[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54143-54164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26679]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA-4185; FRL-7089-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Post 1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and One-Hour Ozone 
Attainment Demonstration for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 
consisting of the Post 1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) plans and the one-
hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton severe nonattainment area (the Philadelphia area). These 
control strategy plans were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP). The measures that have been adopted 
by the Commonwealth which comprise the control strategies of the Post-
1996 ROP plans and the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration have and 
will result in significant emission reductions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen ( NOX) in the 
Philadelphia area. The intended effect of this action is to approve 
these SIP revisions as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or the Act). The Philadelphia area is comprised of two counties in 
Delaware, one county in Maryland, seven counties in New Jersey, and 
five counties in Pennsylvania, namely Bucks, Chester, Delaware, 
Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 26, 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 at the 
EPA Region III office above or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is organized to address the 
following questions:

    A. What action is EPA taking in this final rulemaking?
    B. What previous action has been proposed on these SIP 
Revisions?
    C. What were the conditions for approval provided in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking for the attainment demonstration?
    D. What amendments to the attainment demonstration SIP did 
Pennsylvania submit for the Philadelphia area since December 16, 
1999?
    E. What did the Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 
cover?
    F. When did EPA make a determination regarding the adequacy of 
the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Philadelphia area?
    G. Upon what SIP elements did EPA need to take final action 
before or concurrently with full approval of the attainment 
demonstration could be granted?
    H. What measures are in the control strategy for the Post 1996 
plan and the attainment demonstration?
    I. What are the approved transportation conformity budgets, and 
what effects does this action have on transportation planning?
    J. What happens to the approved 2005 budgets when States change 
their budgets using the MOBILE6 Model?
    K. What is the Status of Pennsylvania's New Source Review (SIP)?
    L. What comments were received on the proposed approvals and how 
has EPA responded to them?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Final Rulemaking?

    EPA is fully approving as meeting the requirements of section 
182(c)(2) and (d) of the Act, the Post 1996 ROP plans and the one-hour 
attainment demonstration SIP, demonstrating attainment by November 
2005, which were submitted by Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 
The following tables identify submittal dates and amendment dates for 
the Post 1996 ROP plans and the attainment demonstration:

      Table 1.--Summary of Attainment Demonstration Submittal Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date               Content
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial submittal.............  April 30, 1998...  Attainment
                                                    demonstration.
Amendment.....................  August 21, 1998..  Supplement to the
                                                    Attainment
                                                    Demonstration for
                                                    Regional Scale
                                                    Modeling.
Amendment.....................  February 25, 2000  Revised Motor Vehicle
                                                    Emissions Budgets to
                                                    Include Benefits
                                                    from the National
                                                    Low Emission Vehicle
                                                    (NLEV) Program and
                                                    Heavy Duty Diesel
                                                    Engine (HDDE) Rule.

[[Page 54144]]

 
Amendment.....................  July 31, 1998 &..  Commitments to Adopt
                                February 25, 2000   Needed Measures for
                                                    Attainment.
Amendment.....................  July 19, 2001....  Revised Motor Vehicle
                                                    Emission Budgets to
                                                    Include the Benefits
                                                    from the Tier 2/
                                                    Sulfur-in-fuel Rule.
Amendment.....................  July 19, 2001....  Reasonably Available
                                                    Control Measures
                                                    Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 2.--Summary of Post-1996 ROP Submittal Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date               Content
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial submittal.............  July 31, 1998....  ROP thorough 1999.
Initial submittal.............  April 30, 1998...  ROP thorough 2005.
Amendment.....................  February 25, 2000  Revised Motor Vehicle
                                                    Emissions Budgets to
                                                    Include Benefits
                                                    from the NLEV
                                                    Program and HDDE
                                                    Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Previous Action Has Been Proposed on These SIP Revisions?

    In a December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) notice of proposed rulemaking 
(the December 16, 1999 NPR), we proposed approval of Pennsylvania's 
2005 attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area.
    On February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8703), EPA published a notice of 
availability on guidance memoranda relating to the ten one-hour ozone 
attainment demonstrations (including the Philadelphia area) proposed 
for approval or conditional approval on December 16, 1999. The guidance 
memoranda are entitled: ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 
in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'' dated November 3, 1999, 
and ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas'' dated November 30, 1999.
    On July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), EPA published a supplemental notice 
of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) on the attainment demonstration. In that 
supplemental notice, we clarified and expanded on two issues relating 
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets in attainment demonstration SIP 
revisions. This supplemental notice is discussed in Section I.E. of 
this document.
    On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568), EPA published a NPR proposing to 
approve Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plans for the Philadelphia area. We 
did not receive any comments on that NPR. In this final rulemaking 
action, we are approving the Post 1996 ROP plans submitted by 
Pennsylvania from 1996 through the 2005 attainment year.
    On August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45797), EPA published a SNPR on the 
attainment demonstration. In that supplemental notice, we proposed to 
approve Pennsylvania's analysis and determination that there are no 
additional reasonably available control measures (RACM) for the area. 
We received no comments on that SNPR.
    Comments received on the December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) and July 
28, 2000 (65 FR 46383) proposed actions listed in this section relevant 
to the Philadelphia area attainment demonstration are discussed in 
Sections I. K. and II.

C. What Were the Conditions for Approval Provided in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for the Attainment Demonstration?

    On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428), we proposed approval of the 
attainment demonstration submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
for the Philadelphia area. Our approval was contingent upon certain 
actions by Pennsylvania. These actions were to:
    (1) Adopt and submit adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets.
    (2) Submit a list of control measures that, when implemented, would 
be expected to provide sufficient additional emission reductions to 
further reduce emissions to support the attainment test and a 
commitment that these measures would not involve additional limits on 
highway construction beyond those that could be imposed under the 
submitted motor vehicle emissions budget.
    (3) Adopt and submit a rule(s) for the regional NOX 
reductions consistent with the modeling demonstration.
    (4) Adopt and submit an enforceable commitment(s), or a 
reaffirmation of existing enforceable commitment to do the following:
    (a) Submit measures by October 31, 2001 for additional emission 
reductions as required in the attainment demonstration test, and for 
additional emission reduction measures developed through the regional 
process, submit an enforceable commitment for the additional measures 
and a backstop commitment to adopt and submit intrastate measures for 
the emission reductions in the event the regional process does not 
recommend measures that produce emission reductions.
    (b) Submit a revised SIP & motor vehicle emissions budget by 
October 31, 2001 if additional measures affect the motor vehicle 
emissions inventory.
    (c) Submit revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets 1 year 
after MOBILE6 issued.
    (d) Perform a mid-course review by December 31, 2001.

D. What Amendments to the Attainment Demonstration SIP Did 
Pennsylvania Submit for the Philadelphia Area Since December 16, 
1999?

    Since December 16, 1999, Pennsylvania has submitted a number of 
amendments to the Pennsylvania SIP for Philadelphia:
    (1) On February 25, 2000, the Commonwealth submitted the ``State 
Implementation Plan Revision to the Philadelphia Ozone Nonattainment 
Area'' dated January, 2000. This submittal contained the revised motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the Post 1996 ROP plans and the 
attainment demonstration. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets 
reflected the benefits achieved from the NLEV program and the HDDE 
rule.
    (2) In the February 25, 2000 submittal, the Commonwealth included a 
commitment to revise the motor vehicle emissions budgets within one 
year after the official release of the MOBILE 6 model.
    (3) On February 25, 2000, the Commonwealth also submitted a letter 
reaffirming a previous commitment to adopt additional measures needed 
to reach attainment by October 31, 2001

[[Page 54145]]

and to revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets by October 
31, 2001 if the additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions 
inventory in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. In its 
February 25, 2000 letter, the Commonwealth enclosed a copy of the 
Southeastern Pennsylvania's Stakeholder's report which includes a list 
of potential control measures that the work group identified and 
considered during the Stakeholder's process.
    (2) On July 19, 2001 the Commonwealth submitted a revision to its 
2005 attainment demonstration SIP which includes revised attainment 
year motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Philadelphia area. The 
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets reflect the benefits of the 
Tier 2/Sulfur rule estimated for the Philadelphia area. The 
Commonwealth also included in the July 19, 2001 submittal a formal SIP 
commitment to perform a mid course review by December 31, 2003.
    (3) On July 19, 2001, the Commonwealth also submitted a supplement 
to its 2005 attainment demonstration SIP submittal consisting of a RACM 
analysis and determination.

E. What Did the Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemaking Cover?

    (1) On July 28, 2000, EPA published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPR) on the 2005 attainment demonstration (65 FR 
46383). In that supplemental notice, we clarified and expanded on two 
issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets in this 
attainment demonstration SIP revision:
    (a) First, we proposed a clarification of what occurs if we 
finalize conditional or full approval of this and certain other 
attainment demonstration SIP revisions based on a state commitment to 
revise the SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets in the future. Under 
the proposal, the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the approved SIP 
will apply for transportation conformity purposes only until the 
budgets are revised consistent with the commitment and we have found 
the new budgets adequate. Once we have found the newly revised budgets 
adequate, then they would apply instead of the previous conditionally 
or fully approved budgets. Normally, revisions to approved budgets 
cannot be used for conformity purposes until we approve the revised 
budgets into the SIP. Therefore, we proposed to clarify that when our 
approval of this and certain other 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstrations is based on a commitment to future revisions to the 
budget, our approval of the budget lasts only until revisions to 
satisfy those conditions are submitted and we find them adequate.
    (b) Second, we proposed that States may opt to commit to revise 
their emissions budgets 1 year after the release of the MOBILE6 model, 
as originally proposed on December 16, 1999; or, States may commit to a 
new option, i.e., to revise their budgets 2 years following the release 
of the MOBILE6 model, provided that conformity is not determined 
without adequate MOBILE6-derived SIP budgets during the second year. 
This second option did not affect the Philadelphia area because 
Pennsylvania has submitted an enforceable commitment to revise the 
motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year after the official 
release of the MOBILE6 model.
    (c) In addition, we reopened the comment period to take comment on 
these two issues and to allow comment on any additional materials that 
were placed in the dockets for the proposed actions, close to or after 
the initial comment period closed on February 14, 2000 (65 FR at 46383, 
July 28, 2000). For many of the areas, additional information had been 
placed in the docket close to or since the initial comment period 
concluded. In general, these materials were identified as consisting of 
motor vehicle emissions budgets, and revised or additional commitments 
or reaffirmations submitted by the States (65 FR at 46387, July 28, 
2000).
    (2) On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44571), EPA published a SNPR for 
Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area. In 
that supplemental notice, we proposed to approve Pennsylvania's 
revision to the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year 
of 2005 which reflected the benefits of the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. 
In that SNPR, we also proposed to approve the Commonwealth's formal SIP 
commitment to perform a mid-course review by December 31, 2003. We 
received no comments on that SNPR.
    (3) As noted earlier, on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568), EPA 
published a NPR proposing to approve Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plans for 
the Philadelphia area. We did not receive any comments on that NPR. In 
this final rulemaking action, we are approving the Post 1996 ROP plans 
submitted by Pennsylvania from 1996 through the 2005 attainment year.
    (4) On August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45797), EPA published a SNPR on the 
attainment demonstration. In that supplemental notice, we proposed to 
approve Pennsylvania's RACM analysis and determination for the 
Philadelphia area. We received no comments on that SNPR.

F. When Did EPA Make a Determination Regarding the Adequacy of the 
Attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Philadelphia 
Area?

    Pennsylvania submitted a revision to the attainment plan SIP for 
the Philadelphia area on July 19, 2001. This revision contained revised 
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of 2005 that 
reflected the benefits of the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the December 16, 1999 NPR, we proposed to disapprove the 
attainment demonstration if Pennsylvania did not submit motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for this area that EPA could find adequate 
by May 31, 2000 (see 64 FR at 70433). The budgets subject to this 
May 31, 2000 deadline did not necessarily have to account for 
Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rle reductions. On February 25, 2000 
Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision that included motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for the 2005 attainment year that did not include 
the benefits of the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. EPA had determined 
that these budgets were adequate by the May 31, 2000 deadline (June 
8, 2000 at 65 FR 36438). Our findings of adequacy and responses to 
comments can be accessed at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once there, click 
on the ``conformity'' button).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44571), we proposed to approve and 
proposed to find adequate the budgets in Pennsylvania's July 19, 2001 
submittal of the revised attainment plan. Our August 24, 2001 proposed 
rulemaking opened a public comment period to take comment on the 
approvability and adequacy of the budgets. No public comments were 
received pursuant to the August 24, 2001 proposed rulemaking. We are 
fully approving and making a determination of adequacy in this final 
rule for the budgets for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia 
area submitted on July 19, 2001.
    Pennsylvania has an acceptable commitment to revise the attainment 
year motor vehicle emissions budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one 
year after the release of the MOBILE6 model, and EPA is approving that 
commitment in this final rulemaking.

G. Upon What SIP Elements Did EPA Need to Take Final Action Before 
Full Approval of the Attainment Demonstration Could be Granted?

    In the December 16, 1999 NPR for the Pennsylvania attainment 
demonstration SIP, EPA noted in Tables 3 through 6 the status of many 
of the control measures or part D requirements of the Act for serious 
and severe areas. The following provides the status of those SIP 
elements which are relied on in the attainment demonstration but which

[[Page 54146]]

were not fully approved as of December 16, 1999:
    (1) On December 28, 1999, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NLEV SIP (64 
FR 72564).
    (2) On June 6, 2000, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NOX OTC 
MOU Phase II rule(65 FR 35842).
    (3) On August 21, 2001, EPA approved Pennsylvania's NOX 
Budget Rule (66 FR 43795).
    (4) On August 24, 2001, EPA approved Pennsylvania's, 15 percent VOC 
Reduction Plan (66 FR 44547).
    (5) On October 15, 2001, EPA signed a final rule converting its 
limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic NOX and VOC RACT 
regulations to a full approval as they apply in the Philadelphia area. 
This final rule has been or will be published in the Federal Register 
in the near future.
    As stated previously, in this final rulemaking action, we are 
approving the Post 1996 ROP plans submitted by Pennsylvania from 1996 
through the 2005 attainment year. These plans demonstrate ROP for 
milestone years 1999, 2002, and 2005.

H. What Measures Are in the Control Strategy for the Post-1996 
Plans and the Attainment Demonstration?

 Table 3.--Control Measures in the 1-Hour Ozone Post-1996 ROP and Attainment Demonstration for the Philadelphia
                                               Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Credited in post-1996
           Control measure                 Type of measure           plan for which       Credited in attainment
                                                                    milestone years                plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance....  Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Federal Motor Vehicle Control program  Federal................  Tier 1--1999 through     Tiers 1 and 2
                                                                 2005.
NLEV \1\.............................  Approved SIP opt-in....  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 1 & 2)..  Federal................  Phase 1--1999..........  Phase 2
                                                                Phase 2--2002 and 2005.
Federal Non-road Gasoline Engine       Federal................  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
 standards.
Federal Non-road Heavy Duty diesel     Federal................  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
 engine standards.
NOX RACT.............................  Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
VOC RACT.............................  Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Stage II Vapor Recovery & On-board     Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
 Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR).      Federal................
AIM Surface Coatings.................  Federal................  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Consumer & commercial products.......  Federal................  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Rule Effectiveness for Point Sources   Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
 \2\.
Shutdowns \2\........................  Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Autobody refinishing.................  Federal/Approved SIP...  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal       Federal................  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
 Facilities.
Heavy Duty Diesel Engines (On-road)..  Federal................  Yes--2005..............  Yes
Beyond RACT NOX Requirements on        Approved SIP...........  Yes--1999 through 2005.  Yes
 Utilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. To the extent NLEV not superseded by Tier 2.
2. These state initiatives and credits are approved as part the of the Post-96 ROP plan.

I. What Are the Approved Transportation Conformity Budgets, and 
What Effects Does This Action Have on Transportation Planning?

(1) What Are the Approved Transportation Conformity Budgets in the 
Post-1996 ROP Plan and the Attainment Demonstration?

    EPA has determined that the budgets in the Post-1996 ROP plan and 
the attainment demonstration are adequate. In this action EPA is 
approving these budgets which are listed in Table 4. by type of control 
strategy SIP.\2\ Table 4. also provides the amounts of the budgets in 
tons per day (TPD), the year associated with the budgets, and the 
effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for those budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note that the 2005 ROP budgets do not include the Federal 
Tier2/sulfur rule benefits. The 2005 attainment budgets do include 
the Federal Tier2/sulfur rule benefits.

[[Page 54147]]



                      Table 4.--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Philadelphia Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Date of adequacy
           Control strategy SIP                Year        VOC TPD         NOX              determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-1996 ROP Plan.......................         1999         88.6         109.6   June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438,
                                                                                     June 8, 2000)
Post-1996 ROP Plan.......................         2002         69.52         93.13  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438,
                                                                                     June 8, 2000)
Post-1996 ROP Plan.......................         2005         61.76         86.42  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438,
                                                                                     June 8, 2000)
Attainment Demonstration.................         2005         60.18         77.46  November 26, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a conformity analysis for year 2005, conformity must be shown 
to both sets of 2005 budgets, which effectively means that conformity 
must be demonstrated to the lower of the 2005 budgets. For conformity 
analysis year for any year after 2005, the attainment demonstration 
budgets are the applicable budgets.
    EPA has concluded that these SIP revisions meet the requirements of 
the CAA applicable to the type of control strategy SIP, that is, 
demonstrates attainment or ROP, with the applicable budgets and 
contains the measures necessary to support these budgets. In this final 
action, EPA is approving these budgets.

(2) Is a Requirement to Redetermine Conformity Within 18-months Under 
Section 93.104 of the Conformity Rule Triggered?

    Our conformity rule establishes the frequency by which 
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs must be 
found to conform to the SIP and includes trigger events tied to both 
submittal and approval of a SIP (40 CFR 93.104(e)). Both initial 
submission and initial approval trigger a redetermination of 
conformity. This final rule approves motor vehicle emissions budgets 
contained in the attainment demonstration and the Post 1996 ROP plans. 
We are advising affected transportation planning agencies that this 
final approval of the budgets in listed in Table 3 will require a re-
determination that existing transportation plans and TIPs conform 
within 18 months of the effective date listed in the DATE Section of 
this document. See 40 CFR 93.104(e).

(3) What Happens to the Prior Restrictions on the Use of the Benefits 
of Federal Tier 2/Sulfur Rule in Conformity Determinations

    In our December 16, 1999 NPR, we allowed States to submit motor 
vehicle emissions budgets that did not reflect the benefits of EPA's 
Tier 2/Sulfur rule. In that NPR, we explained that conformity analyses 
in the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area could begin 
including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits once EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur rule 
was promulgated, provided that the attainment demonstration SIP and 
associated motor vehicle emissions budgets include the Tier 2/Sulfur 
benefits. For an area that requires all or some portion of the Tier 2/
Sulfur benefits to demonstrate attainment but had not yet included the 
benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budgets, we noted that our 
adequacy finding will include a condition that conformity 
determinations may not take credit for Tier 2/Sulfur until the SIP 
budgets are revised to reflect Tier 2/Sulfur benefits.
    On February 25, 2000, the Commonwealth submitted 2005-year motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the Pennsylvania portion of the 
Philadelphia area that did not include the benefits from the Tier 2/
Sulfur rule. These 2005-year motor vehicle emissions budgets applied to 
two separate types of control strategy SIP revisions: (1) rate-of-
progress and (2) attainment. On May 31, 2000 (Letter from Katz to 
Salvaggio), EPA notified PADEP that the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
submitted on February 25, 2000 were adequate (see 65 FR 36438, June 8, 
2000). That adequacy finding included a condition precluding the use of 
the emission reduction benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur rule in 
conformity determinations.
    As previously explained, on July 19, 2001, the Commonwealth 
submitted revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2005 
attainment demonstration SIP for the Pennsylvania portion of the 
Philadelphia area that did include the benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur 
rule. We are approving the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets 
submitted by the Commonwealth on July 19, 2001 (which now reflect the 
Tier 2/Sulfur rule benefits). On November 26, 2001, the effective date 
of this approval of the 2005-year attainment motor vehicle emissions 
budgets submitted by Pennsylvania on July 19, 2001, supplant those 
attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on February 25, 
2000, and become the budgets for the Pennsylvania portion of the 
Philadelphia area to which all future transportation plans and 
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must conform (until replaced 
by the revised budgets discussed in Section I. J.); and the restriction 
on the use of the benefits from the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule in a 
conformity determination is removed.

J. What Happens to the Approved 2005 Budgets When States Change 
Their Budgets Using the MOBILE6 Model?

    All states whose attainment demonstration includes the effects of 
the Tier 2/sulfur program have committed to revise and resubmit their 
motor vehicle emissions budgets after EPA releases the MOBILE6 model. 
On February 25, 2000, Pennsylvania submitted a commitment to revise the 
2005 motor vehicle budgets in the attainment demonstration within one 
year of EPA's release of the MOBILE6 model. In this action, EPA is 
approving this commitment to revise the 2005 motor vehicle budgets in 
the attainment demonstration within one year of EPA's release of the 
MOBILE6 model. If Pennsylvania fails to meet its commitment to submit 
revised budgets using the MOBILE6 model, EPA could make a finding of 
failure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under 
section 179 of the Act.
    As we proposed in our July 28, 2000 SNPR (65 FR 46383), today's 
final approval of the budgets contained in the 2005 attainment plan 
will be effective for conformity purposes only until such time as 
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are submitted (pursuant to the 
commitment to submit revised budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one 
year of EPA's release of that model) and we have found those revised 
budgets adequate. We are only approving the attainment demonstration 
and its current budgets because Pennsylvania has provided an 
enforceable commitment to revise the budgets using the MOBILE6 model 
within one year of EPA's release of that model. Therefore, we are 
limiting the duration of our approval of the current budgets only until 
such time as the revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised 
budgets will be more appropriate than the budgets we are approving for 
conformity purposes for the time being.
    Similarly, EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration 
and its current budgets because Pennsylvania has provided an 
enforceable commitment to submit new budgets as a revision to the 
attainment SIP

[[Page 54148]]

consistent with any new measures submitted to fill any shortfall, if 
the additional control measures affect on-road motor vehicle emissions. 
Therefore, EPA is limiting the duration of our approval of the current 
budgets only until such time as any such revised budgets are found 
adequate. Those revised budgets will be more appropriate than the 
budgets we are approving for conformity purposes for the time being.

K. What Is the Status of Pennsylvania's New Source Review (SIP)?

    The EPA approved the Commonwealth's NSR program on December 9, 1997 
(62 FR 64722). As stated in the preamble of the proposed (62 FR 25060, 
May 2,1997) and final rulemaking notices, EPA's approval was limited in 
nature. EPA's 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, however, only apply in nonattainment areas without 
an approved attainment demonstration [see 40 CFR part 
51.165(a)(ii)(C)]. As EPA is, today, taking final action to approve 
Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia area, 
the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR program's lack of restrictions on 
the use of emission reductions from the shutdown and curtailment of 
existing sources or units as NSR offsets, applicable only in 
nonattainment areas without an approved attainment demonstration, is a 
moot issue. EPA has already removed the limited nature of its approval 
of Pennsylvania's NSR program in all areas of the Commonwealth except 
for its portion of the Philadelphia area (Philadelphia, Delaware, 
Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks counties). Now that we have approved the 
attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area, we intend to remove 
the limited nature of our approval of the Pennsylvania NSR program in 
Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks counties as 
well.

L. What Comments Were Received On the Proposed Approvals and How 
Has EPA Responded to Them?

    EPA received comments from the public on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPR) published on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) for 
Pennsylvania's ozone attainment demonstration. Comments were received 
from Robert E. Yuhnke on behalf of Environmental Defense and Natural 
Resources Defense Council; the Midwest Ozone Group; the Clean Air 
Council; The Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club; and from PECO 
Energy. See Section II. of this document for a summary of these 
comments and EPA responses relevant to our approval of the 
Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration.
    EPA also received comments from the public on the supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383) 
on the attainment demonstrations, in which EPA clarified and expanded 
on two issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
attainment demonstration SIPs. Comments were received from 
Environmental Defense, from ELM Packaging Co. and Citizens for 
Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). See Section II. of this document 
for a summary of these comments and EPA responses relevant to our 
approval of the Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration for the 
Philadelphia area.
    We did not receive comments on our August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568) 
proposed approval of the Commonwealth's Post 1996 plans. Nor did we 
receive comments on our August 24, 2001(66 FR 44571) SNPR for 
Pennsylvania's 2005 attainment demonstration, wherein we proposed to 
approve Pennsylvania's revision to the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
for the attainment year of 2005 which reflected the benefits of the 
Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule and the Commonwealth's formal SIP commitment 
to perform a mid-course review by December 31, 2003. Last, we did not 
receive comments on our August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45797) SNPR on the 
Commonwealth's 2005 attainment demonstration, wherein we proposed to 
approve Pennsylvania's RACM analysis and determination for the area.

II. Response to Comments

    The following discussion summarizes and responds to the comments 
received on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70428) and July 28, 2000 (65 FR 
46383) proposed actions on the Commonwealth's 2005 attainment 
demonstration SIP for the one hour ozone standard. These are the only 
proposed actions for which we received comments.

A. Attainment Demonstration--Weight of Evidence

    Comment 1: The weight of evidence approach does not demonstrate 
attainment or meet CAA requirements for a modeled attainment 
demonstration. Commenters added several criticisms of various technical 
aspects of the weight of evidence approach, including certain specific 
applications of the approach to particular attainment demonstrations. 
These comments are discussed in the following response.
    Response 1: Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and 
severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit by November 
15, 1994, demonstrations of how they would attain the 1-hour standard. 
Section 182(c)(2)(A) provides that ``[t]his attainment demonstration 
must be based on photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical 
method determined by the Administrator, in the Administrator's 
discretion, to be at least as effective.'' As described in more detail 
below, the EPA allows states to supplement their photochemical modeling 
results, with additional evidence designed to account for uncertainties 
in the photochemical modeling, to demonstrate attainment. This approach 
is consistent with the requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) that the 
attainment demonstration ``be based on photochemical grid modeling,'' 
because the modeling results constitute the principal component of 
EPA's analysis, with supplemental information designed to account for 
uncertainties in the model. This interpretation and application of the 
photochemical modeling requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) finds 
further justification in the broad deference Congress granted EPA to 
develop appropriate methods for determining attainment, as indicated in 
the last phrase of section 182(c)(2)(A).
    The flexibility granted to EPA under section 182(c)(2)(A) is 
reflected in the regulations EPA promulgated for modeled attainment 
demonstrations. These regulations provide, ``The adequacy of a control 
strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality 
models, data bases, and other requirements specified in [40 CFR part 51 
Appendix W] (Guideline on Air Quality Models).'' \3\ 40 CFR 
51.112(a)(1). However, the regulations further provide, ``Where an air 
quality model specified in appendix W * * * is inappropriate, the model 
may be modified or another model substituted [with approval by EPA, and 
after] notice and opportunity for public comment. * * *'' Appendix W, 
in turn, provides that, ``The Urban Airshed Model (UAM) is recommended 
for photochemical or

[[Page 54149]]

reactive pollutant modeling applications involving entire urban 
areas,'' but further refers to EPA's modeling guidance for data 
requirements and procedures for operating the model. 40 CFR 51 App. W 
section 6.2.1.a. The modeling guidance discusses the data requirements 
and operating procedures, as well as interpretation of model results as 
they relate to the attainment demonstration. This provision references 
guidance published in 1991, but EPA envisioned the guidance would 
change as we gained experience with model applications, which is why 
the guidance is referenced, but does not appear, in Appendix W. With 
updates in 1996 and 1999, the evolution of EPA's guidance has led us to 
use both the photochemical grid model, and additional analytical 
methods approved by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The August 12, 1996 version of ``Appendix W to Part 51--
Guideline on Air Quality Models'' was the rule in effect for these 
attainment demonstrations. EPA is proposing updates to this rule, 
that will not take effect until the rulemaking process for them is 
complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily 
maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year 
to the level of the NAAQS. The results may be interpreted through 
either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests: the deterministic 
test or the statistical test. Under the deterministic test, a predicted 
concentration above 0.124 parts per million (ppm) ozone indicates that 
the area is expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year and 
a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that the area is expected 
to not exceed the standard. Under the statistical test, attainment is 
demonstrated when all predicted (i.e., modeled) 1-hour ozone 
concentrations inside the modeling domain are at, or below, an 
acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain 
conditions (depending on the severity of the episode modeled).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, EPA issued guidance \5\ to update the 1991 guidance 
referenced in 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, to make the modeled attainment test 
more closely reflect the form of the NAAQS (i.e., the statistical test 
described above), to consider the area's ozone design value and the 
meteorological conditions accompanying observed exceedances, and to 
allow consideration of other evidence to address uncertainties in the 
modeling databases and application. When the modeling does not 
conclusively demonstrate attainment, EPA has concluded that additional 
analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area will 
attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are inherent 
uncertainties associated with air quality modeling and its results. The 
inherent imprecision of the model means that it may be inappropriate to 
view the specific numerical result of the model as the only determinant 
of whether the SIP controls are likely to lead to attainment. The EPA's 
guidance recognizes these limitations, and provides a means for 
considering other evidence to help assess whether attainment of the 
NAAQS is likely to be achieved. The process by which this is done is 
called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination. Under a WOE 
determination, the state can rely on, and EPA will consider in addition 
to the results of the modeled attainment test, other factors such as 
other modeled output (e.g., changes in the predicted frequency and 
pervasiveness of 1-hour ozone NAAQS exceedances, and predicted change 
in the ozone design value); actual observed air quality trends (i.e. 
analyses of monitored air quality data); estimated emissions trends; 
and the responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, EPA issued additional guidance \6\ that makes further use 
of model results for base case and future emission estimates to predict 
a future design value. This guidance describes the use of an additional 
component of the WOE determination, which requires, under certain 
circumstances, additional emission reductions that are or will be 
approved into the SIP, but that were not included in the modeling 
analysis, that will further reduce the modeled design value. An area is 
considered to monitor attainment if each monitor site has air quality 
observed ozone design values (4th highest daily maximum ozone using the 
three most recent consecutive years of data) at or below the level of 
the standard. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA, when making a 
determination that a control strategy will provide for attainment, to 
determine whether or not the model predicted future design value is 
expected to be at or below the level of the standard. Since the form of 
the 1-hour NAAQS allows exceedances, it did not seem appropriate for 
EPA to require the test for attainment to be ``no exceedances'' in the 
future model predictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through 
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air 
Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 
1999. Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The method outlined in EPA's 1999 guidance uses the highest 
measured design value across all sites in the nonattainment area for 
each of three years. These three ``design values'' represent the air 
quality observed during the time period used to predict ozone for the 
base emissions. This is appropriate because the model is predicting the 
change in ozone from the base period to the future attainment date. The 
three yearly design values (highest across the area) are averaged to 
account for annual fluctuations in meteorology. The result is an 
estimate of an area's base year design value. The base year design 
value is multiplied by a ratio of the peak model predicted ozone 
concentrations in the attainment year (i.e., average of daily maximum 
concentrations from all days modeled) to the peak model predicted ozone 
concentrations in the base year (i.e., average of daily maximum 
concentrations from all days modeled). The result is an attainment year 
design value based on the relative change in peak model predicted ozone 
concentrations from the base year to the attainment year. Modeling 
results also show that emission control strategies designed to reduce 
areas of peak ozone concentrations generally result in similar ozone 
reductions in all core areas of the modeling domain, thereby providing 
some assurance of attainment at all monitors.
    In the event that the attainment year design value is above the 
standard, the 1999 guidance provides a method for identifying 
additional emission reductions, not modeled, which at a minimum provide 
an estimated attainment year design value at the level of the standard. 
This step uses a locally derived factor which assumes a linear 
relationship between ozone and the precursors.
    A commenter criticized the 1999 guidance as flawed on grounds that 
it allows the averaging of the three highest air quality sites across a 
region, whereas EPA's 1991 and 1996 modeling guidance requires that 
attainment be demonstrated at each site. This has the effect of 
allowing lower air quality concentrations to be averaged against higher 
concentrations thus reducing the total emission reduction needed to 
attain at the higher site. The commenter does not appear to have 
described the guidance accurately. The guidance does not recommend 
averaging across a region or spatial averaging of observed data. The 
guidance does recommend determination of the highest site in the region 
for each of the three-year periods, determined by the base year 
modeled. For example, if the base year is 1990, it is the amount of 
emissions in 1990 that must be adjusted or evaluated (by

[[Page 54150]]

accounting for growth and controls) to determine whether attainment 
results. These 1990 emissions would contribute to three design value 
periods (1988-90, 1989-91 and 1990-92).
    Under the approach of the guidance document, EPA determined the 
design value for each of those three-year periods, and then averaged 
those three design values, to determine the base design value. This 
approach is appropriate because, as just noted, the 1990 emissions 
contributed to each of those periods, and there is no reason to believe 
the 1990 (episodic) emissions resulted in the highest or lowest of the 
three design values. Averaging the three years is beneficial for 
another reason: It allows consideration of a broader range of 
meteorological conditions-those that occurred throughout the 1988-1992 
period, rather than the meteorology that occurs in one particular year 
or even one particular ozone episode within that year. Furthermore, EPA 
relied on three-year averaging only for purposes of determining one 
component, i.e.--the small amount of additional emission reductions not 
modeled--of the WOE determination. The WOE determination, in turn, is 
intended to be part of a qualitative assessment of whether additional 
factors (including the additional emissions reductions not modeled), 
taken as a whole, indicate that the area is more likely than not to 
attain.
    A commenter criticized the component of this WOE factor that 
estimates ambient improvement because it does not incorporate complete 
modeling of the additional emissions reductions. However, the 
regulations do not mandate, nor does EPA guidance suggest, that States 
must model all control measures being implemented. Moreover, a 
component of this technique--the estimation of future design value--
should be considered a model--predicted estimate. Therefore, results 
from this technique are an extension of ``photochemical grid'' modeling 
and are consistent with Section 182(c)(2)(A). Also, a commenter 
believes that EPA has not provided sufficient opportunity to evaluate 
the calculations used to estimate additional emission reductions. EPA 
provided a full 60-day period for comment on all aspects of the 
proposed rule. EPA has received several comments on the technical 
aspects of the approach and the results of its application, as 
discussed above and in the responses to the individual SIPs.
    A commenter states that application of the method of attainment 
analysis used for the December 16, 1999 NPRs will yield a lower control 
estimate than if we relied entirely on reducing maximum predictions in 
every grid cell to less than or equal to 124 ppb on every modeled day. 
However, the commenter's approach may overestimate needed controls 
because the form of the standard allows up to 3 exceedances in 3 years 
in every grid cell. If the model over predicts observed concentrations, 
predicted controls may be further overestimated. EPA has considered 
other evidence, as described above through the weight of evidence 
determination.
    When reviewing a SIP, the EPA must make a determination that the 
control measures adopted are reasonably likely to lead to attainment. 
Reliance on the WOE factors allows EPA to make this determination based 
on a greater body of information presented by the States and available 
to EPA. This information includes model results for the majority of the 
control measures. Although not all measures were modeled, EPA reviewed 
the model's response to changes in emissions as well as observed air 
quality changes to evaluate the impact of a few additional measures, 
not modeled. EPA's decision was further strengthened by each State's 
commitment to check progress towards attainment in a mid-course review 
and to adopt additional measures, if the anticipated progress is not 
being made.
    A commenter further criticized EPA's technique for estimating the 
ambient impact of additional emissions reductions not modeled on 
grounds that EPA employed a ``rollback'' modeling technique that, 
according to the commenter, is precluded under EPA regulations. The 
commenter explained that 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.e. provides, 
``Proportional (rollback/forward) modeling is not an acceptable 
procedure for evaluating ozone control strategies.'' Section 14.0 of 
appendix W defines ``rollback'' as ``a simple model that assumes that 
if emissions from each source affecting a given receptor are decreased 
by the same percentage, ambient air quality concentrations decrease 
proportionately.'' Under this approach if 20% improvement in ozone is 
needed for the area to reach attainment, it is assumed a 20% reduction 
in VOC would be required. There was no approach for identifying 
NOX reductions.
    The ``proportional rollback'' approach is based on a purely 
empirically/mathematically derived relationship. EPA did not rely on 
this approach in its evaluation of the attainment demonstrations. The 
prohibition in Appendix W applies to the use of a rollback method which 
is empirically/mathematically derived and independent of model 
estimates or observed air quality and emissions changes as the sole 
method for evaluating control strategies. For the demonstrations under 
proposal, EPA used a locally derived (as determined by the model and/or 
observed changes in air quality) ratio of change in emissions to change 
in ozone to estimate additional emission reductions to achieve an 
additional increment of ambient improvement in ozone.
    For example, if monitoring or modeling results indicate that ozone 
was reduced by 25 ppb during a particular period, and that VOC and 
NOX emissions fell by 20 tons per day and 10 tons per day 
respectively during that period, EPA developed a ratio of ozone 
improvement related to reductions in VOC and NOX. This 
formula assumes a linear relationship between the precursors and ozone 
for a small amount of ozone improvement, but it is not a ``proportional 
rollback'' technique. Further, EPA uses these locally derived 
adjustment factors as a component to estimate the extent to which 
additional emissions reductions--not the core control strategies--would 
reduce ozone levels and thereby strengthen the weight of evidence test. 
EPA uses the UAM to evaluate the core control strategies.
    This limited use of adjustment factors is more technically sound 
than the unacceptable use of proportional rollback to determine the 
ambient impact of the entire set of emissions reductions required under 
the attainment SIP. The limited use of adjustment factors is acceptable 
for practical reasons: it obviates the need to expend more time and 
resources to perform additional modeling. In addition, the adjustment 
factor is a locally derived relationship between ozone and its 
precursors based on air quality observations and /or modeling which is 
more consistent with recommendations referenced by Appendix W and does 
not assume a direct proportional relationship between ozone and its 
precursors. Last, the requirement that areas perform a mid-course 
review (a check of progress toward attainment) provides a margin of 
safety.
    A commenter expressed concerns that EPA used a modeling technique 
(proportional rollback) that was expressly prohibited by 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix W, without expressly proposing to do so in a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. However, the commenter is mistaken. As explained 
above, EPA did not use or rely upon a proportional rollback technique 
in this rulemaking, but used UAM to evaluate

[[Page 54151]]

the core control strategies and then applied its WOE guidance. 
Therefore, because EPA did not use an ``alternative model'' to UAM, it 
did not trigger an obligation to modify Appendix W. Furthermore, EPA 
did propose the use the November 1999 guidance ``Guidance for Improving 
Weight of Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission 
Reductions, Not Modeled'' in the December 16, 1999 NPR and has 
responded to all comments received on that guidance elsewhere in this 
document.
    A commenter also expressed concern that EPA applied unacceptably 
broad discretion in fashioning and applying the WOE determinations. For 
all of the attainment submittals proposed for approval in December 1999 
concerning serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas, EPA first 
reviewed the UAM results. In all cases, the UAM results did not pass 
the deterministic test. In two cases--Milwaukee and Chicago--the UAM 
results passed the statistical test; in the rest of the cases, the UAM 
results failed the statistical test. The UAM has inherent limitations 
that, in EPA's view, were manifest in all these cases. These 
limitations include: (1) Only selected time periods were modeled, not 
the entire three-year period used as the definitive means for 
determining an area's attainment status; (2) inherent uncertainties in 
the model formulation and model inputs such as hourly emission 
estimates, emissions growth projections, biogenic emission estimates, 
and derived wind speeds and directions. As a result, for all areas, 
even Milwaukee and Chicago, EPA examined additional analyses to 
indicate whether additional SIP controls would yield meaningful 
reductions in ozone values. These analyses did not point to the need 
for additional emission reductions for Springfield, Greater 
Connecticut, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Chicago and Milwaukee, but 
did point to the need for additional reductions, in varying amounts, in 
the other areas. As a result, the other areas submitted control 
requirements to provide the indicated level of emissions reductions. 
EPA applied the same methodology in these areas, but because of 
differences in the application of the model to the circumstances of 
each individual area, the results differed on a case-by-case basis.
    As another WOE factor, for areas within the NOX SIP call 
domain, results from the EPA regional modeling for NOX 
controls as well as the Tier2/Low Sulfur program were considered. Also, 
for all of the areas, EPA considered recent changes in air quality and 
emissions. For some areas, this was helpful because there were emission 
reductions in the most recent years that could be related to observed 
changes in air quality, while for other areas there appeared to be 
little change in either air quality or emissions. For areas in which 
air quality trends, associated with changes in emissions levels, could 
be discerned, these observed changes were used to help decide whether 
or not the emission controls in the plan would provide progress towards 
attainment.
    The commenter also complained that EPA has applied the WOE 
determinations to adjust modeling results only when those results 
indicate nonattainment, and not when they indicate attainment. First, 
we disagree with the premise of this comment: EPA does not apply the 
WOE factors to adjust model results. EPA applies the WOE factors as 
additional analysis to compensate for uncertainty in the air quality 
modeling. Second, EPA has applied WOE determinations to all of the 
attainment demonstrations proposed for approval in December 1999. 
Although for most of them, the air quality modeling results by 
themselves indicated nonattainment, for two metropolitan areas--Chicago 
and Milwaukee, including parts of the States of Illinois, Indiana, and 
Wisconsin, the air quality modeling did indicate attainment on the 
basis of the statistical test.
    The commenter further criticized EPA's application of the WOE 
determination on grounds that EPA ignores evidence indicating that 
continued nonattainment is likely, such as, according to the commenter, 
monitoring data indicating that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 
continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or wider than those 
predicted by the UAM. EPA has reviewed the evidence provided by the 
commenter. The 1999 monitor values do not constitute substantial 
evidence indicating that the SIPs will not provide for attainment. 
These values do not reflect either the local or regional control 
programs which are scheduled for implementation in the next several 
years. Once implemented, these controls are expected to lower emissions 
and thereby lower ozone values. Moreover, there is little evidence to 
support the statement that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 
continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or wider than those 
predicted by the UAM. Since areas did not model 1999 ozone levels using 
1999 meteorology and 1999 emissions which reflect reductions 
anticipated by control measures, that are or will be approved into the 
SIP, there is no way to determine how the UAM predictions for 1999 
compare to the 1999 air quality. Therefore, we can not determine 
whether or not the monitor values exceed the NAAQS by a wider margin 
than the UAM predictions for 1999. In summary, there is little evidence 
to support the conclusion that high exceedances in 1999 will continue 
to occur after adopted control measures are implemented.
    In addition, the commenter argued that in applying the WOE 
determinations, EPA ignored factors showing that the SIPs under-predict 
future emissions, and the commenter included as examples certain mobile 
source emissions sub-inventories. EPA did not ignore possible under-
prediction in mobile emissions. EPA is presently evaluating mobile 
source emissions data as part of an effort to update the computer model 
for estimating mobile source emissions. EPA is considering various 
changes to the model, and is not prepared to conclude at this time that 
the net effect of all these various changes would be to increase or 
decrease emissions estimates. For attainment demonstration SIPs that 
rely on the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment or otherwise (i.e., 
reflect these programs in their motor vehicle emissions budgets), 
States have committed to revise their motor vehicle emissions budgets 
after the MOBILE6 model is released. EPA will work with States on a 
case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates raise issues about the 
sufficiency of the attainment demonstration. If analysis indicates 
additional measures are needed, EPA will take the appropriate action.
    Comment 2: We received comments asserting that the attainment 
demonstration for the Philadelphia area did not model the requisite 
number of episodes. The comments state that only two episodes were 
modeled.
    Response 2: EPA did note that only two episodes were modeled in our 
December 16, 1999 proposed rule and in the TSD prepared for the 
proposed rule. EPA did not consider the lack of a third episode to be a 
deficiency due to the severity of the two episodes modeled. In both the 
December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking and the associated TSD, we noted 
the following:
    (1) Both of the episodes in the local UAM modeling represent very 
severe ozone events with meteorological ozone forming potential 
rankings of less than 80 out of all days over the last fifty years (Cox 
and Chu 1996).
    (2) Given the severity of these episodes, they are likely to be the 
controlling episodes in the Philadelphia area in the determination of 
emission reductions needed for attainment.

[[Page 54152]]

    (3) These episodes also represent the meteorological regime most 
frequently responsible for elevated ozone concentrations in the 
Philadelphia area.

B. Reliance on the NOX SIP Call and the Tier 2/Sulfur Rule

    Comment: Several commenters stated that given the uncertainty 
surrounding the NOX SIP Call at the time of EPA's proposals 
on the attainment demonstrations, there is no basis for the conclusion 
reached by EPA that states should assume implementation of the 
NOX SIP Call, or rely on it as a part of their 
demonstrations. One commenter claims that there were errors in the 
emissions inventories used for the NOX SIP Call Supplemental 
Notice (SNPR) and that these inaccuracies were carried over to the 
modeling analyses, estimates of air quality based on that modeling, and 
estimates of EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe emissions reduction program not 
modeled in the demonstrations. Thus, because of the inaccuracies in the 
inventories used for the SIP Call, the attainment demonstration 
modeling is also flawed. Finally, one commenter suggests that modeling 
data demonstrates that the benefits of imposing NOX SIP Call 
controls are limited to areas near the sources controlled.
    Response: These comments were submitted prior to several court 
decisions largely upholding EPA's NOX SIP Call, Michigan v. 
United States Env. Prot. Agency, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. 
denied, U.S., 121 S.Ct. 1225, 149 L.Ed. 135 (2001); Appalachian Power 
v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied,____ U.S.____, 121 
S.Ct. 1225, 149 L.Ed. 135 (2001); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251 F.3d 
1026 (D.C. Cir. 2001). In those cases, the court largely upheld the 
NOX SIP Call. Although a few issues were vacated or remanded 
to EPA for further consideration, these issues do not concern the 
accuracy of the emission inventories relied on for purposes of the SIP 
Call. Moreover, contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the SIP Call 
modeling data bases were not used to develop estimates of reductions 
from the Tier 2/Sulfur program for the severe area one-hour attainment 
demonstrations. Accordingly, the commenter's concerns that inaccurate 
inventories for the SIP Call modeling lead to inaccurate results for 
the severe-area one-hour attainment demonstrations are inapposite.
    The remanded issues do affect the ability of EPA and the States to 
achieve the full level of the SIP Call reductions by May 2003. First, 
the court vacated the rule as it applied to two states--Missouri and 
Georgia--and also remanded the definition of a co-generator and the 
assumed emission limit for internal combustion engines. EPA has 
informed the states that until EPA addresses the remanded issues, EPA 
will accept SIPs that do not include those small portions of the 
emission budget. However, EPA is planning to propose a rule shortly to 
address the remanded issues and ensure that emission reductions from 
these States and the emission reductions represented by the two source 
categories are addressed in time to benefit the severe nonattainment 
areas. Also, although the court in the Michigan case subsequently 
issued an order delaying the implementation date to no later than May 
31, 2004, and the Appalachian Power case remanded an issue concerning 
computation of the EGU growth factor, it is EPA's view that States 
should assume that the SIP Call reductions will occur in time to ensure 
attainment in the severe nonattainment areas. Both EPA and the States 
are moving forward to implement the SIP Call.
    Finally, contrary to the commenter's conclusions, EPA's modeling to 
determine the region-wide impacts of the NOX SIP call 
clearly shows that regional transport of ozone and its precursors is 
impacting nonattainment areas several states away. This analysis was 
upheld by the court in Michigan.

C. RACM (Including Transportation Control Measures)

    Comment: Several commenters have stated that there is no evidence 
in several states that they have adopted reasonably available control 
measures (RACM) or that the SIPs have provided for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable. Specifically, the lack of Transportation 
Control Measures (TCMs) was cited in several comments, but commenters 
also raised concerns about potential stationary source controls. One 
commenter stated that mobile source emission budgets in the plans are 
by definition inadequate because the SIPs do not demonstrate timely 
attainment or contain the emissions reductions required for all RACM. 
That commenter claims that EPA may not find adequate a motor vehicle 
emission budget (MVEB) that is derived from a SIP that is inadequate 
for the purpose for which it is submitted. The commenter alleges that 
none of the MVEBs submitted by the states that EPA is considering for 
adequacy is consistent with the level of emissions achieved by 
implementation of all RACM; nor are they derived from SIPs that provide 
for attainment. Some commenters stated that for measures that are not 
adopted into the SIP, the State must provide a justification for why 
they were determined to not be RACM.
    Response: EPA reviewed the initial SIP submittals for the 
Philadelphia area and determined that they did not include sufficient 
documentation concerning available RACM measures. For all of the severe 
areas for which EPA proposed approval in December 1999, EPA 
consequently issued policy guidance memorandum to have these States 
address the RACM requirement through an additional SIP submittal. 
(Memorandum of December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, re: ``Additional Submission on 
RACM from States with Severe 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs'').
    On July 19, 2001 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania formally 
submitted a supplement to its 2005 attainment demonstration SIP 
consisting of an analysis and determination of RACM. On August 30, 2001 
(66 FR 45797), EPA proposed to approve this supplement to the 
attainment demonstration SIP as meeting the RACM requirements. EPA did 
not receive any comments on its August 30, 2001 proposal. Please see 
the discussion in I.E. of this document.
    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM and 
provides for areas to attain as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has 
previously provided guidance interpreting the requirements of 
172(c)(1). See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA indicated its 
interpretation that potentially available measures that would not 
advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. 
EPA also indicated in that guidance that states should consider all 
potentially available measures to determine whether they were 
reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they 
would advance the attainment date. Further, states should indicate in 
their SIP submittals whether measures considered were reasonably 
available or not, and if measures are reasonably available they must be 
adopted as RACM.
    Finally, EPA indicated that states could reject measures as not 
being RACM because they would not advance the attainment date, would 
cause substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts, would be 
economically or technologically infeasible, or would be unavailable 
based on local considerations, including costs. The EPA also issued a 
recent memorandum re-confirming the principles in the earlier guidance, 
entitled, ``Guidance on

[[Page 54153]]

the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and 
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' 
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 
November 30, 1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    The analysis submitted by Pennsylvania on July 19, 2001, as a 
supplement to its attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia 
area, addresses the RACM requirement. Pennsylvania convened a 
stakeholders group (the Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders 
Group) to examine a wide variety of potential stationary and mobile 
source controls. The stationary/area source controls that were 
considered included the adoption of South Coast Air Quality Management 
District/California Air Resources Board's (SCAQMD/CARB) limits for 
certain VOC source categories that are more stringent than the already 
adopted control technique guideline (CTG) limits, e.g., fabric/paper, 
magnet wire, vinyl, miscellaneous metal parts, coil and metal furniture 
coating; limits on area source categories not covered by a CTG, e.g., 
adhesives, motor vehicle refinishing, surface/cleaning degreasing, 
underground storage tank vents; rule effectiveness improvements; wood 
furniture coating (Pennsylvania has a SIP-approved rule consistent with 
RACT limits recommended under the CTG; under consideration for the RACM 
analysis was expanding the applicability of those limits to sources 
smaller than those covered by the CTG); ``beyond RACT'' controls on 
major stationary sources of NOX; and other potential 
measures.
    The mobile source control measures considered included the national 
low emission vehicle program, accelerated replacement of older buses 
with cleaner buses, compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled buses, and 
emissions-based vehicle registration fees. Mobile source controls also 
included control measures aimed at reducing vehicle trips, travel or 
congestion via land use planning, traffic flow improvements 
(signalization, ramp metering, speed limit restriction enforcement), 
improved mass transit, expanded parking at rail stations, 
telecommuting, bicycle lanes or access improvements at rail stations, 
parking taxes/surcharge, and increased gasoline taxes or miles travel 
based fees.
    Pennsylvania considered an extensive list of potential control 
measures and chose measures for implementation which went beyond the 
Federally mandated controls, which were found to be cost effective and 
technologically feasible. From the list of measures considered, the 
rules and measures adopted and submitted by Pennsylvania, as analyzed 
and examined by the stakeholders group, are as follows:
    (1) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule for vehicle refinishing. The rule includes VOC 
content limits for motor vehicle refinishing coatings, application 
standards and storage and housekeeping work practices. This rule goes 
beyond the Federal rule in content limits and application and work 
practices standards. Compliance with this rule was required in 2000.
    (2) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule requiring the sale of vehicles under the national 
low-emission vehicle program.
    (3) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule to implement Phase II NOX controls under 
the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU). This rule established a fixed cap on ozone-season NOX 
emissions from major point sources of NOX. The rule grants 
each source a fixed number of NOX allowances, applies state-
wide, and requires compliance during the ozone season. The 
implementation of this rule commenced May 1, 1999 and reduces 
NOX emissions both inside and outside the Philadelphia area.
    (4) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule to implement the NOX SIP call. The 
Pennsylvania rule requires compliance commencing with the start of the 
2003 ozone season. (This measure was identified as Phase III control 
under the OTC MOU on NOX control in the RACM submittal 
because the evaluation occurred in 1996, well before the SIP call 
proposal.)
    (5) Pennsylvania has also adopted rule effectiveness improvements 
for the implementation of regulations through the attainment year of 
2005 for its portion of the Philadelphia area as part of its post 1996 
Rate of Progress Plans which EPA is approving in this final rulemaking.
    Pennsylvania considered a number of measures that have the 
potential to achieve benefits but concluded that some were not cost 
effective, that others have the potential for substantial widespread 
and long-term adverse impacts and that one measure, a mandatory ban on 
residential lawn care activities on high ozone days, was infeasible due 
to the impracticability of effective enforcement. These are explained 
in further detail in the docket for this rulemaking. For the reasons 
explained in our August 30, 2001 SNPR, EPA concluded that no additional 
measures could advance the attainment date for the Philadelphia area 
prior to full implementation of all controls scheduled for 
implementation by 2005.
    Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires 
implementation of additional measures for the Philadelphia area, this 
conclusion is not necessarily valid for other areas. Thus, a 
determination of RACM is necessary on a case-by-case basis and will 
depend on the circumstances for the individual area. In addition, if in 
the future EPA moves forward to implement another ozone standard, this 
RACM analysis would not control what is RACM for these or any other 
areas for that other ozone standard.
    Also, EPA has long advocated that States consider the kinds of 
control measures that the commenters have suggested, and EPA has indeed 
provided guidance on those measures. See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm. In order to demonstrate that they will attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, some areas may need 
to consider and adopt a number of measures--including the kind that 
Pennsylvania itself evaluated in its RACM analysis--that even 
collectively do not result in many emission reductions. Furthermore, 
EPA encourages areas to implement technically available and 
economically feasible measures to achieve emissions reductions in the 
short term--even if such measures do not advance the attainment date--
since such measures will likely improve air quality. Also, over time, 
emission control measures that may not be RACM now for an area may 
ultimately become feasible for the same area due to advances in control 
technology or more cost-effective implementation techniques. Thus, 
areas should continue to assess the state of control technology as they 
make progress toward attainment and consider new control technologies 
that may in fact result in more expeditious improvement in air quality.
    Because EPA is finding that the SIP meets the CAA's requirement for 
RACM and that there are no additional reasonably available control 
measures that can advance the attainment date, EPA concludes that the 
attainment date being approved is expeditiously as practicable.
    The motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate. The SIP includes 
all necessary RACM and provides for expeditious attainment as explained 
herein.

[[Page 54154]]

D. Approval of Attainment Demonstrations That Rely on State Commitments 
or State Rules For Emission Limitations to Lower Emissions in the 
Future not yet Adopted by a State and/or Approved by EPA

    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to 
approve states' attainment and rate of progress demonstrations because 
(a) not all of the emissions reductions assumed in the demonstrations 
have actually taken place, (b) are reflected in rules yet to be adopted 
and approved by a state and approved by EPA as part of the SIP, (c) are 
credited illegally as part of a demonstration because they are not 
approved by EPA as part of the SIP, or (d) the commenter maintains that 
EPA does not have authority to accept enforceable state commitments to 
adopt measures in the future in lieu of current adopted measures to 
fill a near-term shortfall of reductions.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comments, and believes--consistent 
with past practice--that the CAA allows approval of enforceable 
commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances exist that 
warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted measures.\7\ 
Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant consideration of an 
enforceable commitment, EPA believes that three factors should be 
considered in determining whether to approve the enforceable 
commitment: (1) Whether the commitment addresses a limited portion of 
the statutorily-required program; (2) whether the state is capable of 
fulfilling its commitment; and (3) whether the commitment is for a 
reasonable and appropriate period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These commitments are enforceable by the EPA and citizens 
under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past, 
EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 
these actions against states that failed to comply with those 
commitments. See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. 
Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC 
v. N.Y. State Dept. of Envs. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 
1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 
recon. granted in part, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition 
for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916 
HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet 
its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement 
the SIP under section 179(a) of the Act, which starts an 18-month 
period for the State to begin implementation before mandatory 
sanctions are imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also noted that while the Commonwealth does rely on 
commitments to adopt additional measures for the purpose of 
demonstrating attainment, it does not rely on commitments to 
demonstrate ROP. See 66 FR 44568, August 24, 2001. The Commonwealth's 
Post 1996 plans demonstrate ROP with VOC and NOX emission 
reductions achieved within the nonattainment area by the implementation 
of fully promulgated Federal and fully adopted, SIP-approved state 
measures.
    As an initial matter, EPA believes that present circumstances for 
the New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Houston nonattainment 
areas warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments. The 
Northeast states that make up the New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia 
nonattainment areas submitted SIPs that they reasonably believed 
demonstrated attainment with fully adopted measures. After EPA's 
initial review of the plans, EPA recommended to these areas that 
additional controls would be necessary to ensure attainment. Because 
these areas had already submitted plans with many fully adopted rules 
and the adoption of additional rules would take some time, EPA believed 
it was appropriate to allow these areas to supplement their plans with 
enforceable commitments to adopt and submit control measures to achieve 
the additional necessary reductions. For Pennsylvania's attainment 
demonstration for the Philadelphia area, EPA has determined that the 
submission of enforceable commitments in place of adopted control 
measures for these limited sets of reductions will not interfere with 
each area's ability to meet its 2005 attainment obligations.
    EPA's approach here of considering enforceable commitments that are 
limited in scope is not new. EPA has historically recognized that under 
certain circumstances, issuing full approval may be appropriate for a 
submission that consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. See, 
e.g., 62 FR 1150, 1187, Jan. 8, 1997 (ozone attainment demonstration 
for the South Coast Air Basin; 65 FR 18903, Apr. 10, 2000 (revisions to 
attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 63 FR 41326, 
Aug. 3, 1998 (federal implementation plan for PM-10 for Phoenix); 48 FR 
51472 (state implementation plan for New Jersey). Nothing in the Act 
speaks directly to the approvability of enforceable commitments.\8\ 
However, EPA believes that its interpretation is consistent with 
provisions of the CAA. For example, section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that 
each SIP ``shall include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques * * * as well as schedules and 
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to met 
the applicable requirement of the Act.'' (Emphasis added). Section 
172(c)(6) of the Act requires, as a rule generally applicable to 
nonattainment SIPs, that the SIP ``include enforceable emission 
limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques * * * 
as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment * * * by 
the applicable attainment date * * * '' (Emphasis added). The 
emphasized terms mean that enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures do not necessarily need to generate reductions in the 
full amount needed to attain. Rather, the emissions limitations and 
other control measures may be supplemented with other SIP rules--for 
example, the enforceable commitments EPA is approving today--as long as 
the entire package of measures and rules provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 110(k)(4) provides for ``conditional approval'' of 
commitments that need not be enforceable. Under that section, a 
State may commit to ``adopt specific enforceable measures'' within 
one-year of the conditional approval. Rather than enforcing such 
commitments against the State, the Act provides that the conditional 
approval will convert to a disapproval if ``the State fails to 
comply with such commitment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided, after concluding that the circumstances warrant 
consideration of an enforceable commitment--as they do for the 
Philadelphia area--EPA would consider three factors in determining 
whether to approve the submitted commitments. First, EPA believes that 
the commitments must be limited in scope. In 1994, in considering EPA's 
authority under section 110(k)(4) to conditionally approve 
unenforceable commitments, the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit struck down an EPA policy that would allow States to 
submit (under limited circumstances) commitments for entire programs. 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 
1994). While EPA does not believe that case is directly applicable 
here, EPA agrees with the Court that other provisions in the Act 
contemplate that a SIP submission will consist of more than a mere 
commitment. See NRDC, 22 F.3d at 1134.
    In the present circumstances, the commitments address only a small 
portion of the plan. For the Philadelphia area, the commitment 
addresses only 10.6% of the VOC and 0.7% of the NOX 
emissions reductions necessary to attain the standard. A summary of the 
adopted control measures and other components credited in 
Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration submission are discussed in 
Sections G. and H. of this document. These adopted and implemented 
control measures are the majority of the

[[Page 54155]]

emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment.
    As to the second factor, whether the State is capable of fulfilling 
the commitment, EPA considered the current or potential availability of 
measures capable of achieving the additional level of reductions 
represented by the commitment. For the New York, Philadelphia and 
Baltimore nonattainment areas, EPA believes that there are sufficient 
untapped sources of emission reductions that could achieve the minimal 
levels of additional reductions that the areas need. This is supported 
by the recent recommendation of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 
regarding specific controls that could be adopted to achieve the level 
of reductions needed for each of these three nonattainment areas. Thus, 
EPA believes that the States will be able to find sources of reductions 
to meet the shortfall. The States that comprise the New York, 
Philadelphia and Baltimore nonattainment areas are making significant 
progress toward adopting the measures to fill the shortfall. The OTC 
has met and on March 29, 2001 recommended a set of control measures. 
Currently, the States are working through their adoption processes with 
respect to those, and in some cases other, control measures.
    The Commonwealth is well into the adoption process for these 
measures. Although EPA has evidence that the Commonwealth may not make 
the submission on or before the date to which it has committed, EPA 
believes that it is making sufficient progress to support approval of 
the commitment because the Commonwealth will adopt and implement the 
measures within a time period fully consistent with the Philadelphia 
area attaining the standard by its approved attainment date.
    The third factor, EPA has considered in determining to approve 
limited commitments for the Philadelphia attainment demonstration is 
whether the commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period. EPA 
recognizes that both the Act and EPA have historically emphasized the 
need for submission of adopted control measures in order to ensure 
expeditious implementation and achievement of required emissions 
reductions. Thus, to the extent that other factors--such as the need to 
consider innovative control strategies--support the consideration of an 
enforceable commitment in place of adopted control measures, the 
commitment should provide for the adoption of the necessary control 
measures on an expeditious, yet practicable, schedule.
    As provided above, for New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia, EPA 
proposed that these areas have time to work within the framework of the 
OTC to develop, if appropriate, a regional control strategy to achieve 
the necessary reductions and then to adopt the controls on a state-by-
state basis. In the proposed approval of the attainment demonstrations, 
EPA proposed that these areas would have approximately 22 months to 
complete the OTC and state-adoption processes--a fairly ambitious 
schedule--i.e., until October 31, 2001. As a starting point in 
suggesting this time frame for submission of the adopted controls, EPA 
first considered the CAA ``SIP Call'' provision of the CAA--section 
110(k)(5)--which provides States with up to 18 months to submit a SIP 
after EPA requests a SIP revision. While EPA may have ended its inquiry 
there, and provided for the States to submit the measures within 18 
months of it's proposed approval of the attainment demonstrations, EPA 
further considered that these areas were all located with the Northeast 
Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and determined that it was appropriate to 
provide these areas with additional time to work through the OTR 
process to determine if regional controls would be appropriate for 
addressing the shortfall. See e.g., 64 FR 70428. EPA believed that 
allowing these States until 2001 to adopt these additional measures 
would not undercut their attainment dates of November 2005 or 2007. EPA 
still believes that this a reasonable schedule for the states to submit 
adopted control measures that will achieve the additional necessary 
reductions.
    The enforceable commitments submitted by Pennsylvania for the 
Philadelphia nonattainment area, in conjunction with the other SIP 
measures and other sources of emissions reductions, constitute the 
required demonstration of attainment and the commitments will not 
interfere with the area's ability to make reasonable progress under 
section 182(c)(2)(B) and (d). EPA believes that the delay in submittal 
of the final rules is permissible under section 110(k)(3) because the 
Commonwealth has obligated itself to submit the rules by specified 
short-term dates, and that obligation is enforceable by EPA and the 
public. Moreover, as discussed in the December 16, 1999 proposal, its 
Technical Support Document (TSD), and Sections G. and H. of this 
document, the SIP submittal approved today contains major substantive 
components submitted as adopted regulations and enforceable orders.
    EPA believes that the Pennsylvania SIP meets the NRDC consent 
decree definition of a ``full attainment demonstration.'' The consent 
decree defines a ``full attainment demonstration'' as a demonstration 
according to CAA section 182(c)(2). As a whole, the attainment 
demonstration--consisting of photochemical grid modeling, adopted 
control measures, an enforceable commitment with respect to a limited 
portion of the reductions necessary to attain, and other analyses and 
documentation--is approvable since it ``provides for attainment of the 
ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date.'' See section 
182(c)(2)(A).

E. Adequacy of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Comment: We received a number of comments about the process and 
substance of EPA's review of the adequacy of motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for transportation conformity purposes.
    Response: EPA's adequacy process for most of these SIPs has been 
completed, and we have found the motor vehicle emissions budgets in all 
of these SIPs to be adequate. We have already responded to any comments 
related to adequacy of the ROP budgets that we are approving in this 
action, when we issued our adequacy findings, and therefore we are not 
listing the individual comments or responding to them here.
    On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44571), we proposed to approve and to 
determine adequate the revised 2005 attainment budgets, shown in Table 
4, which were submitted by the Commonwealth on July 19, 2001. We 
received no comments on the August 24, 2001 proposal. In this final 
rule we are finding the revised budgets of the 2005 attainment 
demonstration SIP submitted by the Commonwealth adequate, and are 
approving them.
    All of our findings of adequacy and responses to comments can be 
accessed at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once there, click on the 
``conformity'' button). At the web site, EPA regional contacts are 
identified.
    Comment 2: We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania has not 
provided a clear indication of how the conformity requirements of the 
Clean Air Act are being met. Conformity is an important tool to ensure 
that transportation programs or policies are fully developed with Clean 
Air Act obligations in mind.

[[Page 54156]]

    Response 2: The attainment demonstration SIP is not required to 
describe how conformity requirements are being met. Demonstrations of 
conformity are a separate process and mandate upon certain recipients 
of Federal funds that are independently enforceable under the CAA and 
EPA regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7506. The SIP does identify motor 
vehicle emissions budgets that will be used for the purposes of 
determining conformity in the future. EPA has found all the budgets 
adequate for conformity purposes as discussed in Sections I.F. and I.I. 
and in this action is approving the attainment demonstration and ROP 
plans each of which contain motor vehicle emissions budgets.
    Comment 3: We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania's motor 
vehicle emissions budgets do not provide sufficient emission reductions 
to demonstrate attainment.
    Response 3: In our December 16, 1999 NPR, we proposed to approve 
Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area. For 
the reasons outlined in our December 16, 1999 NPR and in responses to 
comments regarding the weight of evidence, EPA concluded that 
Pennsylvania had adequate modeling demonstrating attainment for the 
Philadelphia area provided that Pennsylvania commit to adopting 
additional measures to strengthen the weight of evidence. Pennsylvania 
has adopted such an enforceable commitment and EPA is approving this 
commitment. In addition, approval under the December 16, 1999 NPR was 
contingent upon approval into the SIP of rules upon which the modeling 
demonstration and upon adoption of adequate motor vehicle emissions 
budgets that reflected the benefits from the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur 
rule. EPA has approved into the SIP the needed rules and is determining 
in this action that Pennsylvania has adopted and submitted adequate 
budgets incorporating the benefits from the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule. 
The adequacy criteria include a determination that the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets, when considered together with all other emissions 
sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for attainment. See 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment 
demonstration because it is supported by an adequate modeling 
demonstration and because the measures upon which the modeling 
demonstration is based are creditable and because the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets are consistent with the measures in the SIP and the 
attainment demonstration.

F. Attainment Demonstration and Rate of Progress Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Inventories

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the motor vehicle emissions 
inventory is not current, particularly with respect to the fleet mix. 
Commenters stated that the fleet mix does not accurately reflect the 
growing proportion of sport utility vehicles and gasoline trucks, which 
pollute more than conventional cars. Also, a commenter stated that EPA 
and states have not followed a consistent practice in updating SIP 
modeling to account for changes in vehicle fleets. For these reasons, 
commenters recommend disapproving the SIPs.
    Response: All of the SIPs on which we are taking final action are 
based on the most recent vehicle registration data available at the 
time the SIP was submitted. The SIPs use the same vehicle fleet 
characteristics that were used in the most recent periodic inventory 
update. The Commonwealth modeled vehicle age distributions from 1993. 
EPA requires the most recent available data to be used, but we do not 
require it to be updated on a specific schedule. Therefore, different 
SIPs base their fleet mix on different years of data. Our guidance does 
not suggest that SIPs should be disapproved on this basis. 
Nevertheless, we do expect that revisions to these SIPs that are 
submitted using MOBILE6 (as required in those cases where the SIP is 
relying on emissions reductions from the Tier 2 standards) will use 
updated vehicle registration data appropriate for use with MOBILE6, 
whether it is updated local data or the updated national default data 
that will be part of MOBILE6.

G. VOC Emission Reductions

    Comment: For States that need additional VOC reductions, one 
commenter recommends a process to achieve these VOC emission 
reductions, which involves the use of HFC-152a (1,1 difluoroethane) as 
the blowing agent in manufacturing of polystyrene foam products such as 
food trays and egg cartons. The commenter states that HFC-152a could be 
used instead of hydrocarbons, a known pollutant, as a blowing agent. 
Use of HFC-152a, which is classified as VOC exempt, would eliminate 
nationwide the entire 25,000 tons/year of VOC emissions from this 
industry.
    Response: EPA has met with the commenter and has discussed the 
technology described by the company to reduce VOC emissions from 
polystyrene foam blowing through the use of HFC-152a (1,1 
difluoroethane), which is a VOC exempt compound, as a blowing agent. 
Since the HFC-152a is VOC exempt, its use would give a VOC reduction 
compared to the use of VOCs such a pentane or butane as a blowing 
agent. However, EPA has not studied this technology exhaustively. It is 
each State's prerogative to specify which measures it will adopt in 
order to achieve the additional VOC reductions it needs. In evaluating 
the use of HFC-152a, States may want to consider claims that products 
made with this blowing agent are comparable in quality to products made 
with other blowing agents. Also the question of the over-all long term 
environmental effect of encouraging emissions of fluorine compounds 
would be relevant to consider. This is a technology which States may 
want to consider, but ultimately, the decision of whether to require 
this particular technology to achieve the necessary VOC emissions 
reductions must be made by each affected State. Finally, EPA notes that 
under the significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program, created 
under CAA Sec. 612, EPA has identified acceptable foam blowing agents 
man of which are not VOCs (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/).

H. Credit for Measures not Fully Implemented

    Comment: States should not be given credit for measures that are 
not fully implemented. For example, the States are being given full 
credit for Federal coating, refinishing and consumer product rules that 
have been delayed or weakened.
    Response: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings: 
On March 22, 1995 EPA issued a memorandum \9\ that provided that States 
could claim a 20% reduction in VOC emissions from the AIM coatings 
category in ROP and attainment plans based on the anticipated 
promulgation of a national AIM coatings rule. In developing the 
attainment and ROP SIPs for their nonattainment areas, States relied on 
this memorandum to estimate emission reductions from the anticipated 
national AIM rule. EPA promulgated the final AIM rule in September 
1998, codified at 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D. In the preamble to EPA's 
final AIM coatings regulation, EPA

[[Page 54157]]

estimated that the regulation will result in 20% reduction of 
nationwide VOC emissions from AIM coatings categories (63 FR 48855). 
The estimated VOC reductions from the final AIM rule resulted in the 
same level as those estimated in the March 1995 EPA policy memorandum. 
In accordance with EPA's final regulation, States have assumed a 20% 
reduction from AIM coatings source categories in their attainment and 
ROP plans. AIM coatings manufacturers were required to be in compliance 
with the final regulation within one year of promulgation, except for 
certain pesticide formulations which were given an additional year to 
comply. Thus all manufacturers were required to comply, at the latest, 
by September 2000. Industry confirmed in comments on the proposed AIM 
rule that 12 months between the issuance of the final rule and the 
compliance deadline would be sufficient to ``use up existing label 
stock'' and ``adjust inventories'' to conform to the rule. 63 FR 48848 
(September 11, 1998). In addition, EPA determined that, after the 
compliance date, the volume of nonconforming products would be very low 
(less than one percent) and would be withdrawn from retail shelves 
anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for 
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coating Rules,'' March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director, 
Office of air Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division 
Directors, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA believes that compliant coatings were in use by the 
Fall of 1999 with full reductions to be achieved by September 2000 and 
that it was appropriate for the States to take credit for a 20% 
emission reduction in their SIPs.
    Autobody Refinish Coatings Rule: Consistent with a November 27, 
1994 EPA policy \10\, many States claimed a 37% reduction from this 
source category based on a proposed rule. However, EPA's final rule, 
``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile 
Refinish Coatings,'' published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), did 
not regulate lacquer topcoats and will result in a smaller emission 
reduction of around 33% overall nationwide. The 37% emission reduction 
from EPA's proposed rule was an estimate of the total nationwide 
emission reduction. Since this number is an overall national average, 
the actual reduction achieved in any particular area could vary 
depending on the level of control which already existed in the area. 
For example, in California the reduction from the national rule is zero 
because California's rules are more stringent than the national rule. 
In the proposed rule, the estimated percentage reduction for areas that 
were unregulated before the national rule was about 40%. However as a 
result of the lacquer topcoat exemption added between proposal and 
final rule, the reduction is now estimated to be 36% for previously 
unregulated areas. Thus, most previously unregulated areas will need to 
make up the approximately 1% difference between the 37% estimate of 
reductions assumed by States, following EPA guidance based on the 
proposal, and the 36% reduction actually achieved by the final rule for 
previously unregulated areas. EPA's best estimate of the reduction 
potential of the final rule was spelled out in a September 19, 1996 
memorandum entitled ``Emissions Calculations for the Automobile 
Refinish Coatings Final Rule'' from Mark Morris to Docket No. A-95-18. 
The Commonwealth revised the autobody rule in 1999, and EPA approved 
the revisions on August 14, 2000 [65 FR 49501]. The revised rule will 
achieve the 37% assumed reduction from the measure. EPA found the PADEP 
achieves a 36% reduction for milestone 1999 and 37% for years 2002 and 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for 
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule,'' November 29, 1994, 
John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumer Products Rule: Consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA 
guidance \11\, States claimed a 20% reduction from this source category 
based on EPA's proposed rule. The final rule, ``National Volatile 
Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products,'' (63 FR 
48819), published on September 11, 1998, has resulted in a 20% 
reduction after the December 10, 1998 compliance date. Moreover, these 
reductions largely occurred by the Fall of 1999. In the consumer 
products rule, EPA determined and the consumer products industry 
concurred, that a significant proportion of subject products have been 
reformulated in response to State regulations and in anticipation of 
the final rule (63 FR 48819). That is, industry reformulated the 
products covered by the consumer products rule in advance of the final 
rule. Therefore, EPA believes that complying products in accordance 
with the rule were in use by the Fall of 1999. It was appropriate for 
the States to take credit for a 20% emission reduction for the consumer 
products rule in their SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and Commercial Products 
under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act,'' June 22, 1995, John S. 
Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Enforcement of Control Programs

    Comment: The attainment demonstrations do not clearly set out 
programs for enforcement of the various control strategies relied on 
for emission reduction credit.
    Response: In general, state enforcement, personnel and funding 
program elements are contained in SIP revisions previously approved by 
EPA under obligations set forth in section 110(a)(2)(c) of the Clean 
Air Act. Once approved by the EPA, there is no need for states to 
readopt and resubmit these programs with each and every SIP revision 
generally required by other sections of the Act. Pennsylvania has 
previously received approval of its section 110(a)(2) SIPs. In a final 
rulemaking action published on February 26, 1985, EPA approved 
Pennsylvania's financial and manpower resource commitments for 
Southeast Pennsylvania (50 FR 7772, 7775), after having proposed 
approval of these commitments on February 3, 1983 (48 FR 5096, 5099). 
In addition, emission control regulations will also contain specific 
enforcement mechanisms, such as record keeping and reporting 
requirements, and may also provide for periodic state inspections and 
reviews of the affected sources. EPA's review of these regulations 
includes review of the enforceability of the regulations. Rules that 
are not enforceable are generally not approved by the EPA. To the 
extent that the ozone attainment demonstration depends on specific 
state emission control regulations, these individual regulations have 
undergone review by the EPA in past approval actions.

J. MOBILE6 and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBS)

    Comment 1: One commenter generally supports a policy of requiring 
motor vehicle emissions budgets to be recalculated when revised MOBILE 
models are released.
    Response 1: The attainment demonstrations that rely on Tier 2 
emission reduction credit contain commitments to revise the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets after MOBILE6 is released.
    Comment 2: The revised budgets calculated using MOBILE6 will likely 
be submitted after the MOBILE5 budgets have already been approved. 
EPA's policy is that submitted SIPs may not replace approved SIPs.
    Response 2: This is the reason that EPA proposed in the July 28, 
2000, SNPR (65 FR 46383) that the approval of the MOBILE5 budgets for 
conformity purposes would last only until MOBILE6 budgets had been 
submitted and found adequate. In this way, the MOBILE6 budgets can 
apply for conformity purposes as soon as they are found adequate.

[[Page 54158]]

    Comment 3: If a State submits additional control measures that 
affect the motor vehicle emissions budget, but does not submit a 
revised motor vehicle emissions budget, EPA should not approve the 
attainment demonstration.
    Response 3: EPA agrees. The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
Philadelphia attainment demonstration reflect the motor vehicle control 
measures in the attainment demonstration. In addition, Pennsylvania has 
committed to submit new budgets as a revision to the attainment SIP 
consistent with any new measures submitted to fill any shortfall, if 
the additional control measures affect on-road motor vehicle emissions.
    Comment 4: EPA should make it clear that the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets to be used for conformity purposes will be determined 
from the total motor vehicle emissions reductions required in the SIP, 
even if the SIP does not explicitly quantify a revised motor vehicle 
emissions budget.
    Response 4: EPA will not approve SIPs without motor vehicle 
emissions budgets that are explicitly quantified for conformity 
purposes. The Philadelphia attainment demonstration contains explicitly 
quantified motor vehicle emissions budgets.
    Comment 5: If a state fails to follow through on its commitment to 
submit the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets using MOBILE6, EPA 
could make a finding of failure to submit a portion of a SIP, which 
would trigger a sanctions clock under section 179.
    Response 5: If a state fails to meet its commitment, EPA could make 
a finding of failure to implement the SIP, which would start a 
sanctions clock under section 179 of the Clean Air Act.
    Comment 6: If the budgets recalculated using MOBILE6 are larger 
than the MOBILE5 budgets, then attainment should be demonstrated again.
    Response 6: As EPA proposed in its December 16, 1999 notices, we 
will work with States on a case-by-case basis if the new emissions 
estimates raise issues about the sufficiency of the attainment 
demonstration.
    Comment 7: If the MOBILE6 budgets are smaller than the MOBILE5 
budgets, the difference between the budgets should not be available for 
reallocation to other sources unless air quality data show that the 
area is attaining, and a revised attainment demonstration is submitted 
that demonstrates that the increased emissions are consistent with 
attainment and maintenance. Similarly, the MOBILE5 budgets should not 
be retained (while MOBILE6 is being used for conformity demonstrations) 
unless the above conditions are met.
    Response 7: EPA agrees that if recalculation using MOBILE6 shows 
lower motor vehicle emissions than MOBILE5, then these motor vehicle 
emission reductions cannot be reallocated to other sources or assigned 
to the motor vehicle emissions budget as a safety margin unless the 
area reassesses the analysis in its attainment demonstration and shows 
that it will still attain. In other words, the area must assess how its 
original attainment demonstration is impacted by using MOBILE6 versus 
MOBILE5 before it reallocates any apparent motor vehicle emission 
reductions resulting from the use of MOBILE6. In addition, Pennsylvania 
will be submitting new budgets based on MOBILE6, so the MOBILE5 budgets 
will not be retained in the SIP indefinitely.

K. MOBILE6 Grace Period

    Comment 1: We received a comment on whether the grace period before 
MOBILE6 is required in conformity determinations will be consistent 
with the schedules for revising SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets 
within 1 or 2 years of MOBILE6's release.
    Response 1: This comment is not germane to this rulemaking, since 
the MOBILE6 grace period for conformity determinations is not 
explicitly tied to EPA's SIP policy and approvals. However, EPA 
understands that a longer grace period would allow some areas to better 
transition to new MOBILE6 budgets. EPA is considering the maximum 2-
year grace period allowed by the conformity rule, and EPA will address 
this in the future when the final MOBILE6 emissions model and policy 
guidance is released.
    Comment 2: One commenter asked EPA to clarify in the final rule 
whether MOBILE6 will be required for conformity determinations once new 
MOBILE6 budgets are submitted and found adequate.
    Response 2: This comment is not germane to this rulemaking. 
However, it is important to note that EPA intends to clarify its policy 
for implementing MOBILE6 in conformity determinations when the final 
MOBILE6 model is released. EPA believes that MOBILE6 should be used in 
conformity determinations once new MOBILE6 budgets are found adequate.

L. Two-Year Option To Revise the MVEBs

    Comment: One commenter did not prefer the additional option for a 
second year before the state has to revise the conformity budgets with 
MOBILE6, since new conformity determinations and new transportation 
projects could be delayed in the second year.
    Response: EPA proposed the additional option to provide further 
flexibility in managing MOBILE6 budget revisions. The supplemental 
proposal did not change the original option to revise budgets within 
one year of MOBILE6's release. State and local governments can continue 
to use the 1-year option, if desired, or submit a new commitment 
consistent with the alternative 2-year option. EPA expects that state 
and local agencies have consulted on which option is appropriate and 
have considered the impact on future conformity determinations. 
Pennsylvania has committed to revise its budgets within one-year of 
MOBILE6's release.

M. Unapproved Measures

    Comment 1: We received comments that objected to crediting the SIP 
with reductions from measures not approved into the SIP. The comments 
specifically mentioned conditionally approved RACT rules and asserted 
that credit should not be given for this program until EPA completes 
review and approval of all case-by-case RACT. The comments also 
specifically mentioned Phase II NOX controls under the OTC 
MOU. We also received comments, which stated that NOX RACT 
should be extended to 25 ton-per-year sources.
    Response 1: On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a 
rulemaking determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions 
imposed in the conditional limited approval of its generic 
NOX and VOC RACT regulations. In that rulemaking, EPA 
removed the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's 
generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations on a statewide basis. 
On October 15, 2001, the Regional Administrator of Region III signed a 
final rule converting our limited approval of the Pennsylvania generic 
VOC and NOX RACT regulation to a full approval as it applies 
in the Philadelphia area. This final rule has been recently or will be 
shortly published in the Federal Register. On June 6, 2000, EPA 
approved Pennsylvania's rule that implements the Phase II controls 
under the OTC MOU (65 FR 35840). Finally, the applicability threshold 
for RACT in Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic NOX and VOC 
RACT regulations for the Philadelphia area is 25 ton per year as 
required in a severe nonattainment area thus NOX RACT 
extends to sources that emit 25 tons-per-year.
    Comment 2: We received comments asserting that because Pennsylvania 
had

[[Page 54159]]

not adopted Phase II NOX reductions as agreed to in the OTC 
MOU, has abandoned the NOX SIP call strategy, and was behind 
in submitting its RACT submittals the SIP should not be credited with 
these measures.
    Response 2: As discussed in the response to the previous comment, 
EPA has approved Pennsylvania's NOX RACT and OTC MOU rules. 
As discussed in Section I.I. of this document, Pennsylvania submitted a 
revision to its SIP to address the requirements of the NOX 
SIP Call. EPA fully approved this SIP (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).

N. Attainment and Post-1999 Rate of Progress Demonstrations

    Comment 1: One commenter claims that the plans fail to demonstrate 
emission reductions of 3 percent per year over each 3-year period 
between November 1999 and November 2002; and November 2002 and November 
2005; and the 2-year period between November 2005 and November 2007, as 
required by 42 U.S.C. section 7511a(c)(2)(B). The states have not even 
attempted to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, and EPA 
has not proposed to find that they have been met. The commenter states 
that EPA has absolutely no authority to waive the statutory mandate for 
3 percent annual reductions and that the statute does not allow EPA to 
use the NOX SIP call or 126 orders as an excuse for waiving 
ROP deadlines. The commenter asserts that the statutory ROP requirement 
is for emission reductions--not ambient reductions. The commenter 
asserts that emission reductions in upwind states do not waive the 
statutory requirement for 3 percent annual emission reductions within 
the downwind nonattainment area.
    Response 1: Under no condition is EPA waiving the statutory 
requirement for 3 percent annual emission reductions. For many areas, 
EPA did not propose approval of the post-99 ROP demonstrations at the 
same time as EPA proposed action on the area's attainment 
demonstration. EPA proposed to approve the Commonwealth Post 1996 ROP 
plans, which include ROP demonstrations for milestone years 1999, 2002, 
and 2005, on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44568). We received no comments on 
that proposal. In this final rulemaking, EPA is approving the 
Commonwealth's Post 1996 ROP plans. Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plans 
demonstrate ROP by relying upon VOC and NOX emissions 
reductions achieved within the nonattainment area from fully 
promulgated Federal and fully adopted SIP-approved state measures.
    Comment 2: We received comment that the ``limited approval'' status 
of the Commonwealth's Post 1996 ROP plan is not authorized under the 
CAA.
    Response 2: The comment is now moot, because EPA withdrew its 
previous action proposing ``limited approval'' of the Commonwealth's 
Post 1996 plan in the NPR it published on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 
44568). EPA re-proposed full approval of the Post-1996 plan on August 
24, 2001, and did not receive any comments on this proposal. In this 
final rulemaking, EPA is fully approving Pennsylvania's Post 1996 plan 
which relies only upon VOC and NOX emissions reductions 
achieved within the nonattainment area from fully promulgated Federal 
and fully adopted SIP-approved state measures.

O. Comments on Specific Area and Point Source Measures

    Comment 1: We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania has not 
adopted the OTC NOX MOU's Phase II/III reductions and the 
NOX SIP Call requirements.
    Response 1: EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania's 
NOX Allowance Requirements as a SIP revision (65 FR 35840, 
June 6, 2000). These requirements implement Phase II of the OTC's MOU 
to control NOX for the years 1999-2002. The Phase III 
reductions under the OTC MOU have been superceded by Pennsylvania's 
SIP-approved NOX SIP Call rule. Compliance with that rule is 
required starting in 2003. EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania 
Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction Plan as meeting the non-remanded 
portions of the NOX SIP Call rule (66 FR 43795, August 21, 
2001). Pennsylvania's Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction Plan 
establishes a NOX budget trading program for fossil-fired 
combustion boilers with a maximum design heat input greater than 250 
MMBTU per hour and electric utility generators with a capacity greater 
than 25 megawatts. Pennsylvania's Phase I NOX SIP Call 
trading rule is consistent with the reductions modeled in the 
attainment demonstration and with EPA's requirements to establish an 
emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for electric generating units and 0.17 
lb/MMBTU for non-electric generating units.
    On March 3, 2000, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on the 
NOX SIP Call ruling in favor of EPA on all the major issues. 
See Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). However, the Court 
remanded certain matters for further rulemaking by EPA. EPA expects to 
publish a proposal that addresses the remanded portion of the 
NOX SIP Call Rule. Pennsylvania will adopt and submit 
controls to meet the portions of the SIP call budget reflected by 
reduction from both internal combustion engines and cement kilns in the 
remanded portions of the NOX SIP Call rule consistent with 
any schedule EPA establishes in response to the remand.
    Comment 2: We received comments that express concerns about the 
accountability of the reductions from the implementation of the 126 
petitions as compared to those assumed in the attainment demonstration.
    Response 2: As noted in the December 16, 1999 proposal, 
Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration assumed NOX 
reductions consistent with those called for by EPA's NOX SIP 
Call. In consideration of recent court decisions on the NOX 
SIP Call as previously described and as explained in EPA's response to 
comments on ``Reliance on NOX SIP Call and Tier 2 
Modeling'', EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to continue 
to assume the reductions from the NOX SIP Call. The fact 
that EPA has granted section 126 petitions does not remove the 
obligations of states subject to the NOX SIP Call to reduce 
NOX emissions as called for in that rule. Furthermore, 
implementation of either the section 126 rules (described in later 
Sections) or the NOX SIP Call achieves emission reductions 
prior to the applicable attainment deadline, 2005. Under recent rulings 
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both 
the 126 rule and the NOX SIP Call must be implemented early 
in the ozone season in 2004.
    On August 14-15, 1997, we received petitions submitted individually 
by eight Northeastern States under section 126 of the CAA. Each 
petition requests us to make a finding that sources in certain 
categories of stationary sources in upwind States emit or would emit 
NOX in violation of the prohibition in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) on emissions that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in the petitioning State. 
On May 25, 1999, we promulgated a final rule (May 1999 Rule) 
determining that portions of the petitions are approvable under the 
one-hour and/or eight-hour ozone NAAQS based on their technical merit 
(64 FR 28250). Based on the affirmative technical determinations for 
the one-hour ozone NAAQS made in the May 1999 Rule, we promulgated a 
final rule on January 18, 2000 (January 2000 Rule) making section 126 
findings that a number of large electric generating units (EGUs) and 
large industrial boilers and turbines named in

[[Page 54160]]

the petitions emit in violation of the CAA prohibition against 
significantly contributing to nonattainment or maintenance problems in 
the petitioning States (65 FR 2674). In the January 2000 Rule, we also 
finalized the Federal NOX Budget Trading Program as the 
control remedy for sources affected by the rule. This requirement 
replaces the default remedy in the May 1999 Rule. The January 2000 Rule 
establishes Federal NOX emissions limits that sources must 
meet through a cap-and-trade program by May 1, 2003. The January 2000 
rule affects sources located in the District of Columbia, Delaware, 
Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
West Virginia, and parts of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York. 
All of the affected sources are located in States that are subject to 
the NOX SIP Call.
    On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA promulgated the ``Finding of 
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone 
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional 
Transport of Ozone,'' commonly referred to as the NOX SIP 
Call. On March 3, 2000, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on the 
NOX SIP Call largely upholding the rule. See Michigan v. 
EPA, supra. On June 22, 2000, the Court ordered that we allow the 
States and the District of Columbia 128 days from June 22, 2000 to 
submit their SIPs. Accordingly, 19 States and the District of Columbia 
were required to submit SIPs in response to the NOX SIP Call 
by October 30, 2000.\12\ On August 30, 2000, the D.C. Circuit ordered 
that the June 22, 2000 Order be amended to extend the deadline for 
implementation of the NOX SIP Call from May 1, 2003 to May 
31, 2004. In a separate rulemaking, we are addressing the Court's 
remand of the definition of electricity generating units, the control 
level for large stationary internal combustion engines and the SIP 
submittal and compliance dates for these actions, which affect less 
than 10 percent of the total emission reductions called for by the 
NOX SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ October 30, 2000 is the first business day following the 
expiration of the 128-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as noted in the response to a previous comment in this 
document, Pennsylvania has a state regulation in place to implement the 
SIP Call requirements. This state rule is in the approved Pennsylvania 
SIP and requires compliance commencing May 1, 2003.
    Comment 3: We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania has 
failed to implement RACT in an expeditious manner.
    Response 3: The Pennsylvania SIP has long included approved RACT 
regulations for sources and source categories of VOCs covered by the 
CTGs issued prior to 1990, by CAA section 182(b)(2)(A) and by the CTGs 
issued after 1990 as required by CAA section 182(b)(2)(B). Additional 
RACT regulations requiring RACT for all major sources of VOC, not 
covered by a CTG (non-CTG), and of NOX were to be submitted 
to EPA as SIP revisions by November 15, 1992 and compliance required by 
May of 1995. On February 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP 
(25 Pa Code Chapters 129.91 through 129.95) requiring major sources of 
NOX and non-CTG VOC sources to implement RACT. These 
regulations require major sources of NOX and VOC to submit 
to PADEP, by no later than July 15, 1994, a written RACT proposal.
    In the Philadelphia area, Pennsylvania's RACT regulations require 
non-CTG sources that have the potential to emit 25 tpy or more of VOC 
and sources which have the potential to emit 25 tpy or more of 
NOX comply with RACT. The regulations contain technology-
based or operational ``presumptive RACT emission limitations'' for 
certain major NOX sources. For other major NOX 
sources, and all major VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to 
RACT pursuant to a source category regulation under the Pennsylvania 
SIP), the regulations contain a ``generic'' RACT provision. A generic 
RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT 
for a source or source categories but instead allows for case-by-case 
RACT determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's 
regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by case RACT determinations 
that are then to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania 
SIP. The Commonwealth's rule requires that the covered sources, upon 
PADEP's notification of approval of their RACT proposal, must implement 
the RACT ``as expeditiously as practicable'', but no later than May 31, 
1995.
    EPA granted conditional limited approval of the Commonwealth's VOC 
and NOX RACT regulations on March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), 
and removed the conditional aspect of the approval on May 3, 2001 (66 
FR 22123). On September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46571), EPA proposed to remove 
the limited nature of its approval of Pennsylvania generic VOC and 
NOX RACT regulations as they apply in the Philadelphia area 
on the basis that EPA would have approved source-specific or category-
specific RACT rules for all sources subject to the CAA RACT 
requirement. We received no comments on that proposal. On October 15, 
2001, the Regional Administrator of Region III signed a final rule 
converting our limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic VOC and 
NOX RACT regulations to a full approval because EPA has SIP-
approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP 
for affected major sources of NOX and/or VOC sources located 
in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties, the 
five counties that comprise the Pennsylvania portion of the 
Philadelphia area.
    Comment 3: We received comments criticizing the use of rule 
effectiveness as part of the demonstration. The comments assert that 
EPA should be skeptical of the reductions from this program based on 
the Commonwealth's past enforcement history. Other comments claim that 
with implementation of RACT on a case-by-case basis the change in rule 
effectiveness from 80 percent to 90 percent is unrealistic. These 
comments have been submitted in the form of statements with no 
accompanying analyses to support them.
    Response 3: The EPA disagrees that it is inappropriate to allow 
credit for improved rule effectiveness (RE) in the attainment 
demonstration. The Commonwealth has supplied to EPA a protocol that has 
been implemented at the sources for which increased RE credits have 
been claimed. EPA conducted its evaluation of Pennsylvania's RE credits 
as part of our proposed approval of the Post-1996 ROP plans. That 
supporting documentation, namely the TSD for the Post-1996 ROP plan 
approval, is part of the docket for this final rulemaking. No comments 
were received on EPA's proposed action to approve the Commonwealth's 
Post 1996 ROP plans which included our proposed approval of the RE 
credits claimed by the Commonwealth. No one has brought to EPA's 
attention credible evidence that Pennsylvania is not implementing RE at 
the sources for which RE improvement credits are claimed. It would not 
be appropriate for EPA to discount credit from a state initiatives 
based upon unsubstantiated speculation that such a state will not 
enforce its own SIP.
    EPA disagrees with the comment asserting that implementation of 
RACT on case-by-case basis, is reason to assume that 90 percent RE is 
unrealistic. To the contrary, EPA believes that RACT rules tailored to 
specific sources are much more likely to be implemented successfully 
because any factors that

[[Page 54161]]

could interfere with implementation of RACT would be considered by the 
Commonwealth under the SIP-approved provisions of 25 Pa Code Chapters 
129.91 through 129.95 when imposing the source-specific RACT 
determinations.
    Comment 4: We received comments expressing the opinion that Stage 
II controls in Pennsylvania are performing far below the stated 
efficiency. Therefore, EPA is granting too much credit to Pennsylvania 
for its Stage II controls. EPA should determine the present efficiency 
of these controls and use that level in the attainment demonstration. 
These comments have been submitted in the form of statements with no 
accompanying analyses to support them.
    Response 4: Pennsylvania has adopted the Stage II control program 
recommended by EPA. No one has brought to EPA's attention any credible 
evidence that Pennsylvania is implementing their program in a manner 
inconsistent with EPA guidance, which might lower the expected 
reductions below levels which are conforming to past EPA estimates of 
Stage II efficiency.

P. Comments on Specific Mobile Source Measures

    Comment: We received comments asserting that Pennsylvania is not 
fully implementing its SIP approved enhanced vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program and that EPA should not approve a demonstration 
that includes benefits from a program that is not fully implemented. 
The comments claim that Pennsylvania has not implemented all pass-fail 
standards on schedule in the Philadelphia area.
    Response: EPA advised the Commonwealth, in a letter dated April 12, 
2001 (Oge to Serian), that it should not implement final acceleration 
simulation mode (ASM) cutpoints on 1995 and older vehicles. EPA is 
currently conducting additional research on the effects of 
implementation of final ASM cutpoints on 1995 and older vehicles and 
will issue guidance in the near future. The issuance of this guidance 
will allow the Commonwealth to implement final ASM cutpoints for 1995 
and older vehicles at least one year prior to the area's attainment 
date. This will allow the Commonwealth to complete at least one full 
cycle of tests at final cutpoints prior to the areas' attainment date. 
The Commonwealth has already implemented final cutpoints for 1996 and 
newer vehicles. Since all vehicles subject to the program will receive 
at least one inspection at final cutpoints prior to the area's 
attainment date, the Commonwealth will achieve the emission reductions 
that it has planned for in its attainment demonstration. At this time, 
EPA does not believe that it is necessary or justifiable to delay 
approval of the Commonwealth's attainment demonstration due to the fact 
that the Commonwealth has not implemented all pass-fail standards on 
schedule in the Philadelphia area. The Commonwealth has provided EPA 
assurances that it will implement the final cutpoints upon issuance of 
the guidance referenced herein. The Commonwealth has implemented a 
successful enhanced I/M program and continues to work with EPA on 
technical issues regarding the ASM program. EPA believes that the 
Commonwealth has achieved and will continue to gain air quality 
benefits from its enhanced I/M program as necessary for the 
Philadelphia area to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Q. NOX Substitution

    Comment: We received comments that suggest that EPA should not 
allow States the opportunity to substitute NOX reductions 
for the VOC reductions specifically required by section 182(c)(2)(B) of 
the CAA. In general, the commenter contends that methodology in EPA's 
NOX Substitution Guidance is not ``at least as effective'' 
as photochemical grid modeling for making attainment demonstrations. 
The comment states that NOX substitution ignores one of the 
Ozone Transport Assessment Group's (OTAG) key conclusions that ``VOC 
controls are effective in reducing ozone locally and are most 
advantageous to urban nonattainment areas.'' Additionally, the 
commenter notes that some data suggest that progress towards attainment 
in urban areas may not take place, or may even be reversed, by the 
substitution of NOX reductions for required VOC reductions. 
Finally, the commenter states that EPA should not allow NOX 
substitution as part of the attainment demonstration under section 182 
(c)(2)(A). In particular, the commenter is opposed to the States being 
allowed to utilize, carte blanche, NOX substitution for 
section 182(c)(2)(A) attainment demonstrations without undergoing an 
additional, more rigorous analytic test that considers local conditions 
and potential impacts to real world attainment.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the Agency should 
not allow NOX substitution under section 182(c)(2)(B), 
Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration. Section 182(c)(2)(C) 
specifically allows NOX substitution where the resulting 
reductions ``in ozone concentrations'' are ``at least equivalent'' to 
that which would result from the VOC reductions required in the 
demonstration of reasonable further progress (RFP) under section 
182(c)(2)(B). The second sentence of section 182(c)(2)(C) requires EPA 
to issue guidance ``concerning the conditions under which 
NOX control may be substituted for [or combined with] VOC 
control.'' In particular, the Agency is authorized to address in the 
guidance the appropriate amounts of VOC control and NOX 
control needed, in combination, ``in order to maximize the reduction in 
ozone air pollution.'' Further, the Act explicitly provides that the 
guidance may permit RFP demonstrations which allow a lower percentage 
of VOC emission reductions. In light of the entire set of language and 
Congress's evident intent under this subsection to maximize the 
opportunity for ozone reductions, EPA believes that section 
182(c)(2)(C) confers on the Agency the discretion to select, for 
purposes of determining equivalent reductions, a percentage of 
NOX emission reductions which is reasonably calculated to 
achieve both the ozone reduction and attainment progress goals intended 
by Congress. This approach is described in detail in EPA's 1993 
NOX Substitution Guidance. Based on our review of all the 
information submitted in these attainment demonstrations and consistent 
with the 1993 NOX Substitution Guidance, EPA believes that 
the percentage of ozone reduction benefits achieved by application of 
NOX controls is at least equivalent as that achieved by 
application of VOC controls because both the NOX and VOC 
controls are necessary if the areas are to attain the NAAQS. That is, 
the basis for equivalency is the ability of a given control strategy 
(i.e., any particular mix of NOX and VOC emission 
reductions) to effect attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the designated 
attainment year ( NOX Substitution Guidance, EPA-452/R-93-
015, January 1994, at page 2).
    In addition to the OTAG conclusion as noted by the commenter, the 
States further concluded that widespread NOX reductions are 
needed in order to enable many areas to attain the ozone NAAQS. EPA 
subsequently made the same determination through the NOX SIP 
Call rulemaking. Thus, NOX substitution is generally 
consistent with OTAG's and EPA's conclusions that NOX 
reductions are effective in reducing ozone concentrations.
    As described in the NOX SIP call rulemaking, the OTAG 
process included

[[Page 54162]]

lengthy discussions on the potential increase in local ozone 
concentrations in some urban areas that might be associated with a 
decrease in local NOX emissions. The OTAG modeling results 
indicate that urban NOX emissions decreases produce 
increases in ozone concentrations locally, but the magnitude, time, and 
location of these increases generally do not cause or contribute to 
high ozone concentrations. In particular, for the NOX 
emissions reductions due to the NOX SIP call budgets, EPA 
determined that any disbenefits are expected to be very limited 
compared to the extent of the air quality benefits expected from these 
budgets.
    Regarding section 182(c)(2)(A), Attainment Demonstration, EPA 
believes that NOX substitution for VOC emissions deemed to 
be required as ``additional emission reductions'' is permissible as 
part of the Weight of Evidence analysis. The EPA agrees with the 
comment that such NOX substitution must be justified through 
additional analyses. For example, if model-predicted peaks show greater 
improvement when low level NOX emissions are reduced versus 
VOC or elevated NOX emissions, then substituting an equal 
amount of low level NOX reductions for the otherwise 
required ``additional emissions reductions'' of VOC would be 
acceptable.

R. Measures Under Legal Review

    Comment: We received comments asserting that because the Tier 2/
Sulfur and NOX SIP call rules are under legal review EPA 
should not credit the attainment demonstrations with reductions from 
these programs.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. On October 27, 1998 (63 
FR 57356), EPA promulgated the ``Finding of Significant Contribution 
and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment 
Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' 
commonly referred to as the NOX SIP call. On March 3, 2000, 
the DC Circuit issued its decision on the NOX SIP Call 
regarding the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ruling in favor of EPA on all the 
major issues. See Michigan v. EPA, supra. On June 22, 2000, the Court 
ordered that we allow the States and the District of Columbia 128 days 
from June 22, 2000 to submit their SIPs. Accordingly, 19 States and the 
District of Columbia were required to submit SIPs in response to the 
NOX SIP Call by October 30, 2000.\13\ On August 30, 2000, 
the D.C. Circuit ordered that the June 22, 2000 Order be amended to 
extend the deadline for implementation of the NOX SIP Call 
from May 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004. In a separate rulemaking, we are 
addressing the Court's remand of the definition of electricity 
generating units, the control level for large stationary internal 
combustion engines and the SIP submittal and compliance dates for these 
actions, which affect less than 10 percent of the total emission 
reductions called for by the NOX SIP Call. Likewise, on 
February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), EPA promulgated the ``Control of Air 
Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements,'' commonly referred 
to as the Tier 2/Sulfur rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ October 30, 2000 is the first business day following the 
expiration of the 128-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. Contingency Measures

    Comment: We received comments asserting that the Post-1996 ROP and 
the attainment demonstration SIP lacks contingency measures as required 
under the CAA.
    Response: EPA believes the contingency measure requirements of 
sections172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA are independent requirements 
from the rate-of-progress requirements under sections 172(c)(2) and 
182(c)(2)(B) and the attainment demonstration requirements of sections 
172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A). The contingency measure requirements are to 
address the possibility that an area will fail to meet a rate-of-
progress milestone or will fail to attain. The contingency measure 
requirements have no bearing on whether a state has submitted a SIP 
that projects that the SIP contains enough control measures to achieve 
sufficient rate-of-progress towards attainment or to attain the NAAQS. 
The ROP SIP provides a demonstration that the ROP requirement ought to 
be fulfilled, but the contingency measure SIP requirements concern what 
will happen only if ROP is not actually achieved. The attainment 
demonstration SIP provides a demonstration that the attainment 
requirement ought to be fulfilled, but the contingency measure SIP 
requirements concern what will happen only if the area fails to attain. 
EPA acknowledges that contingency measures are a required SIP revision, 
but does not believe that these measures must be approved as part of an 
attainment demonstration. Consequently, EPA believes it can approve 
this attainment demonstration even though the required contingency 
measures have not yet been submitted. Pennsylvania will still be 
required to submit contingency measures and EPA will act upon them when 
submitted.

T. Measures for the 1-Hour NAAQS and for Progress Toward 8-Hour NAAQS

    Comment: One commenter notes that EPA has been working toward 
promulgation of a revised eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) because the Administrator deemed attaining the one-
hour ozone NAAQS is not adequate to protect public health. Therefore, 
EPA must ensure that measures be implemented now that will be 
sufficient to meet the one-hour standard and that make as much progress 
toward implementing the eight-hour ozone standard as the requirements 
of the CAA and implementing regulations allow.
    Response: The one-hour standard remains in effect for all of these 
areas and the SIPs that have been submitted are for the purpose of 
achieving that NAAQS. Congress has provided the States with the 
authority to choose the measures necessary to attain the NAAQS and EPA 
cannot second guess the States' choice if EPA determines that the SIP 
meets the requirements of the CAA. EPA believes that the SIPs for the 
severe areas meet the requirements for attainment demonstrations for 
the one-hour standard and thus, could not disapprove them even if EPA 
believed other control requirements might be more effective for 
attaining the eight-hour standard. However, EPA generally believes that 
emission controls implemented to attain the one-hour ozone standard 
will be beneficial towards attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard 
as well. This is particularly true regarding the implementation of 
NOX emission controls resulting from EPA's NOX 
SIP Call. Finally, EPA notes that although the eight-hour ozone 
standard has been adopted by the EPA, implementation of this standard 
has been delayed while certain aspects of the standard remain before 
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The States and the EPA have 
yet to define the eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas and the EPA has 
yet to issue guidance and requirements for the implementation of the 
eight-hour ozone standard.

U. Other Comments

    Comment: We received comments that oppose the removal of any of 
Pennsylvania's 67 counties from the Ozone Transport Region on the 
grounds that the south-central and central counties have a significant 
impact on intrastate transport and attainment in Philadelphia.

[[Page 54163]]

    Response: The comment is not germane to this action. EPA is 
approving the attainment demonstration and Post1996 ROP plans for the 
Philadelphia area. EPA is not approving removal of any Pennsylvania 
counties from the Ozone Transport Region.

III. Final Action

A. Attainment Demonstration

    EPA is fully approving the Pennsylvania's one hour ozone attainment 
demonstration for the Philadelphia area which was submitted on April 
30, 1998, and supplemented on August 21, 1998, February 25, 2000, and 
July 19, 2001, including its RACM analysis and determination. The 
attainment demonstration meets the requirements of section 182 (c)(2) 
and (d) of the Act and establishes an attainment date of November 15, 
2005 for the Philadelphia area.

B. Commitments

    EPA is approving the Pennsylvania commitments made on July 31, 
1998, February 25, 2000, and July 19, 2001. The commitments are to:
    (1) Submit measures by October 31, 2001 for additional emission 
reductions as required in the attainment demonstration test, and to 
revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets by October 31, 2001 
if the additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions 
inventory,
    (2) Revise the SIP and motor vehicle emission budgets using MOBILE6 
within one year after it is issued, and
    (3) Perform a mid-course review by December 31, 2003.

C. Post-1996 ROP Plan

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's Post1996 ROP plans as a SIP 
revision for the Philadelphia area. These revisions were submitted on 
April 30, 1998, July 31, 1998, and supplemented on February 25, 2000.

D. Mobile Budgets of the Control Strategy Plans

    EPA is approving the following mobile budgets of the Post-1996 ROP 
plans and the 2005 attainment demonstration plan:

                           Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Philadelphia Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Date of adequacy
       Type of control strategy SIP            Year       VOC (TPD)     NOX (TPD)           determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-1996 ROP Plan.......................         1999         88.6         109.6   June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438,
                                                                                     June 8, 2000).
Post-1996 ROP Plan.......................         2002         69.52         93.13  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438,
                                                                                     June 8, 2000).
Post-1996 ROP Plan.......................         2005         61.76         86.42  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438,
                                                                                     June 8, 2000).
Attainment Demonstration.................         2005         60.18         77.46  November 26, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment 
demonstration and its current budgets because the Commonwealth has 
provided an enforceable commitment to revise the budgets using the 
MOBILE6 model within one year of EPA's release of that model. 
Therefore, we are limiting the duration of our approval of the current 
budgets only until such time as the revised budgets are found adequate. 
Those budgets will be more appropriate than the budgets we are 
approving for conformity purposes for the time being.
    Similarly, EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment demonstration 
and its current budgets because Pennsylvania provided enforceable 
commitments to adopt additional measures to strengthen the attainment 
demonstration by October 31, 2001 and to submit revised budgets by 
October 31, 2001 if the additional measures affect the motor vehicle 
emissions inventory. Therefore, we are limiting the duration of our 
approval of the current budgets only until such time as any such 
revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised budgets will be more 
appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes 
for the time being.

IV. 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. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
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). For the same reason, 
this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will 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), because it 
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 Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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 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. 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 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 does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the

[[Page 54164]]

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. This rule 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 26, 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 approve the Post-1996 ROP plan, and the 
one hour ozone attainment demonstration as SIP revisions for the 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area submitted by 
the Commonwealth may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce 
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 15, 2001.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is 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--PA

    2. Section 52.2037 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding paragraphs (i), (j) and (k) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2037  Control strategy and rate-of-progress plans: ozone.

* * * * *
    (i) EPA approves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Post 1996 (ROP) 
plan SIP revision for milestone years 1999, 2002, and 2005 for the 
Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton severe 
ozone nonattainment area. These revisions were submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on April 30, 1998, 
July 31, 1998 and supplemented on February 25, 2000.
    (j) EPA approves the one hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP 
for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton area submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on April 30, 1998, 
August 21, 1998, February 25, 2000 and July 19, 2001 including its RACM 
analysis and determination. EPA is approving the enforceable 
commitments made to the attainment plan for the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton severe ozone nonattainment area submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on July 31, 1998, 
February 25, 2000 and July 19, 2001. The enforceable commitments are 
to:
    (1) Submit measures by October 31, 2001 for additional emission 
reductions as required in the attainment demonstration test, and to 
revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budgets by October 31, 2001 
if the additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions 
inventory,
    (2) Revise the SIP and motor vehicle emission budgets using MOBILE6 
within one year after it is issued, and
    (3) Perform a mid-course review by December 31, 2003.
    (k) EPA approves the following mobile budgets of the Post-1996 
plans and the 2005 attainment plan:

                           Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Philadelphia Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Type of Control Strategy SIP            Year    VOC (TPD)  NOX (TPD)    Date of adequacy determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-1996 ROP Plan.........................       1999       88.6      109.6  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June
                                                                               8, 2000).
Post-1996 ROP Plan.........................       2002      69.52      93.13  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June
                                                                               8, 2000).
Post-1996 ROP Plan.........................       2005      61.76      86.42  June 23, 2000 (65 FR 36438, June
                                                                               8, 2000).
Attainment Demonstration...................       2005      60.18      77.46  November 26, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Please note that EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment 
demonstration and its current budgets because the Commonwealth has 
provided an enforceable commitment to revise the budgets using the 
MOBILE6 model within one year of EPA's release of that model. 
Therefore, we are limiting the duration of our approval of the current 
budgets only until such time as the revised budgets are found adequate. 
Those budgets will be more appropriate than the budgets we are 
approving for conformity purposes for the time being.
    (2) Similarly, EPA is only approving the 2005 attainment 
demonstration and its current budgets because Pennsylvania provided 
enforceable commitments to adopt additional measures to strengthen the 
attainment demonstration by October 31, 2001 and to submit revised 
budgets by October 31, 2001 if the additional measures affect the motor 
vehicle emissions inventory. Therefore, we are limiting the duration of 
our approval of the current budgets only until such time as any such 
revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised budgets will be more 
appropriate than the budgets we are approving for conformity purposes 
for the time being.
[FR Doc. 01-26679 Filed 10-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P