[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19193-19197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10698]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA034-4014, PA035-4015; FRL-5465-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 
Pittsburgh Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving a 
redesignation request for the Pittsburgh ozone nonattainment area and a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision consists of a maintenance plan for 
the Pittsburgh ozone nonattainment area. The effect of this action is 
to disapprove the redesignation request and its associated maintenance 
plan because the area violated the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard for ozone (the ozone NAAQS) and additionally is not otherwise 
eligible for redesignation. This action is being taken under sections 
107 and 110 of the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on May 31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino, (215) 597-9337, at the 
EPA Region III office, or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69190007064704081b0008290c190804080005470c1908470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c7c65626322616d7e656d4c697c6d616d656022697c6d226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4598), EPA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania that proposed disapproval of the redesignation request and 
maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment 
area (the Pittsburgh area). The formal redesignation request was 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on November 12, 1993. At 
the same time, the Commonwealth submitted a maintenance plan for the 
Pittsburgh area as a SIP revision. The Commonwealth subsequently 
amended the maintenance plan on January 13, 1994 and, again, on May 12, 
1995. During the 1995 ozone season, the Pittsburgh area violated the 
ozone NAAQS, making the area ineligible for redesignation. Therefore, 
EPA proposed to disapprove the redesignation request and its associated 
maintenance plan.
    Other specific details of the Commonwealth's redesignation request 
and maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh area, and the rationale for 
EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated 
here. Both positive and adverse public comments were received on the 
NPR. EPA received three comment letters in favor of the proposed 
disapproval of the Pittsburgh area redesignation request and 
maintenance plan. Two comment letters were opposed to the disapproval. 
The following is a summary of the adverse comments received on the NPR, 
and EPA's response to those comments.
    Comment#1: Two commenters maintained that transport of ozone and 
NO<INF>X is the primary cause of the violations in the Pittsburgh area. 
The letters contained the following comments:

[[Page 19194]]

    (1) ``Southwestern Pennsylvania's ozone is primarily due to 
transported ozone and NO<INF>X from upwind states.''
    (2) ``Despite the potential health and economic harm to residents 
of southwestern Pennsylvania, EPA has failed to properly control 
interstate transport of ozone and NO<INF>X into Pennsylvania.''
    (3) ``EPA has failed to consider the effects of transport in 
determining whether southwestern Pennsylvania has violated the NAAQS 
for ozone and whether its maintenance plan is adequate.''
    (4) ``Transport of ozone from outside Pennsylvania into the 
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was not considered.''
    (5) ``Disapproval of southwestern Pennsylvania's attainment 
application could worsen, rather than improve, the region's air 
quality.'' The commenter asserted that, because the ozone in the 
Pittsburgh area is due primarily to transport, additional emission 
controls will not prevent exceedances, and may have little or no effect 
on the area's ozone levels. Also, ``extraordinary measures'' would be 
needed to prevent exceedances.
    One commenter contends that ozone readings at monitoring points 
near the West Virginia/Ohio/Pennsylvania border demonstrate a strong 
correlation between the amount of ozone transported across the border 
and the readings in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area. The commenter 
claimed that imposition of additional emission controls in the 
Pittsburgh area would further exacerbate the substantial economic 
incentive in the neighboring states of Ohio and West Virginia, which 
are not included in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and include areas 
that have been granted redesignation to attainment and/or NO<INF>X 
exemptions under section 182(f) of the Act.
    EPA's Response: While Pennsylvania has made great strides in 
improving the air quality in the Pittsburgh area, ozone remains a 
problem. EPA believes that the Pittsburgh area generates substantial 
emissions of VOC and NO<INF>X, which contribute significantly to the 
nonattainment problem there. This was demonstrated in 1995, when 
exceedances were recorded in Pittsburgh, and ozone concentrations at 
the border and in all other western and central Pennsylvania areas were 
below the standard.
    On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 Clean Air Act were 
enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q. The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was designated nonattainment 
for ozone prior to enactment of the amended Act. The area retained its 
designation of nonattainment under the amended Act, and was classified 
as moderate on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). Despite being classified 
as moderate since 1991, the Pittsburgh area has not fully adopted and 
implemented all statutory requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment 
areas, including automobile inspection and maintenance (I/M) and 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all of its major 
sources of VOC and NO<INF>X. Therefore, emissions in the Pittsburgh 
area have not been reduced to the extent required by the Clean Air Act 
for moderate nonattainment areas.
    Disapproval of the redesignation request will not worsen the area's 
air quality. In fact, the opposite is true. If the redesignation 
request was approved, and the area was not required to address its air 
quality problem by reducing its emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and 
NO<INF>X), the area would continue to violate the ozone NAAQS whenever 
meteorological conditions were favorable for ozone formation. However, 
if the redesignation request is disapproved, and the area adopts and 
implements all control measures required for moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas, precursor emissions will be reduced and, 
therefore, ozone concentrations in the area will be reduced.
    Pennsylvania has made no demonstration that the ozone problem in 
the Pittsburgh area is caused by transport from upwind sources. An 
adequate technical demonstration, including emissions data and a 
modeling analysis, must be provided to support any claim of transport-
dominated nonattainment.
    Although ozone levels recorded at monitors near the West Virginia/
Ohio/Pennsylvania border seem to correlate with the levels recorded 
further east in the nonattainment area, this data is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Pittsburgh area's ozone problem is due to 
transport. During the summer of 1995, on the days when monitors in the 
Pittsburgh area (``downwind'' monitors in Allegheny and Westmoreland 
Counties) recorded exceedances of the ozone standard, ozone levels at 
the monitors on the western border of the Pittsburgh area (the 
``upwind'' monitors in Beaver and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania) 
recorded increased levels of ozone. However, these ``upwind'' monitors 
did not record any exceedances of the ozone standard. In other words, 
``downwind'' monitors in the Pittsburgh area always recorded higher 
ozone levels than the monitors at the western border. This demonstrates 
the Pittsburgh area is causing its own exceedances by generating ozone 
in the area.
    Furthermore, EPA intends to use its authority under sections 
110(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the Clean Air Act, where appropriate, to 
require any state to reduce its emissions where there is evidence, such 
as photochemical grid modeling, showing that the area's emissions 
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with 
maintenance by, any other state. EPA is working with the states and 
other organizations, through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group 
(OTAG), to design and complete studies that consider upwind sources and 
quantify their impacts. As the studies progress, EPA will continue to 
work with the states and other organizations to develop mutually 
acceptable attainment strategies. Under the Clean Air Act, each state 
is ultimately responsible for ensuring that emissions originating in 
the state do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or 
interfere with maintenance by, any other state.
    Moreover, Governor Ridge has publicly stated that Pittsburgh has an 
ozone problem. The Governor has initiated a stakeholders process, a 
cooperative effort between industry and government, to resolve 
Pennsylvania's air quality problems. EPA officials are actively 
involved in this process to help Pennsylvania determine the most 
suitable emission control measures for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 
area.
    Finally, even if the violations in Pittsburgh could be attributed 
to transport, EPA would not have the authority to redesignate 
Pittsburgh to attainment. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) defines an 
attainment area as an area ``that meets'' the national ambient air 
quality standard and section 107(d)(3)(E) prohibits EPA from 
redesignating an area to attainment unless EPA determines that the area 
is attaining the standard. As an area that is experiencing violations 
of the ozone standard is not attaining the standard, EPA is not 
authorized by the Clean Air Act to redesignate such an area to 
attainment.
    Comment #2: ``EPA has established an unreasonable methodology for 
determining a region's compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, and has failed to comply with statutory 
requirements to review and revise the standard.'' The commenter also 
criticized EPA's method of determining an area's design value and EPA's 
methods used to locate monitors.
    EPA's Response: The ozone NAAQS is a health-based standard that 
couples

[[Page 19195]]

exposure time and concentration. EPA has determined that the level of 
the NAAQS is a one-hour average ozone concentration of 0.12 parts per 
million (ppm). This standard is designed to protect public health. 
Attainment of the ozone NAAQS is determined using three consecutive 
years of data to account for year-to-year variations in meteorological 
conditions as well as year-to-year variations in VOC and NO<INF>X 
emissions. Concentrations of ozone above the NAAQS level cause 
respiratory problems such as shortness of breath, coughing, congestion, 
and lung tissue damage and can result in loss of work, and increased 
hospitalizations. Those most at risk are children, outdoor workers, 
people with respiratory problems, such as asthma, and people who spend 
a lot of time outside.
    Under section 109(d)(1) of the Act, EPA is required to perform a 
review of the ozone NAAQS every five years. The last review was 
completed in 1993 (58 FR 13008). That review resulted in retaining the 
existing standard: 0.12 ppm, 1 hour average, average annual expected 
exceedances <ls-thn-eq>1 (i.e. for a three-year period, the average 
number of expected exceedances at each monitoring site must be less 
than or equal to one per year). (See 40 CFR 50.) However, in the 
February 3, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 5164), EPA announced that, due 
to new studies published in the scientific literature on ozone's health 
and environmental effects, another review of the ozone NAAQS would be 
conducted as rapidly as possible. EPA is planning to complete its 
review and propose its findings as early as mid-1996. EPA expects to 
take final action regarding its current review of the ozone NAAQS by 
mid-1997, which is within five years of completion of its last review.
    The 0.12 ppm ozone standard and the method used by EPA to determine 
whether an area is attaining the ozone standard were decided upon 
through notice and comment rulemaking and are contained in 40 CFR Part 
50 Sec. 50.9 and App. H (44 FR 8220 (Feb. 8, 1979)). EPA is bound by 
that standard and that method unless and until it is changed through 
further rulemaking. Thus, this rulemaking is simply not the appropriate 
forum for raising concerns regarding the ozone standard or the methods 
for determining attainment of the standard. EPA is simply following its 
own regulations that were promulgated previously pursuant to notice and 
comment rulemaking procedures.
    Section 183(g) of the Act requires EPA to conduct a study of 
whether the methodology EPA used to establish a design value for ozone 
provides an adequate indicator of ozone air quality. (The design value 
is an indicator that EPA uses to determine the extent of an area's 
nonattainment problem.) In accordance with this requirement, EPA 
conducted a study and published its results in December 1994 in a 
report entitled Clean Air Act Ozone Design Value Study: Final Report 
(EPA-454/R-94-035). The report concluded that:
    (1) The EPA design value method yields ozone design values that are 
consistent with the current NAAQS.
    (2) The EPA design value provides a reasonable estimate of peak 
ozone levels within urban areas and the degree of nonattainment of the 
area.
    (3) Ozone design values calculated using EPA's method correlate 
highly with other methods.
    (4) A meteorologically adjusted design value may not be the best 
indicator of the air people actually breathe, and is a major departure 
from current EPA policy.
    Finally, monitor location is determined through a cooperative 
process between EPA and states. EPA has detailed criteria for the 
placement of monitors (40 CFR 58). Monitors are located throughout a 
nonattainment area, in a network designed to characterize the air 
quality of the entire area. EPA and the states conduct annual reviews 
of monitoring networks to determine if monitors are properly located. 
EPA's latest review of the Pittsburgh area monitoring network, 
conducted in the spring of 1995, indicated that the monitor locations 
were adequate in assessing the ambient air quality in the area.''
    Comment #3: ``EPA's methodology for measuring attainment fails to 
properly assess southwestern Pennsylvania's compliance with the Clean 
Air Act since most of the population of the region is not experiencing 
ozone levels in violation of the federal standard.'' The commenter 
contends that the Pittsburgh area's moderate classification was based 
on high ozone levels in 1988, and that in each of the 6 subsequent 
years, 1989-1994, the area's ozone levels were ``better than'' the 
standard. In recognition of this, EPA determined that the area met the 
standard in July of 1995. The violation in 1995 was a function of the 
weather, and the federal ozone standard fails to make adjustments for 
unusual weather. VOC and NO<INF>X, which react to form ozone, are not 
considered pollutants. Ozone levels are low most days, because the 
temperature is usually below 90 degrees.
    The commenter went on to state that only 2 of 11 monitors violated 
the standard, and that although there were 9 exceedance days, the 
exceedance lasted only 1 or two hours on most of the exceedance days. 
Only on the hottest day of the year, July 15, did the exceedance last 
more than 4 hours. Ozone is low in most areas, on most days, and at 
most times of the day.
    EPA's Response: As stated above, exceedances of 0.12 ppm ozone for 
one hour or longer have been determined to cause measurable health 
effects in healthy individuals. Compliance with the ozone NAAQS is 
determined using three consecutive years of data to account for year-
to-year variations in emissions and meteorological conditions. As noted 
above, these determinations were made pursuant to long-standing EPA 
regulations, and this rulemaking is simply not the appropriate forum 
for comments regarding the ozone standard or the methodology for 
determining attainment of the standard. The area first had air quality 
data that met the NAAQS in 1992, considering the years 1990-1992, and 
continued to meet the standard in 1993 and 1994. Then, in 1995, the 
area once again violated the NAAQS. In light of the methodology used to 
determine attainment of the ozone NAAQS, even if meteorological 
conditions were unusual in 1995 (an allegation that the commenter 
failed to substantiate with any analysis or data), there is no basis 
for ignoring the violations monitored during that time period.
    As shown in the tables below, the area was not without exceedances 
from 1989 to 1994. From 1987 to 1995, the number of exceedances varied 
from year to year with no discernable pattern. This variation is due to 
year-to-year variations in emissions and meteorological conditions.

         Pittsburgh Area: Number of Ozone Exceedances: 1987-1995        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1987     1988    1989    1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.....      41       5       0       2       0       1       4      17 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19196]]



    Because the area has not adequately reduced its VOC and NO<INF>X 
emissions, it is subject to ozone exceedances whenever meteorological 
conditions are conducive to ozone formation. One of the goals of the 
Clean Air Act is to minimize the health risks that people encounter. 
Since meteorological conditions cannot be controlled, the way to reduce 
health risks due to ozone in the Pittsburgh area is to reduce the 
anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NO<INF>X, both of which are 
considered pollutants. Furthermore, many VOCs are listed as hazardous 
air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and nitrogen 
dioxide (NO<INF>2) is individually regulated by EPA because of its 
health and welfare effects. As a result, the reduction of VOC and 
NO<INF>X emissions will reduce the health risks that are associated 
with exposure to VOC and NO<INF>X, as well as reducing the health risks 
due to elevated ozone levels.
    Ozone is a regional pollutant. It is not formed in the same place 
as its VOC and NO<INF>X precursors are generated. The VOC and NO<INF>X 
that react to form ozone are usually generated from different sources. 
These pollutants are transported through the air (by the wind) to a 
common location, and then react in the presence of sunlight. Because of 
this transport, emissions from the entire area contribute to ozone 
exceedances, even if the exceedances are recorded only at a few 
monitors. Therefore, all ozone monitors in an ozone nonattainment area 
must be free of violations for the area to be considered meeting the 
ozone NAAQS.
    Comment #4: ``EPA should have redesignated the Pittsburgh area 
prior to the summer of 1995.'' The commenter wrote that, since the 
request was submitted in 1993, EPA had ample opportunity and 
justification to approve it, and that for 4 consecutive three-year 
periods, 1989-1994, the NAAQS was achieved. Another commenter stated 
that, because of the debate over vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M), EPA refused to redesignate the area.
    EPA's Response: Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, the 
following five criteria must be met for an ozone nonattainment area to 
be redesignated to attainment:
    1. The area must meet the ozone NAAQS.
    2. The area must meet applicable requirements of section 110 and 
Part D of the Act.
    3. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of 
the Act.
    4. The area must show that its experienced improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable measures.
    5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan under 
section 175A of the Act, including contingency measures.
    In order for EPA to redesignate an area, all five of these criteria 
must be met. It is true, that from 1992 to 1994, the Pittsburgh area 
met the first criterion. The area did have ambient air quality data 
that met the ozone NAAQS. However, the area did not meet the remaining 
four criteria.
    According to criteria 2 and 3, all applicable Part D requirements, 
including new source review (NSR), NO<INF>X and VOC reasonably 
available control technology (RACT), and I/M, must be submitted to EPA 
and approved into the SIP before a redesignation request can be 
approved. As the area lacks SIP-approved RACT rules for major sources 
of NO<INF>X and VOC, SIP-approved I/M, and SIP-approved NSR, EPA could 
not approve its redesignation request.
    The violations that were recorded in 1995 indicate that criterion 4 
was not met. The permanent and enforceable emission reductions achieved 
in the area were evidently not adequate to maintain the improved air 
quality that was experienced between 1989 and 1994, which was due, in 
part, to the meteorological conditions experienced during that period.
    Criterion 5 was established to ensure that any area that is 
redesignated to attainment will be able to maintain compliance with the 
NAAQS for at least a ten-year maintenance period following the 
redesignation. The Pittsburgh area does not meet criterion 5 because 
its maintenance plan is unapprovable. The maintenance plan does not 
project maintenance of the NAAQS for the required 10 years beyond EPA 
approval of the redesignation request. The submitted maintenance plan 
projects emissions only up to 2004. When the maintenance plan was last 
amended in 1995, it should have projected emissions out to at least 
2006, to allow time for EPA to process the requests. In addition, the 
maintenance plan contains inadequate contingency measures. Contingency 
measures are needed to correct violations that might occur during the 
maintenance period, in order to ensure that public health is protected. 
The only contingency measure provided in the maintenance plans is 
improved rule effectiveness. No source categories have been chosen, and 
no rule effectiveness matrix or protocol has been completed.
    Comment #5: ``The exceedances during the summer of 1995 were the 
result of unusual meteorological conditions.''
    EPA's Response: Ozone formation is a very complex process, which 
involves meteorological conditions as well as the concentration of VOCs 
and NO<INF>X in the air. As stated above, attainment of the ozone NAAQS 
is determined using three consecutive years of data to account for 
variations in meteorological conditions as well as variations in VOC 
and NO<INF>X emissions. Since we cannot control the weather, we must 
control levels of ozone in the breathable air by controlling the 
concentration of NO<INF>X and VOC in the air. Our goal is to ensure 
that everyone is breathing healthy air, regardless of the weather.
    Comment #6: ``EPA is not treating Pennsylvania in the same manner 
as other similarly situated states.'' According to the commenter, EPA 
is not treating four other states with pending redesignation requests 
(Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Georgia) for areas that experienced 
violations in 1995 in the same way as Pittsburgh. The commenter also 
claims that EPA treated Pittsburgh differently by not approving its 
November 1993 redesignation request, whereas EPA did approve 
redesignation requests for other ozone nonattainment areas.
    EPA's Response: EPA is aware of three other ozone nonattainment 
areas that have pending redesignation requests and that experienced 
violations of the NAAQS in 1995. These areas include two moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas: Muskegon, Michigan, and the Cincinnati area (a 
multi-state area that covers parts of Ohio and northern Kentucky); and 
one marginal area: Birmingham, Alabama.
    EPA is not aware of any area in Georgia in this situation. EPA 
acknowledges that it has not yet proposed disapproval of those 
redesignation requests.
    These areas differ from Pittsburgh, however. In the case of the two 
other moderate areas, EPA's 18-month period for acting on the 
redesignation requests has not yet expired and EPA is not yet legally 
obligated to take action on those requests. In contrast, in the case of 
Pittsburgh, EPA's statutory 18-month period for taking action expired 
in May of 1995. See CAA Sec. 107(d)(3)(D). Thus, the time period for 
EPA to act on the Pittsburgh redesignation has expired, but has not 
done so in the case of Muskegon and Cincinnati. Birmingham is a 
marginal area that has a less serious ozone air quality problem than 
Pittsburgh, a moderate area. Although EPA has not yet acted on 
Birmingham's redesignation request, that fact does not justify further 
inaction on Pittsburgh's

[[Page 19197]]

request in light of the expiration of the 18-month statutory time 
period for acting on Pittsburgh's November 12, 1993 request.
    EPA notes that it has not and may not (in light of section 
107(d)(1)(A)(i) and 107(d)(3)(E)) approve a redesignation request for 
an area that is violating the ozone standard. Thus, the three other 
areas just discussed, like Pittsburgh, are and must remain designated 
nonattainment areas until they attain the standard and satisfy the 
other redesignation criteria.
    With respect to the comment that EPA treated Pittsburgh differently 
by not approving its redesignation request while approving others, EPA 
notes that Pittsburgh's request, unlike the others EPA approved, does 
not and did not meet other redesignation criteria of section 
107(d)(3)(E). (See Response to Comment 4.) Thus, EPA did not treat 
Pittsburgh differently from other similarly situated areas by not 
approving its redesignation request while approving others. The others 
satisfied the statutory criteria for redesignation; Pittsburgh's did 
not.

Final Action

    Because the Pittsburgh area is not eligible for redesignation, EPA 
is disapproving Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the 
Pittsburgh area and the accompanying maintenance plan, which was 
originally submitted on November 12, 1993, and amended on January 13, 
1994 and May 12, 1995.
    When the final disapproval of the maintenance plan is effective, 
the Pittsburgh area will no longer be able to demonstrate conformity to 
the submitted maintenance plan pursuant to the transportation 
conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.128(i). Since the submitted 
maintenance plan budget will no longer apply for transportation 
conformity purposes, the build/no-build and less-than-90 tests will 
apply pursuant to 40 CFR 93.122. In addition, the Commonwealth 
submitted a 15% rate-of-progress plan (15% plan) on March 22, 1996. 
Ninety days after this submittal date, the emissions budget contained 
in this 15% plan will apply for conformity purposes pursuant to 40 CFR 
93.118 and 93.128(a)(1)(ii), as well as the build/no-build test under 
40 CFR 93.122.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/promulgated 
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.
    As described in the NPR, EPA has determined that the disapproval of 
the redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small 
entities. EPA's denial of the Commonwealth's redesignation request 
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities nor does it impose new 
requirements. The area retains its current designation status and will 
continue to be subject to the same statutory requirements. To the 
extent that the area must adopt regulations, based on its nonattainment 
status, EPA will review the effect of those actions on small entities 
at the time the Commonwealth submits those regulations.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action, pertaining to the disapproval of 
Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 
Pittsburgh ozone nonattainment area, must be filed in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 1, 1996. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 22, 1996.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-10698 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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