Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-07-11T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453; FRL-     ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area’s
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   				

									

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

						

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (Pittsburgh Area) be redesignated
as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS).  EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request
for Pittsburgh Area.  In conjunction with its redesignation request,
PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for
Pittsburgh Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.  EPA is proposing
to make a determination that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient
air quality ozone monitoring data for 2003-2005.  EPA’s proposed
approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its
determination that the Pittsburgh Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA).  In
addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Pittsburgh
Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision.  EPA is also
providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for
the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the
Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve.  EPA is proposing
approval of the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the
2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453 by one of the following methods:

A.  	    HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov . 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

B.	E-mail:   HYPERLINK "mailto:cripps.christopher@epa.gov" 
cripps.christopher@epa.gov .

C.  	Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

 Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.  Such
deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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     HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or e-mail.  The    
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website 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     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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    
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK "mailto:cripps.christopher@epa.gov" 
cripps.christopher@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 that EPA is proposing to take?

II.   	What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

III.  	What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

IV.  	Why is EPA Taking These Actions?

V.  	What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

VI.  	What is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Request and SIP
Revision?

VII.  	Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance 

	Plan for the Pittsburgh Area Adequate and Approvable?

VIII.  	Proposed Actions



Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

									

I.  What are the Actions that EPA is proposing to take?

On April 26, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone.  Concurrently, on April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance
plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for at least 10 years after
redesignation.  PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory as a SIP
revision on April 26, 2007.  The Pittsburgh Area is currently designated
as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and is covered by a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS.  EPA is proposing to determine
that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it
has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the
redesignation request to change the designation of the Pittsburgh Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  EPA is
also proposing to approve the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan as a SIP
revision, such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
to attainment status.  The maintenance plan is designed to ensure
continued attainment in the Pittsburgh Area for the next ten years.  EPA
is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the
Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision.  Additionally, EPA is announcing its
action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the
Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) for transportation conformity purposes.							

II.  What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

A.  General

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources.  Rather,
emissions of NOx and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form
ground-level ozone.  The air pollutants NOx and VOC are referred to as
precursors of ozone.  The CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of
0.08 parts per million (ppm).  This new standard is more stringent than
the previous 1-hour ozone standard.  EPA designated, as nonattainment,
any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data
for the three years of 2001-2003.  These were the most recent three
years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas.  The Pittsburgh
Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour
health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.  On April
30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area (as well as most other areas
of the country) effective June 15, 2005.  See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).  

However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).  South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist.  v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir.
2006).  On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, Docket No. 04-1201 (hereafter “South Coast”), in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified that the
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule
that had been successfully challenged.  Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of  Title I,  part D of the Act as 8-hour  nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain
effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the Court’s rejection of 
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2.  By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged.  The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain 
four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) nonattainment area
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area’s 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and
(4) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of 
federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the Court’s
reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.

Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. “The Pittsburgh
Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements under Section 110 and Part D of
the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,”
EPA discusses its rationale why the decisions in South Coast are not an
impediment to redesignating the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.   

The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions – subpart 1
and subpart 2– that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas.  Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic”
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant – including ozone – governed
by a NAAQS.  Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified”
nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.  Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject
only to the provisions of subpart 1.  Other areas are also subject to
the provisions of subpart 2.  Under EPA’s 8-hour ozone implementation
rule, signed on April 15, 2004, an area was classified under subpart 2
based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it
had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour
design value in the CAA for subpart 2 requirements).  All other areas
are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values.  In
2004, Pittsburgh Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and
therefore, is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.

 

Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the
3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered).  See 69 FR 23857,
(April 30, 2004) for further information.  Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements.  The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.  Based upon
ozone monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2006 (inclusive), the
Pittsburgh Area has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period
2003 through 2005 and has a design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year
period 2004 through 2006.  Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Pittsburgh Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B.  The Pittsburgh Area 

The Pittsburgh Area is comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,
Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties.  Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh Area
had been designated and classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment
area for the 1-hour standard.   See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6,
1991.  On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved a request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard and approved a maintenance plan SIP revision.  

On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested that the Pittsburgh Area be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.  The
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured data
for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone
had been achieved in the Pittsburgh Area.  The data satisfies the CAA
requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the
area’s design value) is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084
ppm when rounding is considered).  Under the CAA, a nonattainment area
may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data is
available to determine that the area has attained the standard and the
area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).

III.  What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment.  Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows
for redesignation, providing that:

(1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; 

(2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; 

(4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting
the requirements of section 175A; and

(5) The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and Part D.

EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57
FR 18070).  EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:



“Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations”, Memorandum
from Bill   Laxton, June 18, 1990;

“Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

“Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

“Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 		

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment
Areas,” dated November 30, 1993; 

“Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and 

“Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV.  Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.  On April 26, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision
to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after redesignation.   
EPA has determined that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the standard
and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).

V.  What Would be the Effect of These Actions?

Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation of
the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81.  It would also incorporate into the
Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year inventory and a maintenance plan
ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Pittsburgh Area for the next 10 years.  The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS
(should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for NOx and VOC for
transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 2018.  These
MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table:  

Table 1: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets tons per day (rounded to two
decimal places) 

Year	VOC 	NOx

2009	54.54	101.53

2018	32.91	  41.15

VI.  What is EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Request and SIP Revision?
  

EPA is proposing to determine that Pittsburgh Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met.  The following is a description of how PADEP’s April 26,
2007, submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.

A.  The Pittsburgh Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS

In the Pittsburgh Area, there are currently thirteen monitors that
measure air quality with respect to ozone.  As part of its redesignation
request, Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data which included the
years 2003 through 2006 (the most recent years of data available as of
the time of the redesignation request) for the Pittsburgh Area.  This
data has been quality assured and is recorded in Air Quality System
(AQS).  

Based upon this data, EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  For the 8-hour ozone
standard, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete and
consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring
data.  To attain this standard, the design value, which is the 3-year
average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations, measured at each monitor within the area over each year
must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm.  Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is
attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.  The data must be
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS).  PADEP uses the AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data
transfers and content for accuracy.  The monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.  The fourth-high 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average, are
summarized in Table 2 for the four monitors with the highest 2005 and
2006 design values in the Pittsburgh area. 

Table 2: Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values

  Monitor:  California & 11th, Harrison Twp, Allegheny Co., AQS ID
42-003-1005                                     

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.081

2004	0.076

2005	0.087

2006	0.088

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm

Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning, Armstrong Co., AQS ID
42-005-0001

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.086

2004	0.082

2005	0.086

2006	0.080

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.082 ppm

Monitor:  Route 168 & Tomlinson Road, Beaver Co., AQS ID 42-007-0002

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.087

2004	0.081

2005	0.086

2006	0.082

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm

Monitor:  Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID
42-003-0010

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.088

2004	0.072

2005	0.092

2006	0.078

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.080 ppm

The air quality data show that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.084 ppm for 2003 through 2005 and
still is attaining the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm at the
monitors with the highest design value for 2004 through 2006.  The data
collected at the Pittsburgh Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement
that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. 
PADEP’s request for redesignation for the Pittsburgh Area indicates
that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In
addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP
has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

B.  The Pittsburgh Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA

EPA has determined that the Pittsburgh Area has met all SIP requirements
applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).  In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP
is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). 
In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained what
requirements are applicable to the area, and determined that the
applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.  We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992)
describes EPA’s interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to
the timing of applicable requirements.  Under this interpretation, to
qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request.  See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66, (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).  Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is
approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation.  See
Section 175A(c) of the CAA.  See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004).  See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation
of St. Louis).

This section also sets forth EPA’s views on the potential effect of
the Court’s rulings on this proposed redesignation action.  For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court’s rulings
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation.  EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in light of the Court’s decisions
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions
of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.

1.  Section 110 General SIP Requirements

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. 
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2)
include, but are not limited to, the following:

Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable
public notice and hearing; 

Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;

Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)); 

Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and 

Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOx SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).  However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area’s designation and classification in that State.  EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request.  The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the State.  Thus, we do
not believe that these requirements should be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.  In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment
plan submissions and not linked with an area’s attainment status are
not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.  The
Pittsburgh Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is
redesignated.  The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. 
This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on applicability
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement.  See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings,
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995).  See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR at 50399, October 19, 2001).  Similarly, with
respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule
to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not
“an ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(l)
because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).  

     

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.  

Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2),  EPA concludes
that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E)
regarding section 110 of the Act.

2.  Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the
basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas.  Section
182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification.  

Under an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), EPA classified the
Pittsburgh Area as a subpart 1 nonattainment area under the 8-hour ozone
standard.   EPA believes that no subpart 1 requirements need to be
approved prior to redesignation.  Of the nonattainment plan provisions
due under section 172, none were due prior to submission of the complete
redesignation request because EPA’s November 29, 2005 final rule (70
FR 71612) set the deadline for these requirements at 3 years after
resignation which for the Pittsburgh Area is June 15, 2007. 

With respect to the 8- hour standard, the Court's rulings in South Coast
rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the
8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency.  Consequently,
it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be
reclassified under subpart 2.  Although any future decision by EPA to
classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that
redesignation cannot now go forward.  This belief is based upon (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance
with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied.

 

First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Pittsburgh Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
only subpart 1 requirements.  Under EPA’s longstanding interpretation
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request.  See September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division).  See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)(Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation; and 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted.  The 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 determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date.  Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area.  The
Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s proposed
solution only makes the situation worse.  Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.” Id. at 68.  Similarly
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request.

With respect to subpart 2 requirements, if the Pittsburgh Area initially
had been classified under subpart the first two part D subpart 2
requirements applicable to the Pittsburgh Area under section 182(a) of
the CAA would be: (1) a base-year inventory requirement pursuant to
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, (2) the emissions statement
requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.

As we have stated previously in this document, these requirements are
not yet due for purpose of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area, but
nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an emissions
statement rule for the 1-hour standard which covers all portions of the
Pittsburgh Area and which EPA believes satisfies the emissions statement
requirement for the 8-hour standard under section 182(a)(3)(B).  This
regulation is codified at Section 135.21 “Emission statements” in
Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); see also 60 FR 2881, January 12,
1995.  With respect to the base year inventory requirement, in this
notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base
year inventory SIP concurrently with the maintenance plan as fulfilling
the requirements, if necessary, of both section 182(a)(1) and section
172(c)(3) of the CAA.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that
Pennsylvania’s SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D
of the CAA.  In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of
the redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret
the general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval
prior to redesignation.

With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of
the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure
that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP.  The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). 
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required EPA to promulgate.  EPA believes it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d)
since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and
Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved.
 See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation.  See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

In the case of the Pittsburgh Area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Pittsburgh Area need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation.  EPA
has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without
Part D NSR in effect.  The rationale for this position is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”  See rulemakings for
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-68); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61
FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21,
1996).  In the case of Pennsylvania, the Chapter 127 Part D NSR
regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1))
explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to
ozone attainment areas within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).  The OTR
NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a marginal
area.  Nevertheless, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully
approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision consisting of
Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the
Pittsburgh Area.

3.  Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard 

As stated previously in this document, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA approved a request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan
SIP revision. 

With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Pittsburgh Area
was an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard.  The Court’s decisions in
South Coast do not impact redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision
clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions
budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that those
1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs).  To meet
this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply
with the applicable requirements of EPA’s conformity regulations at 40
CFR Part 93.  As discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA is proposing
to approve 8-hour MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area.  Once these 8-hour
MVEBs are approved the 1-hour budgets will no longer apply under
anti-backsliding.  

With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the
Pittsburgh Area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measures (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.

Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter any requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.

4.   Transport Region Requirements

All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment.  The
section 184 requirements include reasonably available control technology
(RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), and
Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure.   In the case of the
Pittsburgh Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will
continue to be applicable after redesignation as discussed previously in
this document.  

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  See the
Reading, Pennsylvania redesignation proposed and final rules, 61 FR
53174, (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), respectively. 
The rationale for this is based on two considerations.  First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements
continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment.  Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well
as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation.  Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the
area by virtue of the area’s nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an
action changing an area’s designation.  See 61 FR 53174, 53175-6
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).  

5.  The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
redesignation.  EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request.  Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.  The Pittsburgh Area was a
1-hour maintenance area which had been a moderate nonattainment area at
the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).  No Part D submittal requirements have
come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the
area.  Therefore, all Part D submittal requirements have been fulfilled.
 Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable
for the purposes of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.  As
indicated previously, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to
the area’s nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.  EPA also believes that Pennsylvania has
fulfilled all 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation.  

C.  The Air Quality Improvement in the Pittsburgh Area is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting from
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the Pittsburgh Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.  Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 3.  

Table 3: Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in tons per day
(tpd)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	16.5	100.3	51.5	86.4	254.7

Year 2004	15.5	98.1	48.8	73.3	235.7

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

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	250.4	11.5	86.1	173.9	522.0

Year 2004	202.8	11.7	81.5	148.8	444.8

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

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 19.0 tpd, and NOx
emissions were reduced by 77.2 tpd, due to the following permanent and
enforceable measures implemented in the Pittsburgh Area:

(1) Stationary Area Sources 

(a) Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003)

(b) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004);

(2) Highway Vehicle Sources

(a)  Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), Tier 1 (56 FR 25724,
June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)

(b)  Federal Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694,
October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000)

(c)  National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28,
1999)

(d)  Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program (64 FR 32411,
June 17, 1999 and 70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005); 

(3)  Nonroad Sources – Federal Nonroad Engine and Fuels (40 CFR parts
89 to 91, and 1039, 1048 and 1051) ; and 

(4)  Stationary Point Sources – Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution
Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR
57428, September 29, 2006) (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001 and 71 FR
57428, September 29, 2006).

EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the
cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of
the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.	

				

D.  The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA		

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted for
approval under section 175A of the CAA the April 26, 2007, maintenance
plan to fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard.  
Pennsylvania submitted this SIP revision to provide for maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for at least 10 years
after redesignation.  Once approved, the maintenance plan for the ozone
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Pittsburgh Area meets the
requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable ozone
standards including the 8-hour standard.  

1.  What is required in a maintenance plan?	 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan
for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.  Under
section 175A(a), the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation
of an area to attainment.  Section 175A(b) requires that eight years
after the redesignation the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the
next 10-year period following the initial 10-year period.    To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation,
as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour
ozone violations.  Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment.  The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan.  An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:  

(1) An attainment emissions inventory;

(2) A maintenance demonstration;

(3) A monitoring network;

(4) Verification of continued attainment; and

(5) A contingency plan.

2.  Analysis of the Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan

(a)  Attainment Inventory - An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment.  An attainment year of 2004 was used for the
Pittsburgh Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year
attainment period of 2003-2005 and accounts for reductions attributable
to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.   

PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOx emissions inventories for the
Pittsburgh Area, including point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources for a base year of 2002.

   

To develop the NOx and VOC base year emissions inventories, PADEP used
the following approaches and sources of data:

(i) Point source emissions – Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and
emission calculations each year.  Throughput data are multiplied by
emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System
and EPA’s publication series AP-42 and are based on Source
Classification Code (SCC).  Each process has at least one SCC assigned
to it.  If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate
emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates
supersede those calculated using SCC codes.

(ii) Area source emissions – Area source emissions are generally
estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or
collective activity for each area source category at the county level. 
Pennsylvania estimates emissions from area sources using emission
factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary
point sources.  Emission factors may also be derived from research and
guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and
AP-42 factors.  Throughput estimates are derived from county-level
activity data, by apportioning national and statewide activity data to
counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers.  County
employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to the
industry covered.

(iii) On-road mobile sources - PADEP employs an emissions estimation
methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions.  The
Pittsburgh Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by
vehicle type and roadway type.

(iv) Mobile nonroad emissions – The 2002 emissions for the majority of
nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD
2005 model.  The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline,
liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad
equipment types and includes growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not
estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives.  For 2002 locomotive
emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national
fuel information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  Commercial
aircraft operations are significant in the Pittsburgh area.  Pittsburgh
International Airport (PIT) accounts for all commercial operations in
the Pittsburgh area.  PADEP quantified the emissions at PIT with the
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) that is an EPA-approved
model.  For other 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions
using small aircraft operation statistics from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com , and emission factors and
operational characteristics in EDMS.  For PIT, growth was estimated
using estimates of future operations at PIT from the FAA APO Terminal
Area Forecast Detailed Report.  For other aircraft operations, growth
was calculated using estimates of small airport activity from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s APO terminal area forecast
detailed report.  

The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for the Pittsburgh Area
are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions for this
area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the demonstration of maintenance for
this area.  EPA has concluded that Pennsylvania has adequately derived
and documented the 2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for this
area.

(b)  Maintenance Demonstration - On April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision to supplement its April 26, 2007, redesignation request. 
The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Pittsburgh Area plan shows maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future
emissions of VOC and NOx remain at or below the attainment year 2004
emissions levels throughout the Pittsburgh Area through the year 2018. 
The Pittsburgh Area maintenance demonstration need not be based on
modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.  See also,
66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32.

Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Pittsburgh Area
for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the
10-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and
NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment
level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period.

Table 4: Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category 	2004 VOC Emissions   	2009 VOC Emissions	2018 VOC
Emissions      

Mobile*	  73.3	  54.54	  32.91

Nonroad	  48.8	 39.1	34.6

Area	  98.1	 92.4	96.1

Point 	  15.5	 16.4	20.3

Total 	235.7	202.44	183.91

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

Table 5: Total NOx Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category 	2004 NOx Emissions    	2009 NOx Emissions	2018 NOx
Emissions      

Mobile*	148.8	  101.53	    41.15

Nonroad	  81.5	  70.5	  55.6

Area	  11.7	  12.1	  12.2

Point	202.8	255.2	273.6

Total 	444.8	 439.33	 382.55

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

The following are permanent and enforceable control measures to ensure
emissions during the maintenance period are equal to or less than the
emissions in the attainment year:

(1)  Pennsylvania’s Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR
70893);

(2)  Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895);

(3)  Pennsylvania’s Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080); and

(4)  Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction
Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, September 29,
2006).

Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or due
to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:   

(1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner
gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet) – Tier 1 and Tier 2;

(2) NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle
Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999);

(3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006)
(66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); 

(4) Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel
(2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004); and

(5) Pennsylvania’s vehicle emission inspection/maintenance program
(October 6, 2005, 70 FR 58313).

In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) should
have positive impacts on Pennsylvania’s air quality.  CAIR, which will
be implemented in the eastern portion of the country in two phases (2009
and 2015) should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors and
will have a beneficial effect on the air quality in the Pittsburgh Area.
 

Pennsylvania and other nearby states are required to adopt a regulation
implementing the requirements of CAIR or an equivalent program.  On
April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) to reduce the interstate transport of NOx and sulfur
dioxides that contribute significantly to nonattainment and maintenance
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  If Pennsylvania has not adopted its own
CAIR requirements and obtained EPA’s approval of the required SIP
revision by September 2007, the FIP will impose the Federal program upon
CAIR-affected electric generating units in Pennsylvania.  The Pittsburgh
Area does have several sources which are subject to regulation under
CAIR.  For the maintenance demonstration, Pennsylvania did not rely upon
any reductions from CAIR from these facilities.  However, the quality of
air transported from upwind sources into the county would be improved.

Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard
should be maintained in the Pittsburgh Area.

						

(c)  Monitoring Network – Currently there are thirteen monitors
measuring ozone in the Pittsburgh Area.  Pennsylvania will continue to
operate an air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part
58.	

(d)  Verification of Continued Attainment - The Commonwealth will track
the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area by
reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period.  The
Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key factors, VMT
data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to
the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan.  The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under EPA’s Consolidated Emission
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51 subpart A) to see if the area exceed the
attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent.  Based on
these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further
emission control measures should be implemented.

(e) The Maintenance Plan’s Contingency Measures - The contingency plan
provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation.  Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).

The ability of the Pittsburgh Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOx emissions in
the area remaining at or below 2004 levels.  The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and NOx emissions to decrease and stay
below 2004 levels through the year 2018.  The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and
implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur.

Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the
fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at the Pittsburgh Area
design monitor are above 84 ppb.  If this trigger point occurs, the
Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control
measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the
air quality standard.  PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the
excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most
effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels.  PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state and local
measure that have been adopted but no yet implemented at the time of
excessive ozone levels occurred.  PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures.

Contingency measures will be adopted in the event that a violation of
the 8-hour ozone standard occurs in the Pittsburgh Area.  In the event
of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, contingency measures will
be adopted in order to return the area to attainment with the standard. 
Contingency measures to be considered for the Pittsburgh Area will
include, but not limited to the following:

Regulatory measures:

Additional controls on consumer products

Additional control on portable fuel containers

Non-regulatory measures:

Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash” – installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy duty diesel engines.

Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel
use, for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.

Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.

Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses
and other freight-handling facilities.

Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial
equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.

Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.

The following schedule applies to the implementation of the regulatory
contingency measures:

Within 1 month of the trigger, submit request to begin regulatory
development process.

Within 3 months of the trigger, review of regulation by Air Quality
Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council (CAC)
and other advisory committees as appropriate.

Within 6 months of the trigger, Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
meeting/action.

Within 8 months of the trigger, publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin for
comment as proposed rulemaking.

Within 10 months of the trigger, public hearing takes place and comment
period on proposed rule closes.

Within 11 months of the trigger, House and Senate Standing Committees
and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comment on proposed
rule.

Within 13 months of the trigger, AQTAC, CAC and other committees review
responses to comments and draft final rulemaking.

Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB meeting/action.

Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC action on rulemaking.

Within 18 months of the trigger, Attorney General’s review/action.

Within 19 months of the trigger, publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and submit to EPA as a SIP revision.  The
regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.

The following schedule applies to the implementation of non-regulatory
contingency measures:

Within 2 months of the trigger:  Identify stakeholders for potential
non-regulatory measures.

Within 3 months of the trigger, if funding is necessary, identify
potential sources of funding and the timeframe under which funds would
be available.  In addition to non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following
program may be able to provide funding:  for transportation projects,
the Federal Highway Administration, as allocated to the two municipal
planning organizations in the Pittsburgh Area; for projects which will
also have an energy efficient co-benefit, the Pennsylvania Energy
Harvest program; for projects which would be under taken by small
business and are pollution prevention projects, the Small Business
Advantage Grant and Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs;
for projects which will involve alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling
operations, the Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant program; for projects
involving diesel emissions, Federal Energy Policy Act diesel reduction
funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for which Pennsylvania or project
sponsors may apply under a competitive process.

Within 6 months of the trigger, work with the area planning commissions
to identify land use planning strategies and projects with quantifiable
and timely emission benefits.  Work with the Pennsylvania Department of
Community and Economic Development and other State agencies to assist in
these measures.

Within 9 months of the trigger, enter into agreements with implementing
organizations if state loans or grants are involved.  Quantify projected
emission benefits.

Within 12 months of the trigger, submit a revised SIP to EPA.

Within 12-24 months of the trigger, implement strategies and projects.

 (g)  Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan

EPA concludes that the April 26, 2007 maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA. 

VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?

A.  What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas.  These control
strategy SIPs (i.e. RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and
maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road
mobile sources.  Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be
established in an ozone maintenance plan.  A MVEB is the portion of the
total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions.  A MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from
an area’s planned transportation system.  The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188).  The preamble also describes how to
establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance
plans.  

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as
the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the State’s air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks.  “Conformity” to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or
reasonable progress towards the NAAQS.  If a transportation plan does
not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward.  Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance
plans containing

MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget contained therein
“adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity.  After
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by State and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects
“conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA’s substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

EPA’s process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic
steps:  public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA’s adequacy finding.  This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA’s May
14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.”  This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
- Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1,
2004 (69 FR 40004).  EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making
its adequacy determinations.

The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area are listed in Table 1 of this document
for the 2009, and 2018 years and are the projected emissions for the
on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated
to the MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be
used for transportation conformity determinations.

B.  What Is a Safety Margin?

A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.  The following example is for the 2018 safety margin:  the
Pittsburgh Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to
2004 time period.  The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for the Pittsburgh Area.  

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 were 235.7 tpd of VOC and 444.8 tpd of NOx. 
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and obtained totals of
183.91 tpd of VOC and 382.55 tpd of NOx from all sources in the
Pittsburgh Area.  The safety margin for the Pittsburgh Area for 2018
would be the difference between these amounts.  This difference is 51.79
tpd of VOC and 62.25 tpd of NOx.  The emissions up to the level of the
attainment year including the safety margins are projected to maintain
the area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The
safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below the attainment
levels that can be allocated for emissions by various sources as long as
the total emission levels are maintained at or below the attainment
levels.  Table 6 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 6:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Pittsburgh Area 

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (tpd)

2004 Attainment	235.7   	444.8

2009 Interim	  202.44	  439.33

2009 Safety Margin	   33.26	     5.47

2004 Attainment	235.7	444.8

2018 Final	 183.91	  382.55

2018 Safety Margin	  51.79	    62.25

PADEP allocated 3.58 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC on-road mobile
source emissions projection and 3.06 tpd NOx to the 2009 interim NOx
on-road mobile source emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. 
For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 4.60 tpd VOC and 3.32 tpd NOx
from the 2018 safety margins to the 2018 on-road mobile source emissions
projections to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile
source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no longer
available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source category. 
Table 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for the Pittsburgh Area.

Table 7:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area tons per day
(rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions	NOx Emissions

2009 on-road mobile source projected emissions	50.96	  98.47

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  3.58	    3.06

2009 MVEBs	54.54	101.53

2018 on-road mobile source projected emissions	28.31	  37.83

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  4.60	    3.32

2018 MVEBs	32.91	  41.15

C.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area are approvable because
the MVEBs for NOx and VOC, including the allocated safety margins,
continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year
inventory levels as required by the transportation conformity
regulations.

								

D.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA's conformity website concurrent with this proposal.  The public
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period
for this proposed rule.  In this case, EPA is concurrently processing
the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the
MVEBs contained therein.  In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part
of the maintenance plan.  The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.

If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Pittsburgh Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of our
proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to
the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the
adequacy process as a separate action.  Our action on the Pittsburgh
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:   
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq"  http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq ,
(once there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for
“Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”).

VIII.   Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.  EPA is also proposing to approve the
Commonwealth’s April 26, 2007, request for the Pittsburgh Area to be
designated to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone.  EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation request and determined that it
meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.  EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring
data demonstrate that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. 
The final approval of this redesignation request would change the
designation of the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard.  EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan and the 2002 base year inventory for
Pittsburgh Area, submitted on April 26, 2007, as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP.  EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for
the Pittsburgh Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A of
the CAA as described previously in this notice.  EPA is also proposing
to approve the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Pittsburgh Area
in conjunction with its redesignation request.  EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document.  These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IX.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews   

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For
this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use"  (66 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. 
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the
Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. 
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 affect the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to
avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act.  This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.  

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.  EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.  

This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance
plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).

List of Subjects    

40 CFR Part 52 

				

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 

			

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

							

										

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

										

							

___________________________                
_______/s/___________________      

Dated:  June 28, 2007			            W. C. Early,

						Acting Regional Administrator, 			

						Region III.						

  PAGE   4 

  PAGE   10 

  PAGE   41 

  PAGE   51