................................................. ¥03 0.0 0.5 4.6 4.8 

* The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include banked emission credits of 3.7 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX as indicated 

in Technical Appendix A–4 to Pennsylvania’s SIP submission. 

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC 

emissions decreased by 5.7 percent from 

73.8 tpd to 69.6 tpd; NOX emissions 

decreased by 8.4 percent from 56.8 tpd 

to 52.0 tpd. These reductions, and 

anticipated future reductions, are due to 

the following permanent and 

enforceable measures. 

1. Stationary Point Sources 

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction 

(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 Engine and Vehicle 

Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 

1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 

2000) 

National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) 

Program (64 FR 72564, December 28, 

1999) Vehicle Emission Inspection/ 

Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313, 

October 6, 2005) 

4. Non-Road 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. 

D. The Lancaster Area Has a Fully 

Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Lancaster Area to 

attainment status, Pennsylvania 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Lancaster Area for at 

least 11 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 Lancaster 

Area meets the requirements of the CAA 

regarding maintenance of the applicable 

8-hour ozone standard. 

What Is Required in a Maintenance 

Plan? 

Section 175 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: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27273 

(a) An attainment emissions 

inventory; 

(b) A maintenance demonstration; 

(c) A monitoring network; 

(d) Verification of continued 

attainment; and 

(e) A contingency plan. 

Analysis of the Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area 

since it is a reasonable year within the 

3-year block of 2003–2005 and accounts 

for reductions attributable to 

implementation of the CAA 

requirements to date. 

The 2002 and 2004 point source data 

was compiled from actual sources. 

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 

Systems and EPA’s publication series 

AP–42, and are based on Source 

Classification Codes (SCC). The 2002 

area source data was compiled using 

county-level activity data, from census 

numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 

2004 area source data was projected 

from the 2002 inventory using temporal 

allocations provided by the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management 

Association (MARAMA). 

The on-road mobile source 

inventories for 2002 and 2004 were 

compiled using MOBILE6.2 and 

PENNDOT estimates for VMT. The 

PADEP has provided detailed data 

summaries to document the calculations 

of mobile on-road VOC and NOX

emissions for 2002, as well as for the 

projection years of 2004, 2009, and 2018 

(shown in Tables 4 and 5 below). The 

2002 and 2004 emissions for the 

majority of non-road emission source 

categories were estimated using the EPA 

NONROAD 2005 model. The 

NONROAD model calculates emissions 

for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum 

gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled non-road equipment types and 

includes growth factors. The NONROAD 

model does not estimate emissions from 

locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 

2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP 

projected emissions from a 1999 survey 

using national fuel consumption 

information and EPA emission and 

conversion factors. There are no 

commercial aircraft operations in 

Lancaster County. For 2002 and 2004 

aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated 

emissions using small airport operations 

statistics and emission factors and 

operational characteristics in the EPAapproved model, Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). 

More detailed information on the 

compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009, 

and 2018 inventories can be found in 

the Technical Appendices which are 

part of this submittal. 

(b) Maintenance Demonstration—On 

September 20, 2006, and supplemented 

on November 8, 2006, the PADEP 

submitted a maintenance plan as a SIP 

revision as required by section 175A of 

the CAA. The Lancaster 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 

Lancaster 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 

25430–25432. 

Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and 

NOX emissions for the Lancaster Area 

for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP 

chose 2009 as an interim year in the 

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 maintenance period. 

TABLE 5.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD) 

Source category 2004 VOC 

emissions 

2009 VOC 

emissions 

2018 VOC 

emissions 

Point * ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.1 8.7 11.0 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 24.4 24.2 27.2 

Mobile ...................................................................................................................................................... 19.8 14.3 7.8 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................................... 17.3 15.0 11.9 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 69.6 62.2 57.9 

* The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A–4 submitted 

with the maintenance plan. 

TABLE 6.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2004–2018 (TPD) 

Source category 2004 NOX

emissions 

2009 NOX

emissions 

2018 NOX

emissions 

Point * ....................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 4.1 4.6 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 2.6 2.8 2.9 

Mobile ...................................................................................................................................................... 32.3 22.3 9.0 

Non-road .................................................................................................................................................. 13.2 10.8 6.8 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 52.0 39.9 23.2 

*The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A–4. 

The following programs are 

permanent and enforceable control 

measures to ensure emissions during the 

maintenance period are equal to or less 

than the emissions in the attainment 

year: 

• The Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) 

• The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 

43795, August 21, 2001) 

• Pennsylvania’s Portable Fuel 

Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 

70893) 

• Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products 

(December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27274 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

• Pennsylvania’s Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings 

(November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080) 

Additionally, the following mobile 

programs are either effective or due to 

become effective and will further 

contribute to the maintenance 

demonstration of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS: 

• FMVCP for passenger vehicles and 

light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline 

(2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 (56 FR 

25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 

6698, February 10, 2000) 

• Federal NLEV (64 FR 72564, 

December 28, 1999) 

• PA Clean Vehicle Program 

(December 9, 2006)-Pennsylvania will 

implement this program in car model 

year 2008. 

• Heavy-duty diesel on-road (2004/ 

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

FR 5002, January 18, 2001) 

• Non-road emissions standards 

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

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

• Vehicle emission/inspection/ 

maintenance program (70 FR 58313, 

October 6, 2005) 

• Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Emissions Control Program. (May 11, 

2002) 

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 Lancaster Areas. 

(c) Monitoring Network—There is 

currently one monitor measuring ozone 

in the Lancaster Area. PADEP will 

continue to operate its current air 

quality monitor (located in Lancaster 

County), 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 Lancaster Area by 

reviewing air quality and emissions 

during the maintenance period. The 

Commonwealth will perform an annual 

evaluation of 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 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 Lancaster 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 8-hour ozone 

concentrations at the Lancaster 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 also analyze the conditions 

leading to the excessive ozone levels 

and evaluate which measures might be 

most effective in correcting the 

excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also 

analyze the potential emissions effect of 

Federal, state, and local measures that 

have been adopted but not yet 

implemented at the time the 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 Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 

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 Lancaster Area will 

include, but not be limited to the 

following: 

Regulatory measures: 

—Additional controls on consumer 

products. 

—Additional controls on portable fuel 

containers 

Non-Regulatory measures: 

—Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip 

reflash’’—installation software to 

correct the defeat device option on 

certain heavy-duty diesel engines. 

—Diesel retrofit, including replacement, 

repowering or alternative fuel use, for 

public or private local on-road or offroad fleets. 

—Idling reduction technology for Class 

2 yard locomotives. 

—Idling reduction technologies or 

strategies for truck stops, warehouses 

and other freight-handling facilities. 

—Accelerated turnover of lawn and 

garden equipment, especially 

commercial equipment, including 

promotion of electric equipment. 

—Additional promotion of alternative 

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

and agricultural use. 

The 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 Lancaster Maintenance Plan 

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. In the maintenance plan, the 

MVEBs are termed ‘‘on-road mobile 

source emission budgets.’’ 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27275 

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 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 MVEB for the Lancaster Area are 

listed in Table 1 of this document for 

the 2009 and 2018 years, and are the 

projected emissions for the on-road 

mobile sources plus any portion of the 

safety margin allocated to the MVEBs. 

These emission budgets, when approved 

by EPA, must be used for transportation 

conformity determinations. 

B. What Is a Safety Margin? 

A safety margin is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The safety margin is the extra emissions 

that can be allocated as long as the total 

attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. The credit, or a portion 

thereof, can be allocated to any of the 

source categories. PADEP is at this time 

preserving the entire difference between 

attainment and projected maintenance 

year emissions to ensure continued 

maintenance of the standard. 

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? 

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the 

Lancaster Area are approvable because 

the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 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 Lancaster 

Maintenance Plan? 

The MVEBs for the Lancaster Area 

maintenance plan are being posted to 

EPA’s conformity Web site concurrently 

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 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 Lancaster 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 

Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the redesignation 

of the Lancaster Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 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 

Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone standard. The final approval of 

this redesignation request would change 

the designation of the Lancaster Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the associated 

maintenance plan for the Lancaster 

Area, submitted on September 20, 2006, 

and supplemented on November 8, 

2006, as a revision to the Pennsylvania 

SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area 

because it meets the requirements of 

section 175A as described previously in 

this notice. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the 2002 base-year inventory 

for the Lancaster Area, and the MVEBs 

submitted by Pennsylvania for the 

Lancaster 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 Fed. Reg. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27276 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 (Public Law 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 approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

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 Lancaster Area to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the associated maintenance 

plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and 

the MVEB 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 dioxide, 

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: May 4, 2007. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E7–9296 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 061219338–6338–01; I.D. 

120806A] 

RIN 0648–AU69 

Fisheries off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Amendment 15 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) requests public comments on 

a proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast 

Salmon Fisheries Management Plan 

(Plan) in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This 

Amendment was approved by NMFS on 

March 22, 2007, and in accordance with 

the notification procedures of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 

was notified of this approval. This 

action is intended to provide 

management flexibility in times of low 

Klamath River fall-run Chinook (KRFC) 

abundance, while preserving the longterm productive capacity of the stock 

and thereby ensuring it continues to 

contribute meaningfully to ocean and 

river fisheries in the future. 

DATES: A notice of availability (NOA) of 

Amendment 15 was published on 

December 20, 2006 under the RIN 0648–

AV07. Written comments on the 

amendment’s NOA were due February 

20, 2007. Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by June 

28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘I.D. 120806A’’ by an of 

the following methods: 

• Email: 

salmon2006amend15@noaa.gov 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments, 

and include ‘‘I.D. 120806A’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, 

Northwest Region, NMFS, Sand Point 

Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 

98115–0070; or to Rodney R. McInnis, 

Administrator, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–

4213. 

• Fax: 206–526–6426 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McAvinchey by phone at 206- 

526–6140, fax 206–526–6736 and email 

at sarah.mcavinchey@noaa.gov, or Eric 

Chavez by phone at 508–980–4064, 

email at eric.chavez@noaa.gov, fax 508–

908–4047 or contact Pacific Fishery 

Management Council by phone at 503–

820–2290 or by fax at 503–820–2299. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) was developed 

by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (PFMC or Council) under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq., and approved by the Secretary 

in 1978. Since then, the FMP has been 

amended 14 times, with implementing 

regulations codified at 50 CFR part 660, 

subpart H. From 1979 to 1983, the FMP 

was amended annually. In 1984, a 

framework amendment was 

implemented that provided the 

mechanism for making preseason and 

inseason adjustments in the regulations 

without annual amendments. 

Amendment 9 to the FMP was 

approved in 1988 and implemented in 

ocean fishing regulations effective May 

1, 1989. This Salmon FMP amendment 

codified the harvest rate management 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS