[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 30, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29914-29928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10351]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174; FRL-8320-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Attainment Determination, Redesignation of the Franklin 
County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the 
Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Franklin County ozone 
nonattainment area (Franklin County Area) be redesignated as attainment 
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA 
is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for Franklin 
County Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP 
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Franklin 
County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to 
make a determination that the Franklin County Area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured 
ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed 
approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its 
determination that the Franklin County Area has met the criteria for 
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 
addition, PADEP submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Franklin 
County Area which EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP revision. EPA is 
also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination 
for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in 
the Franklin County Area maintenance plan for purposes of 
transportation conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve. EPA 
is proposing approval of the redesignation request, and the maintenance 
plan and the 2002 base year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with 
the requirements of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to issue a 
determination that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and to 
find that the requirements of section 172(c)(1) concerning the 
submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and reasonably 
available control measure requirements, the requirements of section 
172(c)(2) concerning reasonable further progress (RFP), and the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for 
RFP or attainment do not apply to the area for so long as it continues 
to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0174 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.

[[Page 29915]]

    B. E-mail: [email protected].
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air 
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0174. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and 
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Franklin County Area 
Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?

    On December 14, 2006, PADEP formally submitted a request to 
redesignate the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to attainment 
of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on December 14, 2006, 
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area as a 
SIP revision to ensure continued attainment for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory as a SIP 
revision on December 14, 2006. The Franklin County Area is currently 
designated as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing 
to determine that the Franklin County Area has attained the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation 
pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, 
proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the 
designation of the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve 
the Franklin County Area maintenance plan as a SIP revision, such 
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment 
status. The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment 
in the Franklin County Area for the next ten years. EPA is also 
proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the Franklin 
County Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its 
action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Franklin 
County Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs 
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is also 
proposing to issue a determination that the area has attained the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, and to find that the requirements of section 
172(c)(1) concerning the submission of the ozone attainment 
demonstration and reasonably available control measure requirements, 
the requirements of section 172(c)(2) concerning reasonable further 
progress (RFP), and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning 
contingency measures for RFP or attainment do not apply to the area for 
so long as it continues to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.

II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

A. General

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight 
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NOX and VOC 
are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process 
for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of 
the NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard 
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent 
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. EPA designated, as 
nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the 
air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most 
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The 
Franklin County Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
status in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and 
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of 
the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. 
On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to 
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Franklin County Area (as well as 
most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 
3, 2005).
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule 
for the 8-hour

[[Page 29916]]

Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality 
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (hereafter 
``South Coast.''). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's 
Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour 
standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of 
Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly 
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas 
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) 
Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an 
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty 
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to 
be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, 
on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that 
NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity requirements for certain types of 
federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour 
standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. 
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The Franklin 
County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of 
the CAA,'' EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast 
is not an impediment to redesignating the Franklin County Area to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The CAA, Title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart 
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for 
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic'' 
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for 
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a 
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) 
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some 
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of 
subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. 
Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004, 
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design 
value (i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at 
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for 
subpart 2 requirements). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, 
based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, Franklin County Area 
was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air 
quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore, is subject to 
the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
    Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when 
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal 
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR 
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality 
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness 
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the 
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater 
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data 
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone 
monitoring data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 indicates that the 
Franklin County Area has a design value of 0.075 ppm. Therefore, the 
ambient ozone data for the Franklin County Area indicates no violations 
of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B. The Franklin County Area

    The Franklin County Area consists solely of Franklin County, 
Pennsylvania and was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
status in an April 30, 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 23857). Prior to its 
designation as an 8-hour basic ozone nonattainment area, the Franklin 
County Area was designated an incomplete data nonattainment area for 
the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6, 1991.
    On December 14, 2006, PADEP requested that the Franklin County Area 
be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 
redesignation request included 3 years of complete, quality-assured 
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for 
ozone had been achieved in the Franklin County Area. The data satisfies 
the CAA requirements when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly 
referred to as the area's design value) is less than or equal to 0.08 
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a 
nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-
assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the 
standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements 
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, 
allows for redesignation, providing that:
    (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
    (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for 
the area under section 110(k);
    (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions;
    (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
    (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:
     ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'', 
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
     ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
     ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
     ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in 
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John 
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

[[Page 29917]]

     ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation 
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from 
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 
1993;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On 
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, 
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 
1993;
     Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and 
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
     ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994; and
     ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. 
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 
1995.

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    On December 14, 2006, PADEP requested redesignation of the Franklin 
County Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On December 
14, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area as 
a SIP revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after 
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Franklin County Area has 
attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation 
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).

V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation 
of the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate 
into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base year inventory and a maintenance 
plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 
Franklin County Area for the next 10 years. The maintenance plan 
includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-
hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the MVEBs for 
NOX and VOC for transportation conformity purposes for the 
years 2004, 2009 and 2018. These motor vehicle emissions (2004) and 
MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table:

   Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day--Rounded
                       Upward to One Decimal Place
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                              NOX     VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009....................................................    12.7     7.3
2018....................................................     6.7     5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request?

    EPA is proposing to determine that Franklin County Area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and the 1-hour standard if that 
standard is reinstated and that all other redesignation criteria have 
been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's December 14, 
2006, submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA.

A. The Franklin County Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Franklin County Area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered 
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as 
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, 
based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 
design value, which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily 
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor 
within the area over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm 
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). 
The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for 
the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating 
attainment.
    In the Franklin County Area, there is one monitor that measures air 
quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request, 
Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005 
(the most recent three years of data available as of the time of the 
redesignation request) for the Franklin County Area. This data has been 
quality assured and is recorded in AQS. PADEP uses the AQS as the 
permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data 
transfers and content for accuracy. The fourth-high 8-hour daily 
maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average, are 
summarized in Table 2A.

   Table 2A.--Franklin County Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour
       Average Values; Franklin County Monitor, AQS ID 42-055-0001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual 4th
                                                                 High
                            Year                               Reading
                                                                (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.080
2004.......................................................        0.071
2005.......................................................        0.074
2006.......................................................        0.066
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.075 ppm.
    The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.070 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Franklin County 
Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.075 ppm. The 
data collected at the Franklin County Area monitor satisfies the CAA 
requirement that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily 
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 
0.08 ppm. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid that after review 
of the available 2006 data because the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration was 0.066 ppm which equates to a 
design value 0.070 ppm for the period 2004-2006. PADEP's request for 
redesignation for the Franklin County Area indicates that the data was 
quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In addition, as 
discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has 
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In 
summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and 
taken from AQS indicates that Franklin County Area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    Based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 1996-1998, EPA 
believes that the Franklin County Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
and continued to attain the 1-hour NAAQS to present. For the 1-hour 
ozone standard, an area may be considered to

[[Page 29918]]

be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as 
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H of part 50, 
based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data. Compliance is determined on a 
monitor-by-monitor basis within the area. To demonstrate attainment, 
i.e., compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number 
of expected exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a 3-year period 
must be less than or equal to 1. (To account for missing data, 
adjustment of the actual number of monitored exceedances of the 
standard yields the annual expected number of exceedances at an air 
quality monitoring site.) Table 2B provides a summary of the number of 
expected exceedances for each of the years 1996 through 2006.

Table 2B.--Franklin County Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-
    Hour Ozone Standard; Franklin County Monitor, AQS ID 42-117-4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                            Year                               expected
                                                             exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.......................................................          0.0
1997.......................................................          0.0
1998.......................................................          0.0
1999.......................................................          0.0
2000.......................................................          0.0
2001.......................................................          0.0
2002.......................................................          0.0
2003.......................................................          0.0
2004.......................................................          0.0
2005.......................................................          0.0
2006.......................................................          0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The average number of expected exceedances for any three-year period to
                              date is 0.0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by 
Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicates that Franklin County Area is 
maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA is proposing to issue a determination that the Franklin 
County Area has attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. This proposed 
determination is based upon the 1996 through 2006 air quality data. 
While section 181(b)(2)(A) specifies that EPA is to make the 
statutorily required determinations of attainment using the 1-hour 
ozone ``design value,'' EPA ``has interpreted this provision generally 
to refer to EPA's methodology for determining attainment status.'' See 
60 FR 3349 at 3350, January 17, 1995. As noted previously, EPA 
determines the attainment status under the 1-hour ozone standard on the 
basis of the annual average number of expected exceedances.

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

    EPA has determined that the Franklin County Area has met all SIP 
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under 
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all 
applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in 
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has 
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance 
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, 
EPA ascertained what requirements are applicable to the area, and 
determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these 
requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We 
note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable 
requirements.
    The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 
107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. 
Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States 
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA 
requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete 
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66, (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of 
Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due 
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request 
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not 
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the 
CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR 
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of 
the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the 
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling 
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to 
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this 
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently 
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing 
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with 
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either 
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant 
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding 
redesignation requests.
1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general 
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations 
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the 
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect 
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. 
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State 
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
     Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate 
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
     Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for 
the implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD));
     Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements 
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
     Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
     Provisions for public and local agency participation in 
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to 
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has 
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of 
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October 
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May 
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the 
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that 
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular 
nonattainment area's

[[Page 29919]]

designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate 
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal 
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless 
of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do 
not believe that these requirements should be construed to be 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not 
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an 
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes 
of redesignation. The Franklin County Area will still be subject to 
these requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D 
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and 
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a 
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing 
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and 
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 
final rulemakings, (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, 
May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 
20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, 
December 7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the 
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 50399, October 19, 2001). Similarly, 
with respect to the NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its 
Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the 
NOX SIP Call rules are not ``an 'applicable requirement' for 
purposes of section 110(l) because the NOX rules apply 
regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-
hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
    EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements 
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we 
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for 
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to 
submission of the redesignation request.
    Because the Pennsylvania SIP satisfies all of the applicable 
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), 
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the 
Franklin County Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 
8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 
of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all 
nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part 
D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's 
nonattainment classification. With respect to the 8-hour standard, the 
court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under 
Subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the 
Agency. Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a 
remand to EPA, be reclassified under Subpart 2. Although any future 
decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger 
additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that this 
does not mean that redesignation of the area cannot now go forward. 
This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating 
redesignation requests in accordance with the requirements due at the 
time the request is submitted; and, (2) consideration of the inequity 
of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be 
applied.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the 
Franklin County Area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated 
to meet Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation 
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for 
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet 
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal 
of a complete redesignation request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni 
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of 
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), 
which upheld this interpretation; 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new 
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was 
submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such 
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. 
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling 
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that 
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have 
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The 
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment 
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed 
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would 
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and 
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even 
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here 
it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes 
of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 that were 
not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
    With respect to subpart 2 requirements, if the Franklin County Area 
initially had been classified under subpart 2 the first two part D 
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Franklin County Area under 
section 182(a) of the CAA would be: A base-year inventory requirement 
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, the emissions statement 
requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA.
    As we have stated previously in this document, these requirements 
are not yet due for purpose of redesignation of the Franklin County 
Area, but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an 
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all 
portions of the designated 8-hour nonattainment area, and that 
satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard. 
See 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, 
January 12, 1995. With respect to the base year inventory requirement, 
in this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 
2002 base-year inventory for the Franklin County Area, which was 
submitted on December 14, 2006, concurrently with its maintenance plan, 
into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base 
year inventory as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both 
section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. A detailed 
evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base-year inventory for the Franklin 
County Area can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared 
by EPA for this rulemaking.

[[Page 29920]]

EPA has determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement 
requirements for the Franklin County Area have been satisfied.
    In addition to the fact that part D requirements applicable for 
purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the 
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the 
general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior 
to redesignation.
    With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 
176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures 
to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the 
air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to 
determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and 
projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the 
Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all 
other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). 
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity 
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability 
that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable 
to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) 
since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and 
Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been 
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), 
upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 
1995).
    In the case of the Franklin County Area, EPA has also determined 
that before being redesignated, the Franklin County Area need not 
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation. EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need 
not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
standard without Part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this position 
is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D NSR 
Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' 
Normally, State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 
will become effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to 
attainment. See the more detailed explanations in the following 
redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 
1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand 
Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of 
the Franklin County Area, the Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the 
Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply 
the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment 
areas within the OTR. The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than 
that required for a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. On October 
19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP 
revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR 
regulations that cover the Franklin County Area.
    EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, 
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of 
redesignation. The rational for this is based on two factors. First, 
the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation 
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as 
well as RACT, even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control 
measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Franklin 
County Area by virtue of the area's designation and classification. 
Rather, section 184 measures are required in the Franklin County Area 
because it is located in the OTR. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 
10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).

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

    Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the 
Franklin County Area was designated an incomplete data nonattainment 
area for the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6, 
1991.
    In its December 22, 2006 decision in South Coast, the Court 
addressed EPA's revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The current 
status of the revocation and associated anti-backsliding rules is 
dependent on whether the Court's decision stands as originally issued 
or is modified in response to any petition for rehearing or request for 
clarification that has been filed. As described more fully below, EPA 
believes that the area has attained the 1-hour standard and has met all 
of the requirements applicable for redesignation under the 1-hour 
standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be 
reinstated and those requirements are viewed as applying under the 
statute itself. Thus, the Court's decision, as it currently stands, 
imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the area 
to attainment. Further, even if the Court's decision were modified 
based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, such that 
the ultimate decision requires something less than compliance with all 
applicable 1-hour requirements, because the area meets all such 
requirements, as explained below, it would certainly meet any lesser 
requirements and thus redesignation could proceed.
    The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the 
redesignation request for the Franklin County Area because there are no 
conformity requirements that are relevant to redesignation request for 
any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation 
conformity SIP.\1\ As we have previously stated in this document, EPA 
believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements 
as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request 
under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required 
after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state 
rules have not been approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States 
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal 
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. 
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and 
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to other requirements under the 1-hour standard, in 
our April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 at 13524-13527) 
EPA concluded that the Clean Air Act provides no specific guidance 
concerning applicable requirements for certain unclassifiable 
nonattainment areas including incomplete data areas. We observed that 
subpart 1 contains general SIP planning requirements, and, we concluded 
that subpart 2 is not applicable to incomplete data areas.
    Under the approach laid out in our April 16, 1992 General Preamble 
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 (57 FR 13498 at 13524-13527) EPA concluded that because incomplete 
areas are designated nonattainment some aspects of Subpart 1 
necessarily apply. See 57 FR 13498 at 13525 (April 16, 1992). With 
regard to RACT/Reasonably available control measures (RACM),

[[Page 29921]]

EPA's position is that requiring all RACT corrections for incomplete 
data areas is unreasonable, but we required that incomplete data areas 
must correct any RACT deficiencies regarding enforceability of existing 
rules in order to be redesignated to attainment. Id. at 13525. With 
regard to the emission inventory requirement, EPA believes that because 
an emissions inventory is specifically required under section 172(c)(3) 
and is not tied to an area's proximity to attainment an incomplete data 
area was required to develop such an inventory even if only to develop 
an approvable maintenance plan under section 175A. Id. at 13525.
    Furthermore, with respect to the attainment demonstration and RACM, 
RFP, and contingency measure requirements of part D, under EPA's Clean 
Data Policy, as embodied in 40 CFR 51.918, upon a finding that the area 
is attaining the standard, requirements for SIP submissions linked to 
attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP) and 
contingency measures are suspended for so long as the area is attaining 
the standard. EPA described its interpretation in a May 10, 1995 
memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 
Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' See also, the 
discussion and rulemakings cited in EPA's Final Rule to Implement the 
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Phase 2, 70 FR 71612, 71644-71646 (November 29, 
2005). The Tenth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have upheld EPA 
rulemakings applying the Clean Data Policy. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 
F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 
2004) and Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th 
Cir. June 28, 2005) memorandum opinion.
    We are proposing to find that the Franklin County Area has met the 
1-hour ozone standard, and thus the requirements of section 172(c)(1) 
concerning the submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and 
reasonably available control measure requirements, the requirements of 
section 172(c)(2) concerning RFP, and section 172(c)(9) contingency 
measures under the 1-hour standard are not applicable for purposes of 
redesignation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note, however, that the maintenance plan contains 
contingency measures required under section 175A of the Clean Air 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, while this proposal is pending, the 1-hour ozone standard is 
reinstated and a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is monitored 
(consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and 
recorded in AQS) in this nonattainment area the EPA would not issue a 
final determination of attainment for the affected area. If the area 
remains in attainment and EPA issues a final determination of 
attainment, a subsequent monitored violation prior to redesignation to 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would also mean that the area 
would thereafter have to address the requirements of sections 
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2) and 172(c)(9), since the basis for the 
determination that they do not apply would no longer exist. This 
proposal does not revoke the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone in the Franklin 
County Area.
    With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being 
redesignated need not have an approved New Source Review program for 
the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the applicable 
part D requirements for the 8-hour standard.
    Therefore, the only 1-hour Part D elements currently applicable to 
the Franklin County Area by virtue of its designation and 
classification as an incomplete data nonattainment area under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS were the corrections of any RACT deficiencies 
regarding enforceability of existing rules in order to be redesignated 
to attainment, and the emission inventory requirement. On December 22, 
1994, EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections 
required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 
22, 1994). EPA believes that this requirement applies only to 
incomplete data and subpart 2 areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to 
the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time 
requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) 
requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-
hour NAAQS.
    Section 173(c)(3) provided for the submission of a comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as 
described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by 
the Administrator. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a 
2002 base year emissions inventory for the Franklin County Area as 
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) as well as section 
182(a)(1). While EPA generally required that the base year inventory 
for the 1-hour standard be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes that 
Pennsylvania's 2002 inventory fulfills this requirement because it 
meets EPA's guidance and because it is more current than 1990. EPA also 
proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be 
reinstated, the 2002 base year inventory for the 8-hour standard will 
provide an acceptable substitute for the base year inventory for the 1-
hour standard.
4. Transport Region Requirements
    All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and 
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under 
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of 
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The 
section 184 requirements include (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle 
inspection and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable 
measure.
    In the case of the Franklin County Area, which is located in the 
OTR, nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation. As 
discussed previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP 
revision which applies the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the 
CAA to attainment areas within the OTR.
    EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, 
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
See 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997 
(Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation). The rationale for this is based 
on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions 
for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR 
after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains 
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, and I/M even after 
redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide 
requirements and do not apply to the area by virtue of the area's 
nonattainment designation and classification, and thus are properly 
considered not relevant to an action changing an area's designation. 
See 61 FR 53174 at 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at 
24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. The Franklin County Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes 
of Redesignation
    EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of 
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall 
v. EPA, 265 F.3d

[[Page 29922]]

426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in 
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 
2003) and citations therein. The Franklin County Area was a 1-hour 
incomplete data area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the 
Franklin County Area was a 1-hour incomplete data area, the only 
previous part D SIP submittal requirement was the RACT corrections due 
under section 182(a)(2)(A) and the comprehensive emissions inventory 
due under section 172(c)(3) for the 1-hour standard. The RACT 
corrections are fully approved (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994), and, 
EPA is proposing to approve a comprehensive inventory for the area in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking. No other Part D submittal 
requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour 
maintenance plan for the area. Therefore, all Part D submittal 
requirements have been fulfilled. Because there are no outstanding SIP 
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of 
the Franklin County Area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies 
all pertinent SIP requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes 
that the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment 
plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are 
not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also 
believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation have yet become due for the Franklin County Area, and 
therefore they need not be approved into the SIP prior to 
redesignation.

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Franklin County Area Is Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control 
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

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

                  Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                          Point         Area       Nonroad       Mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002......................................          0.7          7.8          2.6          9.7         20.8
Year 2004......................................          0.8          7.8          2.6          8.6         19.8
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference (02-04).............................         -0.1          0.0          0.0          1.1          1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002......................................          0.4          0.7          4.2         18.3         23.6
Year 2004......................................          0.6          0.7          4.0         16.5         21.8
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference (02-04).............................         -0.2          0.0          0.2          1.8          1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 1.1 tpd, and 
NOX emissions were reduced by 1.8 tpd, due to the following 
permanent and enforceable measures implemented or in the process of 
being implemented in the Franklin County Area:
1. Stationary Point Sources
    Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21, 
2001).
2. Stationary Area Sources
    Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003).
    Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004).
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
    Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP).

--Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991).
--Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).

    Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 
1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
    National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28, 
1999).
    Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005).
 4. Nonroad Sources
    Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
    EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions 
are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the 
cause of the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

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

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Franklin County 
Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted a 
SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 
the Franklin County Area for at least 10 years after redesignation. 
Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as 
meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the 
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP 
for the Franklin County Area meets the requirements of the CAA 
regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of 
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a 
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the 
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan 
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 
next 10-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address 
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must 
contain such

[[Page 29923]]

contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems 
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone 
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a 
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to 
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides 
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone 
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
    (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
    (2) A maintenance demonstration;
    (3) A monitoring network;
    (4) Verification of continued attainment; and
    (5) A contingency plan.
2. Analysis of the Franklin County Area Maintenance Plan
    (a) Attainment Inventory--An attainment inventory includes the 
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data 
showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the 
Franklin County Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year 
block of 2002-2004 and accounts for reductions attributable to 
implementation of the CAA requirements to date.
    PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions 
inventories for the Franklin County Area, including point, area, mobile 
on-road, and mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
    To develop the NOX and VOC base year emissions 
inventories, PADEP used the following approaches and sources of data:
    (i) Point source emissions--Pennsylvania requires owners and 
operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and 
emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by 
emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System 
and EPA's publication series AP-42 and are based on Source 
Classification Code (SCC). Each process has at least one SCC assigned 
to it. If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate 
emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates 
supersede those calculated using SCC codes.
    (ii) Area source emissions--Area source emissions are generally 
estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or 
collective activity for each area source category at the county level. 
Pennsylvania estimates emissions from area sources using emission 
factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary 
point sources. Emission factors may also be derived from research and 
guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and 
AP-42 factors. Throughput estimates are derived from county-level 
activity data, by apportioning national and statewide activity data to 
counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers. County 
employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to 
the industry covered.
    (iii) On-road mobile sources--PADEP employs an emissions estimation 
methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission 
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions. The Franklin 
County Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using 
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by 
vehicle type and roadway type.
    (iv) Mobile nonroad emissions--The 2002 emissions for the majority 
of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA 
NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel, 
gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-
fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD 
model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives. For 
2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey 
using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion 
factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in the Franklin 
County Area. For 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions 
using small aircraft operation statistics from http://www.airnav.com, 
and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-
approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
    The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for the 
Franklin County Area are summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 
projected emissions for this area in Tables 4 and 5, which cover the 
demonstration of maintenance for this area. EPA has concluded that 
Pennsylvania has adequately derived and documented the 2004 attainment 
year VOC and NOX emissions for this area.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration--On December 14, 2006, PADEP 
submitted a SIP revision to supplement its December 14, 2006, 
redesignation request. The submittal by PADEP consists of the 
maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Franklin 
County Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 
demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and 
NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions 
levels throughout the Franklin County Area through the year 2018. The 
Franklin County Area maintenance demonstration need not be based on 
modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also, 
66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32.
    Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the 
Franklin County Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose 2009 as an 
interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to 
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected 
to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-
year maintenance period.

            Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2004 VOC     2009 VOC     2018 VOC
         Source category            Emissions    Emissions    Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*..........................          8.6          7.3          5.1
Nonroad..........................          2.6          2.2          1.8
Area.............................          7.8          7.8          8.0
Point............................          0.8          0.6          0.8
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................         19.8         17.9        15.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
  vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.


[[Page 29924]]


              Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2004 NOX     2009 NOX     2018 NOX
         Source category            Emissions    Emissions    Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*..........................         16.5         12.7          6.7
Nonroad..........................          4.0          3.4          2.2
Area.............................          0.7          0.7          0.8
Point............................          0.6          0.3          0.3
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................         21.8         17.0         9.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
  vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

    The following are permanent and enforceable control measures to 
ensure emissions during the maintenance period are equal to or less 
than the emissions in the attainment year:
    1. Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 
70893);
    2. Pennsylvania's Consumer Products ( December 8, 2004, 69 FR 
70895); and
    3. Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080).
    Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or 
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance 
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
    1. FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner 
gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)--Tier 1 and Tier 2;
    2. NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle 
Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564, 
December 28, 1999);
    3. Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road 
(2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); and
    4. Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel 
(2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
    In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) 
should have positive impacts on Pennsylvania's air quality. CAIR, which 
will be implemented in the eastern portion of the country in two phases 
(2009 and 2015) should reduce long range transport of ozone precursors, 
which will have a beneficial effect on the air quality in the Franklin 
County Area.
    Pennsylvania and other nearby states are required to adopt a 
regulation implementing the requirements of CAIR or an equivalent 
program. On April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to reduce the interstate transport of 
NOX and sulfur dioxides that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment and maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Because Pennsylvania will not adopt its own CAIR requirements and 
obtain approval of the required SIP revision by September 2006, the FIP 
will become operative, imposing the Federal program upon CAIR-affected 
electric generating units in Pennsylvania. Therefore, allowances for 
CAIR-related sources will be limited to no more than the allowances 
issued pursuant to the FIP. The Franklin County Area has no sources 
that are directly regulated by CAIR, and therefore is not showing an 
emission reduction from this regulation. However, the quality of air 
transported from upwind sources into the county would be improved.
    Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA 
concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour 
ozone standard should be maintained in the Franklin County Area.
    (c) Monitoring Network--There is currently one monitor measuring 
ozone in the Franklin County Area. Pennsylvania will continue to 
operate its current air quality monitor in accordance with 40 CFR part 
58.
    (d) Verification of Continued Attainment--The Commonwealth will 
track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Franklin County 
Area by reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance 
period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key 
factors, VMT data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and 
compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the 
maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic 
(every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's 
Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51 Subpart A) to see 
if the area exceed the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 
percent. Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider 
whether any further emission control measures should be implemented.
    (e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency 
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the 
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires 
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should 
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and 
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the 
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    The ability of the Franklin County Area to stay in compliance with 
the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and 
NOX emissions in the area remaining at or below 2004 levels. 
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX 
emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. 
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce 
emissions should a violation occur.
    Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive 
years the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at the 
Franklin County Area monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point 
occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local 
emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a 
violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the 
conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what 
measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone 
levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of 
Federal, state and local measure that have been adopted but no yet 
implemented at the time of excessive

[[Page 29925]]

ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of 
implementing any selected measures.
    Contingency measures will be considered in the event that a 
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Franklin County, 
Pennsylvania monitor. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone 
standard, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return the 
area to attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be 
considered for the Franklin County Area will include, but not limited 
to the following:
    Regulatory measures:

--Additional controls on consumer products
--Additional control on portable fuel containers

    Non-regulatory measures:

--Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash''--installation software to 
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy duty diesel engines.
--Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative 
fuel use, for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
--Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
--Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, 
warehouses and other freight-handling facilities.
--Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially 
commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
--Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home 
heating and agricultural use.

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

--Within 1 month of the trigger, submit request to begin regulatory 
development process.
--Within 3 months of the trigger, review of regulation by Air Quality 
Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) 
and other advisory committees as appropriate.
--Within 6 months of the trigger, Environmental Quality Board (EQB) 
meeting/action.
--Within 8 months of the trigger, publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin 
for comment as proposed rulemaking.
--Within 10 months of the trigger, public hearing takes place and 
comment period on proposed rule closes.
--Within 11 months of the trigger, House and Senate Standing Committees 
and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comment on proposed 
rule.
--Within 13 months of the trigger, AQTAC, CAC and other committees 
review responses to comments and draft final rulemaking.
--Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB meeting/action.
--Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC action on rulemaking.
--Within 18 months of the trigger, Attorney General's review/action.
--Within 19 months of the trigger, publication in the Pennsylvania 
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and submit to EPA as a SIP revision. The 
regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania 
Bulletin.

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

--Within 2 months of the trigger: Identify stakeholders for potential 
non-regulatory measures.
--Within 3 months of the trigger, if funding is necessary, identify 
potential sources of funding and the timeframe under which funds would 
be available. In addition to non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following 
program may be able to provide funding: For transportation projects, 
the Federal Highway Administration, as allocated to the Northern Tier 
Rural Planning Organization; for projects which will also have an 
energy efficient co-benefit, the Pennsylvania Energy Harvest program; 
for projects which would be under taken by small business and are 
pollution prevention projects, the Small Business Advantage Grant and 
Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs; for projects which 
will involve alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling operations, the 
Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant program; for projects involving diesel 
emissions, Federal Energy Policy Act diesel reduction funds allocated 
to Pennsylvania or for which Pennsylvania or project sponsors may apply 
under a competitive process.
--Within 9 months of the trigger, enter into agreements with 
implementing organizations if state loans or grants are involved. 
Quantify projected emission benefits.
--Within 12months of the trigger, submit a revised SIP to EPA.
--Within 12-24 months of the trigger, implement strategies and 
projects.

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified 
in the Maintenance Plan for the Franklin County Area Adequate and 
Approvable?

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These 
control strategy SIPs (i.e. RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) 
and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria 
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road 
mobile sources. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be 
established in an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is the portion of the 
total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit 
vehicle use and emissions. A MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from 
an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further 
explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation 
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to 
establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance 
plans.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be 
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that 
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
or reasonable progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does 
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of 
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA 
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance 
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget 
contained therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation 
conformity. After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used 
by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed 
transportation projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining 
``adequacy'' of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

[[Page 29926]]

    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic 
steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment 
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the 
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the 
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity 
Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule 
Change'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and 
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    The MVEBs for the Franklin County Area are listed in Table 1 of 
this document for the 2009, and 2018 years and are the projected 
emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety 
margin allocated to the MVEBs. These emission budgets, when approved by 
EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of 
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which 
the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety 
margin: The Franklin County Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
during the 2002 to 2004 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the 
year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the Franklin 
County Area.
    The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile 
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 19.8 tpd of VOC and 21.8 tpd of 
NOX. PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and 
projected a total of 15.7 tpd of VOC and 9.9 tpd of NOX from 
all sources in the Franklin County Area. The safety margin for Franklin 
for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts. This difference 
is 4.1 tpd of VOC and 11.9 tpd of NOX. The emissions up to 
the level of the attainment year including the safety margins are 
projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below 
the attainment levels that can be allocated for emissions by various 
sources as long as the total emission levels are maintained at or below 
the attainment levels. Table 6 shows the safety margins for the 2009 
and 2018 years.

  Table 6.-- 2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Franklin County Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC Emissions     NOX Emissions
           Inventory year                   (tpd)             (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment.....................              19.8              21.8
2009 Interim........................              17.9              17.0
2009 Safety Margin..................               1.9               4.8
2004 Attainment.....................              19.8              21.8
2018 Final..........................              15.7               9.9
2018 Safety Margin..................               4.1              11.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP allocated 0.7 tpd of VOC and 0.4 tpd of NOX 
emissions to the 2009 VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions 
projection and the 2009 NOX projected on-road mobile source 
emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs 
the PADEP allocated 1.0 tpd of VOC and 0.7 tpd of NOX from 
the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to 
the mobile source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no 
longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source 
category. Table 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for the Franklin 
County Area.

Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Franklin County Area in Tons
             per Day Rounded Up to Nearest 0.1 Tons per Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC Emissions     NOX Emissions
           Inventory year                   (tpd)             (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source               6.6              12.3
 projected emissions................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to                    0.7               0.4
 MVEBs..............................
2009 MVEBs..........................               7.3              12.7
2018 projected on-road mobile source               4.1               6.0
 projected emissions................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to                    1.0               0.7
 MVEBs..............................
2018 MVEBs..........................               5.1               6.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

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

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

    The MVEBs for the Franklin County Area maintenance plan are being 
posted to EPA's conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal. The 
public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment 
period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently 
processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process 
for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is 
proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the 
MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for

[[Page 29927]]

transportation conformity until the maintenance plan update and 
associated MVEBs are approved in a final Federal Register notice, or 
EPA otherwise finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following 
the comment period.
    If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the 
proposed approval of the Franklin County Area MVEBs, or any other 
aspect of our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we 
will respond to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or 
proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on 
the Franklin County Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's 
conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, click on 
the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP 
Submissions for Conformity'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Franklin County Area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the 
Commonwealth's December 14, 2006, request for the Franklin County Area 
to be designated to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA has 
evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that it 
meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring 
data demonstrate that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. 
The final approval of this redesignation request would change the 
designation of the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to 
approve the associated maintenance plan and the 2002 base year 
inventory for the Franklin County Area, submitted on December 14, 2006, 
as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 
maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area because it meets the 
requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. 
EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania 
for the Franklin County Area in conjunction with its redesignation 
request. EPA is also proposing to issue a determination pursuant to 
section 181(b)(2) that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 
to find that the requirements of section 172(c)(1) concerning the 
submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and reasonably 
available control measure requirements, the requirements of section 
172(c)(2) concerning reasonable further progress (RFP), and the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for 
RFP or attainment do not apply to the area for so long as it continues 
to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone EPA is soliciting public comments 
on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). 
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new 
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects 
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new 
regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to 
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not 
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not 
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the 
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed 
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area, 
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to 
avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter 
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not 
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of 
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this 
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
    This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Franklin 
County Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated 
maintenance plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and the MVEBs 
identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

[[Page 29928]]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: May 22, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-10351 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P