[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53094-53106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26093]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[PA175-4179; FRL-7079-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans and 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Pennsylvania; 
Redesignation of Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area to 
Attainment and Approval of Miscellaneous Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate 
ozone nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh area) has attained the 1-hour 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by its extended 
attainment date. The Pittsburgh area is comprised of Allegheny, 
Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland 
counties. This determination is based on three years of complete, 
quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1998 to 
2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been 
attained in the area, and the most recent data which shows that the 
area is continuing to attain. On the basis of this determination, EPA 
is also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements 
along with certain other related requirements of Part D of Title 1 of 
the Clean Air Act (the Act), are not applicable to the Pittsburgh area. 
EPA is also approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP) request to redesignate the Pittsburgh 
area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth's formal 
request was dated May 21, 2001. In approving this redesignation 
request, EPA is also approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), the Commonwealth's plan for maintaining the 
1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years. EPA is also approving the 
1990 base year emission inventory for nitrous oxides (NOX). 
EPA is converting the limited approval of Pennsylvania's New Source 
Review (NSR) program to full approval throughout the Commonwealth with 
the exception of the 5-county Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area where it will retain its 
limited approval status until that area has an approved attainment 
demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Webster, (215) 814-2033, or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925), EPA 
published a determination of attainment for the Pittsburgh area. This 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) also proposed a determination that 
certain requirements of the Act were no longer applicable. On May 30, 
2001 (66 FR 29270), EPA published another NPR for the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. This May 30, 2001, NPR proposed to redesignate the 
Pittsburgh area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA also 
proposed to approve the maintenance plan that the Commonwealth 
submitted as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA proposed these 
actions in parallel with the Commonwealth's process for amending the 
SIP. No substantial changes were made to the plan during the 
Commonwealth's adoption process and the Commonwealth formally submitted 
its adopted SIP on May 21, 2001.
    On May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270) EPA also proposed approval of the 
1990 NOX base year inventory and, to convert the limited 
approval of the Pennsylvania NSR program to full approval for the 
entire Commonwealth, with the exception of the Pennsylvania portion of 
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area. This 
document is organized as follows:

I. What is the background for these actions?
II. What comments did we receive and what are our responses?
III. What actions are we taking?
IV. Why are we taking this action to redesignate the area?
V. What are the effects of redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour 
NAAQS?
VI. Administrative Requirements.

I. What Is the Background for These Actions?

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

[[Page 53095]]

II. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?

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

A. Comments Related to Whether the Area Has a Fully Approved Plan

    We received comments from several parties who assert that pursuant 
to 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, EPA cannot redesignate an 
area to attainment unless EPA ``has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area.'' They contend that EPA has yet to 
fully approve the applicable implementation plan for the Pittsburgh 
area. The commenters maintain that, among other things, EPA has yet to 
fully approve the moderate area ozone SIP for this area by failing to 
have fully approved the following specific SIP elements required by the 
Clean Air Act:
(1) An Attainment Determination and Attainment Demonstration
    Comment: Several commenters assert that the Act required moderate 
area SIP submittals to include an attainment demonstration based on 
modeling or other analytical method determined by EPA to be at least as 
effective. The commenters contend that EPA has not approved an 
attainment demonstration for Pittsburgh, nor has the state submitted an 
approvable attainment demonstration. The commenters also claim that 
EPA's proposal to waive requirements of section 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) 
of the Act concerning submission of the ozone attainment demonstration, 
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration and reasonably 
available control measures and section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency 
measures, is without justification. They also contend that EPA has no 
authority to waive these requirements. One commenter questions why EPA 
makes no mention of the attainment demonstration adopted December 29, 
1997 by the Commonwealth and asserts that EPA's proposal to waive the 
requirements of section 172(c), section 182(b)(1), and section 
172(c)(9) have no effect since EPA has not redesignated the area.
    Response: On January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925), EPA proposed that the 
Pittsburgh area had attained the standard based on 1998-2000 monitoring 
data. With this finding, EPA also proposed that certain requirements, 
including an attainment demonstration, were no longer applicable as the 
area had attained the standard. EPA has explained at length in other 
actions its rationale for the reasonableness of this interpretation of 
the Act and incorporates those explanation by reference. See (61 FR 
20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 36723) (July 
18, 1995) Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 
1995), (61 FR 31832-31833) (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI), (65 FR 
37879) (June 19, 2000) Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio and Kentucky. The 
United States Court of appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld EPA's 
interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).
    EPA reiterates the position set forth in its prior rulemaking 
actions and in the January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925) proposed rulemaking 
for the Pittsburgh area. Subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act 
contains various air quality planning and SIP submission requirements 
for ozone nonattainment areas. EPA believes it is reasonable to 
interpret the provisions regarding Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 
and attainment demonstrations, along with other certain other related 
provisions, not to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment 
area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the 
ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three 
consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality monitoring 
data). EPA interprets the general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of 
Title I (sections 171 and 172) not to require the submission of SIP 
revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations or section 172 
(c)(9) contingency measures. As explained in a memorandum from John S. 
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled 
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Area Meeting the Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to interpret the more specific attainment demonstration and 
related provisions of subpart 2 in the same manner. See Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 99 F. 3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).
    The attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) 
requires that the plan provide for ``such specific annual reductions in 
emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air 
quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA.'' If 
an area has, in fact, monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA 
believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission 
containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also 
consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) 
requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA 
stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for 
attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment 
since ``attainment will have been reached'' (57 FR 13564). Upon 
attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts to 
the maintenance of the NAAQS and the development of a maintenance plan 
under section 175A.
    Similar reasoning applies to other related provisions of subpart 2. 
The first of these are the contingency measure requirements of section 
172(c)(9) of the Act. EPA has previously interpreted the contingency 
measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable 
once an area has attained the standard since those ``contingency 
measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable 
date'' (57 FR 13564).
    The state must continue to operate an appropriate network, in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the 
area. The air quality data relied upon to determine that the area is 
attaining the ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 
requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone 
(consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and 
recorded in EPA's AIRS) for the Pittsburgh moderate ozone nonattainment 
area from the 1998 to 2000 ozone seasons. Monitoring data for the 2001 
ozone season shows that the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. On the basis of this review, EPA had determined that the area 
has attained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 1998-2000 period (and 
has continued to do so, to date, in 2001), and therefore is not 
required to submit an attainment demonstration and a section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measure plan, nor does it need any other measures to attain 
the 1-hour ozone standard.
    EPA does not need to evaluate the attainment demonstration that the 
Commonwealth has previously adopted, because it is not necessary for 
this action, and is no longer a requirement for the Pittsburgh area, 
because the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

[[Page 53096]]

It is also important to note that the Commonwealth has a fully approved 
15 percent plan for the Pittsburgh area. (66 FR 17634) (April 3, 2001).
(2) An ``All Reasonably Available Control Measures'' (RACM) Analysis
    Comment: One commenter asserts that EPA has not approved a 
demonstration that the SIP provided for implementation of all 
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable, 
42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), nor has the state met this requirement for 
Pittsburgh. The commenter states that EPA has no authority to waive 
this requirement, which is in addition to the requirement to 
demonstrate timely attainment.
    Response: No additional RACM controls beyond what are already 
required in the SIP are necessary for redesignation to attainment. The 
General Preamble, April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13560), explains that section 
172 (c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide 
for the implementation of RACM as expeditiously as practicable. EPA 
interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas 
to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement 
those measures that are reasonably available and necessary to attain as 
expeditiously as practicable. Because attainment has been achieved, no 
additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.
    The suspension of the attainment demonstration requirements 
pursuant to our determination of attainment include the section 
172(c)(1) RACM requirements as well. The General Preamble treats the 
RACM requirements as a ``component'' of an area's attainment 
demonstration. Thus, the suspension of the attainment demonstration 
requirement pursuant to our determination of attainment applies to the 
RACM requirement, since it is a component of the attainment 
demonstration.
(3) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
    Comment: Several commenters state that the Act explicitly requires 
that the SIP mandate RACT for all VOC sources within the nonattainment 
area, including each category of VOC sources covered by Control 
Technique Guideline (CTG) documents. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c), 7511a (b)(2). 
The commenters point out that EPA concedes that the requirement to 
fully approve the RACT SIP has not been met as of the date of the 
redesignation proposal.
    Several commenters state that the Commonwealth has not adopted 
source category RACT rules for all CTG categories including: aerospace, 
synthetic organic compound manufacturing, reactor and distillations 
processes, shipbuilding, wood furniture, large petroleum dry cleaners, 
air oxidation processes in synthetic organic chemical manufacturing 
industries, equipment leaks from natural/gas gasoline processing 
plants, and a number of others. One commenter postulates that EPA will 
suggest that it will require source specific RACT for all sources 
within each category before finalizing the redesignation proposal and 
the commenter asserts that this approach circumvents the mandate to 
adopt RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by CTG documents. 
This commenter goes on to say the these category RACTs were to have 
been adopted and complied with years ago and EPA cannot retroactively 
deem the SIP to be in compliance with part D.
    Several commenters assert that if EPA intends to grant the state's 
redesignation request based on potential future EPA approvals of state 
RACT determinations, then it will deprive the public of the opportunity 
to offer fully informed comment as to whether the plan as a whole meets 
all of the applicable requirements of section 110 and part D of the 
Act, as well as the appropriateness of their inclusion in the 
redesignation.
    Response: The Pittsburgh area has satisfied all applicable ozone 
requirements and has a fully approved ozone SIP. In acting upon a 
redesignation request, EPA may rely on any prior SIP approvals plus any 
additional approvals it may perform in conjunction with acting on the 
redesignation. EPA has already taken final action to approve all 
required SIP elements or is approving them in conjunction with this 
final action on the redesignation. Therefore, the Pittsburgh area has a 
fully approved SIP. See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992, page 3. The Calcagni memorandum 
allows for approval of SIP elements and redesignation to occur 
simultaneously, and EPA has frequently taken this approach in its 
redesignation actions. See (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 
May 7, 1996); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 31832-31833( (June 
21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI).
    In our proposed redesignation on May 30, 2001, we stated that we 
would not take final action to redesignate Pittsburgh until it had 
taken all actions necessary for EPA to convert the limited approval of 
the generic RACT regulation to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area. 
Since our proposal, EPA has taken final action approving the source-
specific SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth for all the 
sources located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, 
Washington, and Westmoreland counties. On August 24, 2001, EPA proposed 
to convert the limited approval of the Commonwealth's NOX 
and VOC RACT regulation to full approval in the Pittsburgh area. EPA 
has taken final action on that proposal and converted the limited 
approval of the Commonwealth's NOX and VOC RACT regulation 
to full approval. The Commonwealth has met the requirements of the 
Act's RACT provisions for the Pittsburgh area.
    The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for 
``major sources of VOC,'' located within those areas of a state where 
RACT applies under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. This requirement, 
referred to as the non-CTG VOC RACT requirement, clearly does not 
require category-specific RACT rules. Moreover, EPA disagrees that 
there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT 
regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued a CTG. There 
are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a 
CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for ``any category of VOC 
sources'' covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990 
[182(b)(2)(A)]. The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for 
all ``VOC sources'' covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 
[182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement 
(including the requirements for CTG RACT) to be met either by adoption 
of category-specific rules or by source-specific rules for each source 
within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined 
as a case-by-case determination, but EPA provided CTG's to simplify the 
process for states such that they would not be required to adopt 
hundreds or thousands of individual rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated 
December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. EPA does not 
believe that Congress' use of ``source category'' in one provision of 
section 182(b)(2) was intended to preclude the adoption of source-
specific rules.
    Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas of a 
state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act, the state is 
obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by 
the CTG. However, that

[[Page 53097]]

obligation is not required to be met by the adoption and submittal of a 
source category RACT rule. A state may, instead, opt to impose RACT for 
individual sources in permits, plan approvals, consent orders or in any 
other state enforceable document and submit those documents to EPA for 
approval as source-specific SIP revisions. This option has been 
exercised by many states, and happens most commonly when only a few 
CTG-subject sources are located in the state. The source-specific 
approach is generally employed to avoid what can be a lengthy and 
resource-intensive state rule adoption process for only a few sources 
that may have different needs and considerations that must be taken 
into account.
    While EPA believes that the Commonwealth was not obligated to 
impose RACT via the adoption of VOC source category rules for the 
reasons provided above, nonetheless, EPA has approved the 
Commonwealth's VOC source category rules for aerospace (June 25, 2001, 
66 FR 33645) and for wood furniture (July 20, 2001, 66 FR 37908).
    In a letter from the PADEP (then the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Resources), dated April 19, 1993, the Commonwealth made 
negative declarations for the CTG source categories of large petroleum 
dry cleaners, and equipment leaks from natural gas/gasoline processing 
plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration on September 28, 
2001 for point source shipbuilding emissions in the counties of 
Armstrong, Butler, Beaver, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland. The 
Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) made a negative declaration 
on September 27, 2001, for subject shipbuilding sources in Allegheny 
County.
    The public has had opportunity to comment on three occasions on the 
generic RACT rule. In addition, EPA provided comment periods for its 
approval of each source specific rule, as well as for each of the 
category rules. Furthermore, EPA recently published approval notices 
for all remaining case specific RACT determinations for sources located 
in the Pittsburgh area and the public did indeed exercise their right 
to comment on those proposed actions. EPA disagrees that the public has 
not had adequate opportunity to offer fully informed comment as to 
whether the plan submitted by the Commonwealth meets all of the 
applicable requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act. The 
public has had ample opportunity to comment on the RACT regulations 
adopted by the Commonwealth, and EPA is entitled to rely on these 
previously-approved rules in determining that the State has a SIP that 
meets those applicable requirements. See Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989 (6th Cir. 1998).
    EPA disagrees with the commenter that it is ``retroactively'' 
deeming that the State has complied with the RACT requirements of the 
Act. With respect to many of these source-specific rules, the source 
has been subject to and complying with the requirements for an extended 
period of time. Simply because EPA is only now taking action on those 
rules does not mean that the State or the source failed to meet the 
statutory RACT obligation. Finally, to the extent that the State and/or 
the source is late in meeting the statutory RACT obligation, EPA does 
not believe that Congress intended that such an area could never be 
redesignated to attainment, as the commenter appears to suggest. At 
this point, the best such an area can do is to meet the requirement as 
quickly as possible--the area cannot retroactively comply. Thus, EPA 
believes that Congress intended that once such an area complied with 
the statutory requirements--as is the case with Pittsburgh--the area 
may be redesignated.
(4) New Source Review (NSR)
    Comment: We received several comments regarding NSR and its 
approval into the SIP. The commenters assert that the Act explicitly 
requires the SIP to include a preconstruction permit program for new 
sources and modifications within the nonattainment area. (42 U.S.C. 
section 7410(a)(2)(C), 7502(c)(4)&(5), 7503, 7511a(a)(2)(C), (b)(5)). 
The commenters assert that the NSR program should not be approved 
without an approved attainment demonstration in the Pittsburgh area. 
One commenter also asserts that EPA cannot approve the Commonwealth's 
rule without first promulgating ``Alternative 2'' of the federal NSR 
rule revision. This commenter also asserts that approval of the 
Commonwealth's NSR program is in conflict with section 184 of the Act, 
because the Commonwealth's NSR rule does not require the same offset 
credit restrictions in the marginal and attainment areas as required by 
section 184 of the Act. One of the commenters also contends that the 
NSR program's conditional approval status has expired and should 
already have been converted to a disapproval. This commenter also 
asserts that the EPA-required restrictions on shutdown credit are 
lacking in the program.
    Response: As indicated, pursuant to EPA's issuance of an attainment 
determination for the Pittsburgh area, an approved attainment 
demonstration is no longer an applicable requirement. EPA has, however, 
now fully approved the NSR program for the Pittsburgh area. On May 2, 
1997, EPA proposed to grant limited approval of Pennsylvania's NSR 
program (62 FR 24060). On December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722) EPA published 
its final rule granting limited approval of Pennsylvania's NSR program 
and incorporated 25 Pa. Code of Regulations, Chapter 127, Subchapter E, 
Subsections 127.201 through 127.217, inclusive, by reference into the 
Pennsylvania SIP. (See 40 CFR part 52 at 52.2020(c)(107).) The proposed 
and final actions provided a detailed description of how the 
Commonwealth's NSR regulations satisfy the requirements of sections 
172, 173, 182 and 184 of the Act. As explained in section I. C. of the 
May 2, 1997 notice of proposed rulemaking (62 FR 24061), under section 
184 of the Act, the preconstruction permitting requirements applicable 
to moderate ozone nonattainment areas apply to ozone attainment areas 
and to marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment areas in the 
Commonwealth because Pennsylvania is located in the Ozone Transport 
Region (OTR). Section II. A. of the May 2, 1997 proposal (62 FR 24062) 
explicitly states that Pennsylvania's NSR requirements for moderate 
ozone nonattainment areas apply throughout Pennsylvania with the 
exception of the Philadelphia severe ozone nonattainment area. 
Subsections 127.203, 127.208, and 127. 210 of the Commonwealth's SIP-
approved regulations, in particular, satisfy section 184 of the Act by 
imposing the same offset-related requirements to attainment, and 
marginal nonattainment areas of the Commonwealth as those applicable to 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
    On December 9, 1997, when EPA approved Pennsylvania's NSR 
regulations into the SIP, its sole reason for granting limited 
approval, rather than full approval, of Pennsylvania's NSR regulations 
was that they do not contain certain restrictions on the use of 
emission reductions from the shutdown and curtailment of existing 
sources or units as NSR offsets. These restrictions apply in 
nonattainment areas without an approved attainment demonstration (see 
40 CFR part 51.165(a)(ii)(C)). (The submittal and approval of an 
attainment demonstration is not required by the Act for ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as marginal, nor is it required in areas 
designated as attainment for ozone.) As

[[Page 53098]]

EPA is, by this action, approving the attainment determination for the 
Pittsburgh area proposed on January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925), approval of 
an attainment demonstration is not a requirement for the Pittsburgh 
area. Pursuant to EPA's determination of attainment, an attainment 
demonstration is no longer required, and thus similarly, an approved 
ozone attainment demonstration is no longer required under the NSR 
provisions for ozone. Since the premise of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(ii)(C)(1), 
that an attainment demonstration is required, does not exist, EPA 
concludes that the regulation should be interpreted so as not to 
require an approved attainment demonstration where no attainment 
demonstration is required. Therefore, EPA has determined that it is 
appropriate, at this time, to grant full approval of the Commonwealth's 
NSR regulations as they apply throughout the Commonwealth with the 
exception of the five-county Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area. That area is the only 
portion of the Commonwealth where the approval of an attainment 
demonstration is still required. EPA intends to take rulemaking action 
to grant full approval of the Commonwealth's NSR regulations in the 
five-county Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 
ozone nonattainment area at such time as that area has an approved 
attainment demonstration.
    It should be noted that when EPA proposed to remove the limited 
nature of its approval of the Commonwealth's NSR program on May 30, 
2001, it clearly was not taking action to re-approve Pennsylvania's 
entire NSR program. Therefore, not only does EPA disagree with the 
comments that the Commonwealth's NSR regulations fail to satisfy the 
Act and the current Federal NSR-related requirements for nonattainment 
areas found at 40 CFR Subpart I, EPA does not believe that such 
comments are timely.
    Because Pennsylvania's NSR regulations satisfy the current federal 
NSR-related requirements for nonattainment areas found at 40 CFR 
Subpart I, EPA disagrees with the comment that it cannot grant approval 
of the Commonwealth's NSR without first promulgating ``Alternative 2'' 
of the proposed revisions to the federal NSR rules. The commenter's 
reference to Alternative 2 refers to language in the July 23, 1996 NSR 
rulemaking proposal which has not been finalized, and therefore the 
Agency believes that it is not currently an applicable NSR requirement.
    EPA did not grant the Commonwealth's NSR program a conditional 
approval, and, therefore disagrees with the comment that any 
conditional approval has expired and should have been converted to a 
disapproval.
    Even if the NSR program for Pittsburgh were not fully approved the 
area would still qualify for redesignation, since EPA has previously 
interpreted the Clean Air Act as not requiring a fully approved NSR 
program for redesignation of an area subject to the section 184 
transport requirements. EPA has set forth its rationale for its 
interpretation that NSR and other section 184 ozone transport 
requirements are inapplicable for redesignation purposes in its 
proposed and final rulemakings on Reading, Pennsylvania. See 61 FR 
53174-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826-24834 (May 7, 1997), 
which are incorporated herein by reference.
(5) Conformity
    Comment: Several commenters asserted that the SIP does not include 
fully approved transportation conformity procedures that comply with 
Part D of the Act under section 176, and that EPA has no authority to 
waive this requirement for SIPs. One commenter argues that the 
Commonwealth is still obligated to submit such procedures and the fact 
that federal procedures apply does not excuse failure to adopt 
conformity procedures as required by the statute. The commenter 
contends that the Act allows redesignation to attainment only when EPA 
has fully approved the SIP and the state has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
    Response: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has met the statutory 
requirement for submitting approvable general conformity procedures. 
EPA approved the Pennsylvania general conformity rules effective 
September 29, 1997 (62 FR 50870).
    Section 176(c) provides that state conformity revisions must be 
consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAA requires 
EPA to promulgate. The Federal general conformity regulations were 
finalized on November 30, 1993, and the Federal transportation 
conformity regulations were finalized on November 24, 1993. The Federal 
general conformity regulations have remained the same since that time, 
but the Federal transportation conformity regulations have been amended 
several times since 1993.
    The Federal transportation conformity regulations were amended on 
August 15, 1997 (40 CFR parts 51 and 93 Transportation Conformity Rule 
Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining). Conformity regulations 
needed to be revised again, due to the March 2, 1999 court decision, 
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 
Pennsylvania submitted transportation conformity rules on November 21, 
1994, but EPA has not acted upon the rules and the rules must be 
revised to be consistent with the amendments EPA made consistent with 
the court rulings in EDF. v. EPA, supra.
    EPA believes, however, that it is reasonable to interpret the 
conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d). The rationale for this is 
two-fold. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with 
the conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act continues to apply to 
areas after redesignation to attainment, since these areas would be 
subject to a Section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal 
conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the 
absence of federally approved State rules. Therefore, because areas are 
subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are 
redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal 
rules if State rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is 
reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of 
evaluating a redesignation request. See, for example, Grand Rapids 
redesignation at 61 FR 31835-31836 (June 21, 1996) and the Cincinnati 
redesignation at 65 FR 37879, 37885-37886 (June 19, 2000). EPA has 
explained its rationale and applied this interpretation in numerous 
redesignation actions. See, Tampa, Florida and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 
redesignations (60 FR 52748) (December 7, 1995), and (61 FR 20458) (May 
7, 1996), respectively. Consequently, EPA may approve the ozone 
redesignation request for the Pittsburgh area notwithstanding the lack 
of a fully approved conformity SIP. The United States Court of Appeals 
for the sixth Circuit has recently upheld EPA's interpretation in Wall 
v. Environmental Protection Agency, no. 00-4010, slip. op. at 21-24 
(6th Cir. Sept. 11, 2001). The Court upheld EPA's determination that 
``failure to submit a revision * * * that meets the part D 
transportation-conformity submissions requirements is not a basis to 
deny'' redesignation to attainment. Id. at 24.

[[Page 53099]]

(6) Approval of the NOX SIP Call
    Comment: A commenter states that the SIP must include provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 
in, or interfere with maintenance by any other State under 42 U.S.C. 
section 7410(a)(2)(D)(I). The commenter asserts that EPA has 
specifically determined that emissions from Pennsylvania contribute 
significantly to ozone nonattainment in downwind states and has issued 
a SIP call to require additional NOX controls in the 
Pennsylvania SIP to address this problem. The commenter asserts that 
EPA has not fully approved the state's rule to meet the SIP call 
requirements, thus the SIP is not yet fully approved.
    Response: EPA believes that submissions under the NOX 
SIP call should not be considered applicable requirements for purposes 
of evaluating a redesignation request. That said, EPA has fully 
approved the Commonwealth's NOX SIP call rule on August 21, 
2001 (66 FR 43795) as meeting the portion of the SIP call rule that 
were not remanded by the Court in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F. 3d. 663 (D.C. 
Cir. 2000).
    The NOX SIP call requirements are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA 
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment 
area's designation and classification are the requirements that are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
NOX SIP call submittal requirements continue to apply to the 
States regardless of the designation of any one particular area in 
these States.
    Thus, we do not agree that the NOX SIP call submission 
should be construed to be an applicable requirement for purposes of 
redesignation. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are 
linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. 
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated 
fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport 
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings 
(61 FR 53174-53176) (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826) (May 7, 1997); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458) (May 7, 
1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, 62741) 
(December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the 
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890) (June 19, 2000).
(7) Photochemical Grid Modeling and Favorable Meteorology
    Comment: The commenter asserts that neither the states nor EPA have 
shown that air quality improvements are due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions, as required by 42 U.S.C. 
7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The commenter takes issue with the finding that 
this criteria is met because, although the Commonwealth has adopted 
measures that have produced some emission reductions, the commenter 
believes that EPA has not demonstrated that these reductions are 
responsible for the area's improved air quality or the absence of 
violations. The commenter claims that the only way to reliably make 
such a showing would be through photochemical grid modeling. The 
commenter states that no such modeling is presented or discussed in 
this proposal and that given the complex chemistry and meteorology of 
ozone formation, the combination of NOX and VOC emission 
reductions that might be attributable to the cited measures could just 
as easily lead to increases in ozone concentrations. The lack of 
violations in 1998-2000, the commenter states, could just as well be 
due to weather patterns or changes in transport of ozone precursors. 
Without modeling to determine the actual impact of adopted and 
enforceable controls, the commenter finds EPA's claim that the area has 
attained the NAAQS, to be speculative.
    Another commenter asserted the area was aided in attainment by a 
2000 ozone season in which there were no temperatures which exceeded 90 
degrees Fahrenheit.
    Response: As provided in longstanding EPA policies, we believe that 
photochemical grid modeling is not necessary to show that the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
emissions reductions. See General Preamble for the Interpretation of 
Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, (57 FR 13496) (April 16, 1992), 
supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992); ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; 
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting 
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or 
after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; and ``Use of 
Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO 
Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, November 30, 1993. Our policies provide that an 
area may meet this requirement by showing how its ozone precursor 
emissions changed due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions 
from when the area was not monitoring attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS to when it reached attainment. See the rational set forth in the 
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886-37889) (June 19, 2000). 
The sixth Circuit has recently upheld EPA's interpretation in Wall v. 
EPA, supra, slip. op at 16-20.
    Reductions in ozone precursor (VOC and NOX) emissions 
have brought many areas across the country into attainment. EPA has 
approved many ozone redesignations showing decreases in ozone precursor 
emissions resulting in attainment of the ozone standard. See 
redesignations for Charleston (59 FR 30326, June 13, 1994; 59 FR 45985, 
September 6, 1994), Greenbrier County (60 FR 39857, August 4, 1995), 
Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994); (59 FR 45978, September 6, 
1994), Jacksonville/Duval County (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995), Miami/
Southeast Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 1995), Tampa (60 FR 62748, 
December 7, 1995), Lexington (60 FR 47089, September 11, 1995), 
Owensboro (58 FR 47391, September 9, 1993), Indianapolis (59 FR 35044, 
July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), South Bend-Elkhart (59 FR 
35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), Evansville (62 FR 
12137, March 14, 1997; 62 FR 64725, December 9, 1997), Canton (61 FR 
3319, January 31, 1996), Youngstown-Warren (61 FR 3319, January 31, 
1996), Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (60 FR 31433, June 15, 1995; 61 FR 20458, 
May 7, 1996), Clinton County (60 FR 22337, May 5, 1995; 61 FR 11560, 
March 21, 1996), Columbus (61 FR 3591, February 1, 1996), Kewaunee 
County (61 FR 29508, June 11, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), 
Walworth County (61 FR 28541, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 
1996), Point Coupee Parish (61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996; 62 FR 648, 
January 6, 1997), and Monterey Bay (62 FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most 
of the areas that have been redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour 
ozone standard have continued to attain it. Areas that are not 
maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard have a maintenance plan to bring 
them back into attainment.
    Reductions in ozone precursor emissions have been shown in 
photochemical grid modeling to reduce

[[Page 53100]]

ambient ozone concentrations in areas across the country. Between 1990 
and 1999 area-wide VOC and NOX emissions in the Pittsburgh 
area decreased by 16% and 30%, respectively. These emissions reductions 
are due to point source reductions such as RACT, additional 
NOX controls, 111(d) plans and National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) which reduce VOCs, Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD), and NSR. Additional controls are 
implemented for the following categories: Automobile refinish coatings, 
consumer products, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, 
wood furniture coatings, aircraft surface coating, marine surface 
coatings, metal furniture coatings, municipal solid waste landfills, 
treatment storage and disposal facilities, and Stage II vapor recovery. 
Several programs are implemented to reduce highway vehicle emissions, 
such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), a 
Pittsburgh-specific summertime gasoline 7.8 psi volatility limit, and 
enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M). Nonroad source programs 
include Federal rules for large and small compression-ignition engines, 
small spark-ignition engines, and recreation spark-ignition marine 
engines.
    Ozone air quality monitoring data show that the design value 
changed from 0.149 parts per million (during the 1987-1989 time period) 
to 0.123 parts per million (during the 1998-2000 time period). The 
number of expected exceedances declined from 7.0 days per year during 
1987-1989 to 1.0 days per year during 1998-2000. This shows that 
reductions in ozone concentrations correspond to the reduction in ozone 
precursors emissions in the area.
    The commenter claims that the combination of NOX and VOC 
emissions reductions could just as easily have led to increases in 
ozone. However, the actual monitoring data collected in the area shows 
that ambient ozone concentrations have dropped when this combination of 
ozone precursor reductions occurred. In other metropolitan areas, other 
levels of VOC and NOX reductions have also resulted in 
attainment. See areas listed above in first part of this response. The 
Pittsburgh area's decrease in ozone levels is consistent with what 
other areas have experienced. The commenter has not provided data 
showing that decreases in ozone precursor emissions have led to higher 
levels of ozone.
    The commenter claims that the lack of violations during 1998-2000 
could be due to weather patterns or changes in transport of ozone 
precursors, but does not point to any evidence to support this 
conclusion. We use a three year period of air quality to account for 
changes in weather conditions that can occur from year to year. Weather 
condition may have a substantial effect on ozone concentrations, both 
in terms of increasing ozone and decreasing ozone. However, this effect 
is not controllable and EPA uses a three year average to account for 
changes in meteorology. In the case of the Pittsburgh area, the fact 
that from 1999 to today the area continues to be in attainment of the 
ozone standard increases our confidence that weather is not a 
controlling factor in the area's attainment. Furthermore, during the 
weeks of August 5th and August 12th of 2001, the Pittsburgh area 
experienced multi-day meteorological episodes in which the temperatures 
exceeded 90 degrees, and the ambient ozone levels stayed well below the 
standard at each monitor.
(8) Use of Accurate and Current Emission Inventory
    Comment: One Commenter questions whether the Commonwealth used 
current and accurate emissions inventories in the analysis to determine 
maintenance of the 1-hour NAAQS.
    Response: The Commonwealth used current and accurate emissions 
inventories. The Commonwealth uses the 1999 emissions inventory as a 
base year emissions inventory for demonstrating that emissions during 
the 10 year maintenance period will stay below attainment year levels. 
The 1999 inventory is the appropriate inventory to be used to 
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS, because the 1999 inventory is a 
representation of emission levels during the time the area has attained 
the NAAQS. EPA converted the conditional approval of the Commonwealth's 
1990 base year VOC inventory to full approval on April 3, 2001 (66 FR 
17634). On May 30, 2001 EPA proposed to approve the 1990 NOX 
base year inventory. EPA did not received comments specific to the 1990 
NOX base year inventory and today is fully approving the 
Commonwealth's base year NOX inventory. These 1990 base year 
NOX and VOC emissions inventories are approved for use in 
projecting current inventories and out year inventories.
B. Comments Related to the Maintenance Plan
    Comment: A commenter asserts that the plan does not demonstrate 
maintenance for ten years as required by sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 
175A of the Clean Air Act. The commenter says that EPA proposes to find 
maintenance not on the basis of modeling, as required by the CAA, but 
on the presumption that the area will always be in attainment if 
emissions remain at or below estimated 1999 levels. The commenter 
asserts that such a presumption is not rationally supportable, pointing 
out that the area violated the NAAQS in the 1997-1999 period. 
Therefore, the commenter reasons, holding emissions to 1999 levels does 
not assure attainment. The commenter states that, even assuming the 
emission reductions predicted by the states for 1999 and subsequent 
years, there is no technical analysis in the record demonstrating that 
those emission levels will assure maintenance. The commenter contends 
that such a demonstration requires photochemical grid modeling that 
accounts for the kinds of weather conditions and transport impacts 
experienced on appropriately chosen design days. According to the 
commenter, until EPA approves such a modeling demonstration, it cannot 
approve the maintenance plan.
    The commenter states that the history of this nonattainment area 
shows that EPA cannot rationally assume that emission levels correlate 
with ozone levels in a linear or consistent fashion; the area has gone 
in and out of attainment over the past 10 years while local emission 
were supposedly declining. The commenter asserts that there is no 
reason to believe that the state's attainment inventory approach toward 
projecting future maintenance is any more reliable now than it was in 
1993. The commenter states that the state itself asserts that the area 
cannot maintain compliance with the standard solely through local 
reductions and will only be able to maintain the NAAQS through 
reductions from Ohio and West Virginia.
    Response: We believe that the monitoring shows that the current 
level of emissions is adequate to keep the area in attainment. The 
following table summarizes the number of expected exceedances at each 
monitor in the area for 1974 to 2000 for each three year period. A 
monitor has to measure more than 1.0 average expected exceedances over 
a three year period to cause a violation of the 1-hour ozone standard 
(Expected exceedances take into account actual monitored exceedances 
and account for days where there is missing data or the data was 
invalidated.) See 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H. The table shows that the 
number of exceedances have decreased from what was monitored in the 
late 1970's.

[[Page 53101]]



Table 1.--1-Hour Ozone NAAQS Expected Exceedances in the Pittsburgh Area
                            From 1974 to 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average
                                                               expected
             Year                     Design  monitor        exceedances
                                                               per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1974-1976....................  Baden.......................         6.5
1975-1977....................  Beaver Falls................         5.7
1976-1978....................  Beaver Falls................        13.2
1977-1979....................  Beaver Falls................        11.7
1978-1980....................  Lawrenceville...............         9.2
1979-1981....................  Lawrenceville...............         6.1
1980-1982....................  Lawrenceville...............         3.4
1981-1983....................  Brackenridge................         4.4
1982-1984....................  Brackenridge................         2.9
1983-1985....................  Brackenridge................         2.4
1984-1986....................  Midland.....................         0.8
1985-1987....................  Brackenridge................         1.7
1986-1988....................  Brackenridge................         6.6
1987-1989....................  Brackenridge................         7.0
1988-1990....................  Brackenridge................         5.6
1989-1991....................  Lawrenceville...............         0.7
1990-1992....................  Lawrenceville...............         0.3
1991-1993....................  Harrison Township...........         0.7
1992-1994....................  Harrison Township...........         0.7
1993-1995....................  Harrison Township...........         3.0
1994-1996....................  Harrison Township...........         2.7
1995-1997....................  Harrison Township...........         3.3
1996-1998....................  Charleroi...................         1.0
1997-1999....................  Penn Hills..................         1.3
1998-2000....................  Charleroi...................         1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The area has monitored attainment for the three year period from 
1998-2000 and continues to monitor attainment in 2001. This 
demonstrates that the current level of emissions is adequate to keep 
the area in attainment during weather conditions as in past years 
associated with higher levels of ozone. In addition, the Act does not 
presume that the area will always be in attainment. The Act provides 
that if the area were to violate the 1-hour ozone standard, then the 
contingency measures in the maintenance plan would be triggered. This 
would reduce the ozone precursor emissions and bring the area back into 
attainment.
    Our policy allows areas to prepare an attainment emissions 
inventory corresponding to the period when the area monitored 
attainment. It also allows areas to project maintenance by showing that 
future emissions will stay below the attainment emissions inventory. 
See ``Use of Actual Emission in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993. The attainment 
inventory estimates 1999 emissions, which is within the 1998-2000 time 
period of attainment. Emissions are projected to remain below this 
level for the next 10 years.
    Holding emissions at or below the level of the attainment inventory 
is adequate to reasonably assure continued maintenance of the 1-hour 
ozone standard. Reductions in ozone precursor emissions have been shown 
in photochemical grid modeling to reduce ambient ozone concentrations 
in areas across the country. Photochemical grid modeling is not needed 
to show that the area has attained or will maintain the standard. The 
air quality will be maintained by keeping below the attainment 
emissions level, continuing to monitor ozone levels, and having 
maintenance plan contingency measures available. Reductions in ozone 
precursor emissions have brought many areas across the country into 
attainment.
    Many of the ozone areas for which EPA has approved ozone 
redesignations have used an emissions inventory approach to demonstrate 
maintenance. The majority of areas have continued to maintain the 1-
hour ozone standard using that approach. See redesignations cited in 
the response provided at II. A (7) of this document. See also 
discussion at (65 FR 37887-37889) (June 19, 2000) Cincinnati-Hamilton, 
and Wall v. EPA, supra, at 16-20. Emissions inventories can be used to 
project maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard. As previously stated, 
if the attainment level of emissions is not adequate to protect against 
a violation and the area monitors a violation, then the contingency 
measures in the maintenance plan would be triggered to bring the area 
back into attainment. There are ozone monitors located in the 
Pittsburgh area to ensure that the area's air quality remains below the 
level set by the 1-hour ozone standard.
    The comment that EPA should not assume that ``emission levels 
correlate with ozone levels in some sort of linear or consistent 
fashion'' is in effect a recommendation that future maintenance be 
tested assuming meteorological conditions that are more conducive to 
ozone formation than the conditions that have prevailed in 1998 to 
2000. No factor other than meteorological conditions is known to 
introduce an inconsistency between ozone and emissions. The commenter 
protests that the area has not submitted a maintenance demonstration 
based on ozone modeling, and implicitly urges that the modeling assume 
1997-type conditions, or worse. However, if a prospective maintenance 
demonstration were performed with an ozone photochemical model 
following EPA guidance, the modeling would be allowed to use episode 
days from the 1998-2000 period, not 1997. It is highly likely, if not 
certain, that the outcome would be a conclusion that attainment will be 
preserved through the required 10-year period. EPA believes this 
modeling guidance is reasonable and appropriate.
    In response to the commenter's assertion that the Commonwealth does 
not believe that it can maintain the NAAQS without reductions from 
upwind states such as Ohio and West Virginia, both EPA and the 
Commonwealth recognize the importance of the full implementation of the 
NOX SIP call to provide additional air quality benefit to 
the Pittsburgh area. Furthermore, as the D.C. Circuit has largely 
upheld the NOX SIP call, it is eminently reasonable to 
expect that the reductions in states upwind of Pittsburgh will occur.

C. Comments Related to the Enforceability and Permanence of Control 
Measures

    (1) Comment: Several commenters express doubts that certain of the 
programs relied upon in the maintenance plan will remain permanent and 
enforceable in the Commonwealth and asserts that EPA simply assumes 
that the measures relied on for continued and future emissions 
reductions will continue to be implemented. Related comments express 
concerns over the permanence of the enhanced I/M and NSR programs.
    Response: The Act requires the area to have a fully approved SIP 
and to have met all of the applicable requirements of the Act. The 
area's SIP satisfies these requirements as described in EPA's proposed 
rulemaking published on May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270). The measures that 
the Commonwealth is relying on to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard 
have been approved into the SIP and are state and Federally 
enforceable. The state must continue to implement these measures as 
provided for in the Federally approved SIP. Furthermore, the Act does 
not require a separate level of enforcement for a maintenance plan as a 
prerequisite to redesignation. The enforcement program approved for and 
applicable to the SIP as a whole also applies to the maintenance plan. 
See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37881-
37882), and sixth Circuit decision in Wall v. EPA, supra, at 20-21, 
upholding EPA's interpretation of the requirement.
    All of the control measures which the Commonwealth relied upon to 
generate the 1999 and future emission levels, inventories are SIP-
approved measures,

[[Page 53102]]

including the enhanced I/M and NSR programs. These programs have been 
legally adopted by the Commonwealth and EPA has approved them into the 
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA cannot withhold its approval of the maintenance 
plan submitted by the Commonwealth because of concerns that 
Pennsylvania may, at some future time, either submit a SIP revision to 
amend or remove a program, or that the Commonwealth may fail to 
implement these programs in the Pittsburgh area. The Federally approved 
SIP requirements remain in place, and enforceable until such time as 
EPA takes action to approve SIP revisions to amend or remove them. This 
can only be done via Federal rulemaking, which includes procedures for 
public comment and review. In addition, if the state fails to implement 
the approved SIP, Section 179 provides for EPA to impose sanctions.
    EPA has recently promulgated rules for On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) 
testing provisions for 1996 and newer vehicles in existing I/M 
programs. The Commonwealth's currently approved enhanced I/M SIP 
requires Pennsylvania to implement OBD as part of its I/M program in 
the Pittsburgh area in accordance with the Federal rule. Any changes 
the Commonwealth makes with respect to the I/M program must ensure an 
equivalent level of emission reductions as is currently credited. 
Again, any changes made to the Federally approved and enforceable 
program would need to go through Pennsylvania's formal regulatory 
adoption process and EPA's SIP approval process, ensuring ample public 
participation opportunity.
    Likewise, any changes to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR 
program would need to go through Pennsylvania's formal regulatory 
adoption process and EPA's SIP approval process, ensuring ample public 
participation opportunity. In order to be approvable, any such changes 
would have to ensure that the construction of major new sources and 
major modifications in the Pittsburgh area would not interfere with the 
approved maintenance plan.
    Furthermore, any changes made by the Commonwealth to SIP approved 
measures would require EPA approval in accordance with section 110 (l) 
of the Act.
    (2) Comment: We received a comment asserting that the maintenance 
plan is not approvable because it lacks enforcement programs and 
commitments of resources as required by the Act 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7410(a)(2)(E).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that states 
must provide such information with each SIP revision. See Wall v. EPA, 
supra. Although Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(a)(2)(C) do 
contain these provisions, section 110(a)(2)(H) is the statutory 
provision which governs requirements for individual plan revisions 
which States may be required to submit from time to time. There are no 
cross-references in section 7410(a)(2)(H) to either 7410(a)(2)(E) or 
7410(a)(2)(C). Therefore, EPA concludes that Congress did not intend to 
require States to submit an analysis of adequate funding and 
enforcement with each subsequent and individual SIP revision submitted 
under the authority of section 110(a)(2)(H). Once EPA approves a 
State's SIP as meeting section 110(a)(2), EPA is not required to 
reevaluate that SIP for each new revision to the plan to meet 
additional requirements in later sections of the Act. The Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania had previously received approval of its 110(a)(2) SIPs. 
See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation of this issue (65 FR 
37879, 37881-37882) (June 19, 2000). The sixth circuit has upheld EPA's 
interpretation in Wall v. EPA, supra, at 20-21.
    In a final rulemaking action published on February 26, 1985 (50 FR 
7772, 7776), EPA approved Pennsylvania's financial and manpower 
resource commitments, after having proposed approval of these 
commitments on February 3, 1983 (48 FR 5096, 5101). This approval 
action reaffirmed EPA's May 20, 1980 (45 FR 33607) approval of these 
resource commitments for the Pittsburgh area portion of the 
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment SIP.
    Neither this commenter nor any other person has submitted 
substantive comments that would lead EPA to separately analyze whether 
it should call on Pennsylvania to revise its section 110(a)(2) SIPs 
regarding enforcement and funding.

D. Comments Related to Contingency Measures

    (1) Comment: Several commenters assert that the maintenance plan 
lacks adequate contingency provisions including a plan for the schedule 
of adoption, description of measures, or quantification of reductions 
of the measures to be implemented should the area violate the standard. 
One commenter also asserts that the plan does not contain adequate 
provisions to adopt additional measures should inventory tracking 
indicate that a future violation is possible. The commenter states that 
future inventory analyses indicating possible violations should trigger 
the contingency measures. Commenters state that the plan makes no 
showing that the model VOC rules currently under consideration for the 
Philadelphia nonattainment area will assure correction of any 
violations in the Pittsburgh area and that these measures are only 
under consideration. One commenter states that the VOC measures 
referenced by the Commonwealth provide no estimation of reductions that 
would be achieved in Pittsburgh should these measures be adopted and 
that adoption of these measure could take up to two years.
    One commenter asserts that the maintenance plan submitted by the 
Commonwealth does not contain a mandatory commitment to implement all 
ozone-control measures in the SIP prior to redesignation. The commenter 
contends that this commitment is required, regardless of whether or not 
the state is currently implementing all measures and EPA does not have 
the discretion to approve the maintenance plan without this commitment.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the Commonwealth's maintenance plan 
for the Pittsburgh area lacks adequate contingency provisions should 
the area violate the standard. Page 43 of the maintenance plan 
specifically states that if a violation occurs, the Commonwealth will 
adopt additional emission reductions, as expeditiously as practicable, 
in accordance with the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act to return 
the area to attainment with the health-based one-hour ozone standard. 
Page 44 of the maintenance plan clearly states that its contingency 
plan measures include four of the model rules currently being 
considered as additional measures for the Philadelphia ozone 
nonattainment area. The plan specifically states that these VOC model 
rules have the potential to reduce emissions from specific types of 
sources and source operations, namely consumer products, portable fuel 
containers, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings and 
solvent cleaning operations. The Commonwealth has provided to EPA 
estimations of reductions in VOC emissions that would be achieved by 
adoption of these contingency measures in the seven-county Pittsburgh 
area. This information has been added to the docket for this final 
rule.
    The Commonwealth has also supplied information that sets forth the 
schedule for adoption of regulations under the Pennsylvania Air 
Pollution Control Act, and that information has been placed in the 
docket of this final action. The schedule indicates that Pennsylvania 
would move to adopt and implement contingency measures within 12 to 24 
months of a violation. The

[[Page 53103]]

Commonwealth has also stated that the contingency measures would be 
implemented in accordance with the requirement of section 175A(d) of 
the Clean Air Act that they ``promptly correct any violation.'' As 
stated in the September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum, ``For purposes of 
section 175A, a State is not required to have fully adopted contingency 
measures that will take effect without further action by the State in 
order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the contingency 
plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should 
ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently once they 
are triggered.'' In light of the language of the maintenance plan, the 
supplemental information supplied by the Commonwealth, existing EPA 
guidance and actions regarding contingency measures in other 
redesignations, and the absence of any suggestion to the contrary from 
the Commonwealth, EPA is construing the Pittsburgh maintenance plan as 
embodying a commitment to adopt and implement contingency measures 
within 12 to 24 months of a violation. The provisions regarding the 
study and possible choice of contingency measures in the event of an 
exceedance or increase in the emissions inventory provide further 
assurance that air quality problems that might occur after 
redesignation will be promptly corrected.
    In the event of a monitored exceedance or if periodic emission 
inventory updates reveal a greater than 10-percent increase in ozone 
precursor emissions, the maintenance plan requires the Commonwealth to 
evaluate whether additional emission controls are needed to prevent a 
future 1-hour ozone NAAQS violation. EPA views this commitment to be 
adequate and enforceable. This approach is consistent with the 
September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum, which states that the 
maintenance plan should ``identify specific indicators, or triggers, 
which will be used to determine when the contingency measure need to be 
implemented. * * * The indicators would allow the State to take early 
action to address potential violations of the NAAQS before they 
occur.'' See September 4, 1992, Calcagni memo, p. 12. Pennsylvania's 
plan addresses this requirement by identifying two occurrences that 
trigger a study to evaluate whether further emission control measures 
should be implemented. This will allow the Commonwealth to take early 
action to address future potential violations. It requires the 
Commonwealth to fully evaluate the current air quality status and 
control status of the area, and determine if, and what level of, action 
should be implemented to prevent further air quality deterioration.
    As to the comment regarding implementation of SIP measures as 
contingency measures, EPA does not believe that a further commitment is 
needed from the Commonwealth to implement as contingency measures all 
ozone control measures in the SIP prior to redesignation. Section 
175(A)(d) requires that ``[s]uch provisions shall include a requirement 
that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control 
of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State 
Implementation plan for the area before redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area.'' There are no measures in the Pennsylvania SIP to 
which the section 7505(d) commitment language could apply since the 
Commonwealth has not sought to drop any measures from the portion of 
the SIP that is being implemented. All measures that are either already 
implemented or scheduled to be implemented, e.g., the NOX SIP call, are 
still in the SIP and are required to be implemented. There is thus no 
need for the state to commit to further implementation in light of the 
fact that it is required to continue to implement all measures 
contained in its SIP. Since the section 7505(d) requirement to 
implement all measure is being satisfied, there is no requirement for 
an additional commitment. The State could not make any change in 
implementation of these control measures after redesignation without 
EPA approval of a SIP revision. Such a revision would have to meet the 
requirements of section 110(l) which requires that the revision could 
not interfere with any applicable requirement. Under these 
circumstances EPA considers that the requirement of section 7505(d) is 
satisfied.
    With respect to the NOX SIP call, which has an 
implementation deadline in the Commonwealth in 2003, EPA disagrees that 
this SIP element is necessary for redesignation (see comment(6)), and 
therefore no additional commitment is needed from the Commonwealth 
regarding this SIP element.
    (2) Comment: A commenter asserts that Stage II vapor recovery, auto 
refinishing, consumer products, and AIM are listed as contingency 
measures and this is double counting.
    Response: Stage II, auto refinishing, consumer products and AIM are 
state and Federal programs currently implemented in the Pittsburgh 
area. These programs have assisted in bringing the area into attainment 
and will continue help the area maintain the ozone NAAQS and are not 
listed as or considered to be contingency measures. There is no 
``double counting''.

E. Comments Related to the Monitoring Data and the Monitoring Network

    (1) Comment: We received comments asserting that the three years of 
data that should be analyzed for demonstration of attainment are 1994-
1996. We also received a comment asking if the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 
1999 and 2000 ozone data had been quality assured.
    Response: EPA is taking action to approve a determination of 
attainment and a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 
Pittsburgh area. The three years of violation free data upon which the 
determination of attainment is based, which the Commonwealth submitted 
to satisfy the applicable criteria for its redesignation request, is 
the ozone data for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 ozone seasons. EPA policy 
is to consider at the most recent 3 year period to determine 
attainment. The ozone data for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 ozone seasons 
from the 14 ozone monitoring stations in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 
Area have been quality assured. All data were contained in the EPA AIRS 
Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) by December 4, 2000. All data in AIRS is 
quality assured prior to submittal to AIRS, as required by 40 CFR 
58.35(d).
    (2) Comment: We received comments expressing concern about the 
removal from service of the Penn Hills station during June 2001. The 
comments assign significance to the two exceedances that this station 
detected in 1999. One comment points out that the station had 
previously had monitored violations of the one hour NAAQS. Related 
comments express concern about the adequacy of the ozone network 
operated by PADEP and the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) in 
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area and state that there should not be a 
change or substitution of any monitor until attainment has been 
achieved.
    Response: Since the early 1980's the network in the area has 
satisfied the minimum federal requirements for the number of stations 
and types of stations as set forth at 40 CFR part 58. At a minimum, a 
network must have two stations in each urban area with population 
greater than 200,000. 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Sec. 3.4. The 
original Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley network consisted of four stations in 
Allegheny County and two stations each in Washington County and Beaver 
County.
    EPA regulations contemplate that the monitoring network may change 
over

[[Page 53104]]

time, regardless of whether or not an area is currently designated as 
attainment. In an effort to improve the overall quality of data from 
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, the network has grown over time from 
the original eight to thirteen stations. This growth was carried out in 
accordance with state and federal law through a process of annual 
network reviews by the PADEP and the Allegheny County Health Department 
(ACHD) as required by 40 CFR 58.20(d). EPA participated in these 
reviews and network changes, as required by 40 CFR 58.21. EPA also 
approved the annual network designs in accordance 40 CFR 58.25. Past 
annual reviews identified potential data needs of the Pittsburgh-Beaver 
Valley network. In order to address these potential data needs, the 
network has expanded to its current size of thirteen stations. During 
this time, one of the original monitoring stations, Penn Hills, was 
retired from service, and six new stations were added, for a net growth 
of five stations during the 1990's.
    The Penn Hills station was removed from service because of the 
limited value of the data collected there since it was established in 
the early 1980's. Significantly, this station has not shown a violation 
of the ozone standard since 1982. Furthermore, the net addition of five 
monitors to the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley network during the 1990's 
provides monitoring coverage over an area than is inclusive of the area 
previously monitored by Penn Hills. This resulted in the Penn Hills 
site capturing data redundant of data collected at other monitors. 
Specifically, exceedances at the Penn Hills monitor were captured at 
other stations. For example, since 1987, all unhealthy days detected at 
Penn Hills, except for June 19, 1995, were captured by the Brackenridge 
station (or the Harrison station which replaced Brackenridge in 1990). 
On June 19, 1995, when the Penn Hills station identified ozone 
exceedances, the Lawrenceville station, and the Murryville station, 
also showed exceedances. The two days of exceedances in 1999 detected 
at Penn Hills were captured by three other stations, Harrison, 
Lawrenceville, and Greensburg. Therefore, the closing of the Penn Hills 
station will result in no loss of data.
    (3) Comment: We received a comment expressing concern that the Penn 
Hills station ozone data and the South Fayette station ozone data are 
no longer reported on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection (PADEP) web page.
    Response: The PADEP web site does not list the Penn Hills station 
because that station was taken out of service in June 2001. (See the 
comment and response provided at E.(2)) The commenter found no data for 
South Fayette, because no exceedances were detected at this operating 
station as of the date of the commenter's letter. There are no 
statutory or regulatory requirements that PADEP make its ozone data 
available on the Internet. However, in service to the citizens of the 
Commonwealth, it is PADEP's practice to provide daily information on 
its web page indicating those monitoring locations where exceedances of 
the 1-hour and/or 8-hour ozone standards have occurred (cautioning that 
this information is not based upon data that has been validated). If 
PADEP continues with its current practice, ozone data from the South 
Fayette monitor will be reported on the PADEP web site if this monitor 
ever exceeds the ozone standards.
    (4) Comment: Several commenters expressed doubt that the area had 
attained the standard and suggested that violations in 2001 were 
imminent. One commenter asserts that the fact that the area had 
violated the 8-hour standard does not speak well of its being 
redesignated.
    Response: The quality assured ozone data for 1998, 1999 and 2000 
indicate that the Pittsburgh area has attained of the 1-hour NAAQS. 
Moreover, the preliminary data for the 2001 ozone season indicate, to 
date, continued attainment of the 1-hour standard. EPA does not believe 
that violations of the 1-hour standard are imminent in the Pittsburgh 
area.
    The Pittsburgh area's status with respect to the 8-hour ozone 
standard is not germane to the approval of the redesignation request 
and maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard.

III. What Actions Are We Taking?

    We are determining that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate ozone 
nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS for ozone. The Pittsburgh 
area includes the Pennsylvania counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, 
Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland. On the basis of 
this determination, EPA is also determining that certain attainment 
demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1)), along with certain 
other related requirements, of part D of Title 1 of the Act, 
specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement, the 
section 182(b)(1) attainment demonstration requirement are not 
applicable to the Pittsburgh area.
    We are approving the redesignation of the Pittsburgh area to 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and we are approving the 
section 175A maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. By 
approving the Pittsburgh area maintenance plan, EPA is also approving 
the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets contained in the plan as adequate 
for maintenance of the ozone NAAQS and for transportation conformity 
purposes. These Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets are 109.65 tons/day of 
VOC for 1999, 98.22 tons/day of VOC for 2007, and 102 tons/day of VOC 
for 2011; for NOX the Motor Vehicle emissions budgets are 
171.05 tons/day for 1999, 129.12 tons/day for 2007, and 115.02 tons/day 
for 2011.
    We are converting the limited approval of the NSR program in the 
Commonwealth to full approval everywhere in the Commonwealth with the 
exception of the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton ozone nonattainment area.
    We are approving the 1990 NOX base year emissions 
inventory for the Pittsburgh area.

IV. Why Are We Taking This Action To Redesignate the Area?

    We are making a determination that the area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone standard. EPA is basing this determination upon three years of 
complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1998-
2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been 
attained in the entire Pittsburgh area. Preliminary data for the 2001 
ozone season also indicates that the area continues in attainment. EPA 
believes that it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding 
attainment demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions, 
not to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject 
to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard 
(i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive 
years of complete, quality assured, air quality monitoring data). See 
May 10, 1995, memorandum from John Seitz, and Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 
F.3.d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).
    We are approving the maintenance plan as a revision to the SIP 
because it meets the requirements of section 175A and 107(d). We are 
also redesignating the area because three years of ambient air 
monitoring data demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been attained, the 
area has continued in attainment and the area has satisfied all other 
requirements for redesignation.

[[Page 53105]]

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

    These actions determine that the area attained the 1-hour ozone 
standard and that the requirements of section 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) 
concerning the submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for 
reasonable further progress (RFP) or attainment are not applicable to 
the area.
    The redesignation changes the official designation of the 
Pennsylvania counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, 
Washington, and Westmoreland from nonattainment to attainment for the 
1-hour ozone standard. It also approves a SIP revision that puts into 
place a plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 
years. This plan includes contingency measures to correct any future 
violations of the 1-hour ozone standard. By approving the maintenance 
plan, EPA is also approving the mobile source emissions budgets 
included in the plan for purposes of transportation conformity.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. This 
action also redesignates an area to attainment, an action that affects 
the status 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. Accordingly, the 
Administrator certifies that this 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 
approves 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 rule also does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or 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). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not 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). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This action also 
redesignates an area to attainment. The redesignation merely affects 
the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements 
on sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other 
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution 
of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve 
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA. Additionally, redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area but 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. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2001. 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, to redesignate the Pittsburgh area to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, approve a 10-year maintenance plan, convert the New 
Source Review program to full approval, approve the NOX base 
year inventory, and approve Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 42 
U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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


[[Page 53106]]


    Dated: October 3, 2001.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.


    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(188) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (188) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations including a 10-year 
ozone maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, submitted 
on May 21, 2001 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter dated May 21, 2001 submitted by the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection transmitting the maintenance 
plan for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area.
    (B) The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area ozone maintenance plan 
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 
effective May 15, 2001. This plan establishes motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for VOCs of 109.65 tons/day for 1999, 98.22 tons/day for 2007, 
and 102 tons/day for 2011. This plan also establishes motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for NOX of 171.05 tons/day for 1999, 
129.12 tons/day for 2007, and 115.02 tons/day for 2011.
    (ii) Additional material. Remainder of State Submittal pertaining 
to the revision listed in paragraph (c)(188)(i) of this action.

    3. Section 52.2036 is amended by revising the section heading and 
by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2036  1990 base year emission inventory.

* * * * *
    (m) EPA approves the 1990 NOX base year emission 
inventory for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on March 22, 1996 
and supplemented on February 18, 1997.


Sec. 52.2037  [Amended]

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

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec. 81.339, the table for Ozone (1-Hour Standard) is amended 
by revising the entry for the ``Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area'' to read 
as follows:


Sec. 81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

                                                          Pennsylvania--Ozone (1-hour standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation                                                Classification
        Designated area         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Date \1\                             Type                    Date \1\                   Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                       *                *                 *                 *                *                 *                 *
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area:
    Allegheny County...........  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
    Armstrong County...........  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
    Beaver County..............  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
    Butler County..............  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
    Fayette County.............  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
    Washington County..........  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
    Westmoreland County........  October 19, 2001.................  Attainment
 
                      *                *                 *                 *                *                 *                 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-26093 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P