[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30521-30534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10585]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323; FRL-8321-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle 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 State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
(PADEP) is requesting that the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle ozone 
nonattainment area (``Harrisburg Area'' or ``Area'') be redesignated as 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS). The Area is comprised of the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, 
Lebanon, and Perry. EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation 
request for the Harrisburg Area. In conjunction with its redesignation 
request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a 
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg 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 
Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three 
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data 
for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone 
redesignation request is based on its determination that the Harrisburg 
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in 
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
has also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area, 
and EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Harrisburg Area 
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 maintenance plan for the Harrisburg 
Area for purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing 
to approve those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation 
request and of the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory SIP 
revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0323 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: [email protected].
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323, 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-
2007-0323. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 
http://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 http://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 Control, P.O. Box 8468, 
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, 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 Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

[[Page 30522]]

VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and 
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg Area Adequate 
and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take?

    On March 27, 2007, the PADEP formally submitted a request to 
redesignate the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a 
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision to ensure 
continued attainment in the Area over the next 11 years. PADEP also 
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP 
revision. The Harrisburg Area is comprised of the counties of 
Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry, and is currently designated a 
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine 
that the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area 
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is 
also proposing to approve the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan as a SIP 
revision for the Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for 
redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed 
to ensure continued attainment in the Harrisburg Area for the next 11 
years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory 
for the Harrisburg Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is 
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified 
in the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the 
MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) for the Harrisburg Area for transportation 
conformity purposes.

II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?

    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 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 Harrisburg 
Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 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 Harrisburg Area (as well as in 
most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 CFR 
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule 
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). See, 
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 CAA. 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 Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg 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.
    In 2004, the Harrisburg Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area based upon air quality monitoring data from 2001-
2003. Therefore, the Harrisburg Area 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 indicates that the Harrisburg Area has a design value 
of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete, 
quality-assured data. Additionally, certified 2006 ozone monitoring 
data indicates that the Harrisburg Area continues to attain the ozone 
NAAQS. Therefore the ambient ozone data for the Harrisburg Area 
indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

The Harrisburg Area

    The Harrisburg Area consists of the counties of Cumberland, 
Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry, Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as 
an 8-hour basic ozone nonattainment area (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004), 
the Harrisburg Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment Area, and 
therefore, was subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas 
pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 
1991). EPA determined that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS by the November

[[Page 30523]]

15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995).
    On March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested that the Harrisburg Area be 
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 
redesignation requested included three 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 Harrisburg Area. The data 
satisfies the CAA requirements that 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), must be 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)(e)(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 redesignations in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:
     ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' 
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
     ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
     ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
     ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in 
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
     ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) 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 March 27, 2007, the PADEP requested redesignation of the 
Harrisburg Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 
27, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area as 
a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS over the next 11 years until 2018. PADEP also submitted a 2002 
base-year inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP 
revision. EPA has determined that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 
8-hour ozone 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 official 
designation of the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area for the next 11 years, until 2018. The 
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future 
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the 
NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for 
the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs (including safety margins) are 
displayed in Table 1 below. Note that separate conformity budgets are 
being established for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). 
The transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.124(d)) allow a 
SIP to establish MVEBs for each MPO if a nonattainment area includes 
more than one MPO, which is the case in the Harrisburg Area. The 
responsible agency for the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry 
is the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS), and the responsible 
agency for the county of Lebanon is LEBCO (Lebanon County MPO), both 
designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) under Federal 
transportation planning requirements. The Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation (PENNDOT) has requested separate budgets to allow the 
planning organizations to move their transportation conformity 
determinations through the approval process separately.

[[Page 30524]]



Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Kilograms Per Day (Tons per
                              Day--Rounded)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Year                         VOC              NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS)--Cumberland, Dauphin, and
                             Perry Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..................................    23,014 (25.4)    41,917 (46.2)
2018..................................    16,136 (17.8)    18,409 (20.3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Lebanon County MPO (LEBCO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..................................      4,301 (4.7)      8,928 (9.8)
2018..................................      2,512 (2.8)     3,684 (4.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Tons per day are informational only. Differences occur due to
  rounding.

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

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria 
have been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's March 
27, 2007 submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA.

A. The Harrisburg Area Has Attained the 8-Hour NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg 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, 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 at every monitor is 0.084 ppm 
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the 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 Harrisburg Area, there are three monitors that measure air 
quality with respect to ozone. There are two monitors in Dauphin 
County, (the Harrisburg monitor, and the Hershey monitor), and one 
monitor in Perry County, (the Little Buffalo State Park monitor). As 
part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced 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 
Harrisburg Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in 
the 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 for the three 
monitors in the Harrisburg Area, along with the three-year average are 
summarized in Table 2 below.

   Table 2.--Harrisburg Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone
                                 Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual 4th
                         Year                            highest reading
                                                              (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Harrisburg Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42-043-0401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................             0.074
2004..................................................             0.076
2005..................................................             0.084
2006..................................................             0.077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078
          The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hershey Monitor, Dauphin County, AQS ID 42-043-1100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................             0.079
2004..................................................             0.072
2005..................................................             0.085
2006..................................................             0.081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078
          The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Little Buffalo State Park Monitor, Perry County, AQS ID 42-099-0301
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................             0.084
2004..................................................             0.069
2005..................................................             0.082
2006..................................................             0.077
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30525]]

 
          The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078
          The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.076
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data show that the Harrisburg Area has attained the 
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm. The data collected at the 
Area monitors 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 after a review of the quality assured 2006 
data because the Area is still attaining the standard with a design 
value at each monitor of 0.084 ppm or less for 2004 through 2006. The 
PADEP's request for redesignation for the Harrisburg Area indicates 
that the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 
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 data taken from AQS indicate that 
the Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. The Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg 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 which requirements are applicable to the Harrisburg 
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 came due prior to the submittal of a complete 
redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (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 
at 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 the 
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 1 of the CAA delineates the general 
requirements for a SIP, which includes 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 requirements (Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD));
     Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements 
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
     Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
     Provisions for public and local agency participation in 
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to 
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has 
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of 
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October 
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May 
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the 
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that 
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular 
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

[[Page 30526]]

    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 Harrisburg 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, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (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 53099, 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(1) 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. As we explain later in 
this notice, no part D requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for the Harrisburg 
Area 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 Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    Pursuant to an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23951), the 
Harrisburg Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 
1 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 
applicable to 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 
Harrisburg 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 CAA, 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. See 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 8-hour subpart 2 requirements, if the Harrisburg 
Area initially had been classified under subpart 2, the first two part 
D subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Harrisburg 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).
    As stated previously, these requirements are not yet due for 
purposes of redesignation of the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg Area, which was submitted on March 27, 2007, 
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 Harrisburg Area can be found in a Technical 
Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has 
determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement 
requirements for the Harrisburg 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 that the general conformity and NSR 
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.
    With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 
176(c) of the CAA requires states to

[[Page 30527]]

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 the 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 Harrisburg Area, EPA has also determined that 
before being redesignated, the Harrisburg 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, 20469-20470, 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 
Harrisburg 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 marginal or basic 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 Harrisburg Area.
    EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, 
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of 
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 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs even 
after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are 
region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Harrisburg Area by 
virtue of the Area's designation and classification. See 61 FR 53174, 
53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 
1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    In its December 22, 2006 decision in South Coast, the Court also 
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 
determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the 1-hour standard by its 
attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), continues to attain 
that standard, and has fulfilled any requirements of the 1-hour 
standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is 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.
    The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the 
redesignation request for the Harrisburg Area because there are no 
conformity requirements that are relevant to a redesignation request 
for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation 
conformity SIP.\1\ As we have previously noted, under longstanding EPA 
policy, 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. 40 CFR 51.390. See, Wall v. EPA, 
265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also, 
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 the requirement for submission of contingency 
measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require 
contingency measures for marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion 
of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the 
Harrisburg Area.
    Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the 
Harrisburg Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-
hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable 
requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D (section 182) for 
the Harrisburg Area are discussed in the following paragraphs: Section 
182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for 
sources in marginal areas, such as the Harrisburg Area, that were 
subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November 
15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. 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 marginal and higher 
classified 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 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt 
vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the 
Harrisburg Area because this Area did not have and was not required to 
have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.
    Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a triennial Periodic Emissions 
Inventory

[[Page 30528]]

for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the 
Harrisburg Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP 
revision with the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg 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.
    Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NOX in 
the nonattainment area to submit annual Emissions Statements regarding 
the quantity of emissions from the previous year. As discussed 
previously, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, a previously 
approved emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which applies 
to the Harrisburg Area.
    Section 182(a)(1) provides 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 Harrisburg Area as meeting 
the requirement of 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.
    EPA has previously determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 
3349, January 17, 1995), and we believe that the Harrisburg Area is 
still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone 
monitoring data for the years 2003-2005. 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. Table 3 provides a summary of the 
number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005 
and 3-year annual average at each of the Harrisburg Area monitors.

 Table 3.--Harrisburg Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour
                             Ozone Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of
                         Year                               expected
                                                           exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Harrisburg Monitor/AIRS ID 41-043-0401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................               0.0
2004..................................................               0.0
2005..................................................               0.0
2006..................................................               0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
                           through 2005 is 0.0
  The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004
                           through 2006 is 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Hershey Monitor/AIRS ID 42-043-1100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................               0.0
2004..................................................               0.0
2005..................................................               0.0
2006..................................................               0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
                           through 2005 is 0.0
  The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004
                           through 2006 is 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Perry County Monitor/AIRS ID 42-099-0301
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................               0.0
2004..................................................               0.0
2005..................................................               0.0
2006..................................................               0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
                           through 2005 is 0.0
  The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2004
                           through 2006 is 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by 
Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicate that the Harrisburg Area is 
maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 
believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the quality 
assured 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the 
Harrisburg Area in 2006.
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 Harrisburg 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.

[[Page 30529]]

    As discussed previously in this notice, 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).
5. Harrisburg Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation
    EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of 
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request. Calgagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), 
Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional 
measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 
68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Harrisburg Area Is Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions 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 Harrisburg Area is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted 
measures. Emission reductions attributable to these rules are shown in 
Table 4.

                  Table 4.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                          Point         Area        Mobile      Nonroad       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...........................................          3.0         29.5         43.4         19.6         95.4
2004...........................................          2.4         28.9         36.9         19.0         87.2
Diff (02-04)...................................          0.6          0.6          6.5          0.6          8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...........................................         16.7          3.0         86.8         21.4        127.9
2004...........................................         12.9          3.1         76.2         20.2        112.5
Diff (02-04)...................................          3.8         -0.1         10.6          1.2         15.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 8.6 percent from 
95.4 tpd to 87.2 tpd; NOX emissions decreased by 12.1 
percent from 127.9 tpd to 112.5 tpd. A comparison of the 2002 and 2004 
emissions by county and source type can be found in the Technical 
Support Document prepared for this rulemaking. The reductions between 
2002 and 2004, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the 
following permanent and enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
    Federal NOX SIP Call (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 Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 
1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).
    National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (PA) (64 FR 72564, 
December 28, 1999).
    Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313, 
October 6, 2005).
4. Non-Road Sources
    Non-road Diesel (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 Harrisburg Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant 
to Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Harrisburg Area 
to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide 
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area for at least 11 
years after redesignation. The Commonwealth 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 Harrisburg Area meets the requirements 
of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone 
standard.
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 Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan 
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility 
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such 
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems 
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone 
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a 
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to 
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides 
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone 
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:

[[Page 30530]]

    (a) an attainment emissions inventory;
    (b) a maintenance demonstration;
    (c) a monitoring network;
    (d) verification of continued attainment; and
    (e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Harrisburg Area Maintenance Plan
    (a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the 
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data 
showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment 
inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within 
the 3-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions 
attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The 
2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual 
``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX during 2004 
and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions.
    The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual 
sources. 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 Systems and EPA's 
publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes 
(SCC).
    The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level activity 
data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area 
source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal 
allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management 
Association (MARAMA).
    The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were 
compiled using MOBILE6.2 and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 
(PENNDOT) estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data 
summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and 
NOX emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years 
of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 5 and 6 below).
    The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of non-road emission 
source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The 
NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied 
petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road 
equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not 
estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004 
locomotive emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey 
using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and 
conversion factors. Emissions from commercial aircraft for 2002 are 
estimated using the EPA-approved Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System 
(EDMS) 4.20, the latest version available at the time the inventory was 
developed. Commercial aircraft operations were significant in the 
Harrisburg Area and were modeled by the EDMS model directly. Harrisburg 
International Airport (HIA) accounts for all commercial operations in 
the area. Small aircraft emissions were calculated by using small 
airport operation statistics, which can be found at http://www.airnav.com and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Area 
Forecast Detailed Report.
    More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004, 
2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices 
which are part of this submittal.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration--On March 27, 2007, the PADEP 
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. 
The Harrisburg maintenance 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 Harrisburg Area through the year 2018. A 
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 25430-25432.
    Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the 
Harrisburg Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an 
interim year in the ten-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 
maintenance period. A breakdown of the 2004, 2009, and 2018 VOC and 
NOX emissions by County and Source Type can be found in the 
TSD prepared for this rulemaking.

            Table 5.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2004 VOC     2009 VOC     2018 VOC
         Source category            emissions    emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................          2.4          3.0          3.8
Area.............................         28.9         27.4         29.4
Mobile*..........................         36.9         30.1         20.6
Nonroad..........................         19.0         16.0         13.4
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................         87.2         76.5        67.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission
  budgets for transportation conformity. Totals may vary due to
  rounding.


            Table 6.--Total NOX Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2004 NOX     2009 NOX     2018 NOX
         Source category            emissions    emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................         12.9         19.8         23.8
Area.............................          3.1          3.2          3.4
Mobile*..........................         76.2         56.0         24.4
Nonroad..........................         20.2         17.1         12.3
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................        112.5         96.2        63.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin identified in the motor vehicle emission
  budgets for transportation conformity. Totals may vary due to
  rounding.


[[Page 30531]]

    Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to 
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance 
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
     The Clean Air Interstate Rule (71 FR 25328, April 28, 
2006)
     The Federal NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 
21, 2001)
     Area VOC regulations concerning portable fuel containers 
(69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004)
     Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 
70895)
     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:
     FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and 
cleaner gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)--Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 
1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).
     Federal NLEV (64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999).
     PA Clean Vehicle Program (December 9, 2006)--Pennsylvania 
will implement this program in car model year 2008.
     Heavy-duty diesel on road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-
road (2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
     Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel 
fuel (2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
     Vehicle emission/inspection/maintenance program (70 FR 
58313, October 6, 2005).
     Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program 
(May 11, 2002)
     Truck Stop Electrification
    Based on 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 Harrisburg Area.
    (c) Monitoring Network--There are currently three monitors in the 
Harrisburg Area measuring ozone in the Harrisburg Area. The PADEP will 
continue to operate its current air quality monitors (located in 
Dauphin and Perry Counties), in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    (d) Verification of Continued Attainment--In addition to 
maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the 
Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the 
Area by reviewing air quality and emissions data during the maintenance 
period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of Vehicle 
Miles Traveled (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 they exceed the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 
percent. The PADEP will also continue to operate the existing ozone 
monitoring stations in the Area pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 throughout 
the maintenance period and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA 
through the AQS system. Section 175A(b) of the CAA states that eight 
years following redesignation of the Harrisburg Area, PADEP will be 
required to submit a second maintenance plan that will ensure 
attainment through 2028. PADEP has made that commitment to meet the 
requirement of section 175A(b).
    (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 Commonwealth 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 Harrisburg 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 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design 
value monitor (the highest of the three area monitors) 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 also analyze the conditions leading to the 
excessive ozone levels and evaluate which measures might be most 
effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also 
analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state, and local 
measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the 
excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of 
implementing any selected measures.
    Contingency measures will also be considered in the event that a 
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at any one of the three 
monitors in the Harrisburg Area. In the event of a violation of the 8-
hour ozone standard, PADEP will adopt additional emissions reduction 
measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the 
implementation schedule listed later in this notice and in the 
Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act in order to return the Area to 
attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for 
Harrisburg will include, but not be limited to the following:
    Regulatory measures:

--Additional controls on consumer products.
--Additional controls 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 on-road or off-road 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 plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency 
measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays 
out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures 
within 12-24 months of the trigger.

[[Page 30532]]

VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified 
in the Harrisburg Maintenance Plan 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. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed 
``on road-mobile source emission budgets.'' Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 
and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. An 
MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated 
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An 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 ensuring 
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 contained 
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity. 
After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and 
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation 
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 
CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of a MVEB 
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic 
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment 
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the 
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the 
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on 
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this 
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area are listed in Table 1 of this 
document for 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-
road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to 
the MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). 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 Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg 
Area. The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile 
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 87.2 tpd of VOC and 112.5 tpd of 
NOX. PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and 
projected a total of 67.2 tpd of VOC and 63.9 tpd of NOX 
from all sources in the Harrisburg Area. The safety margin for the 
Harrisburg Area for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts. 
This difference is 20 tpd of VOC and 48.6 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 7 shows the safety 
margins for the 2009 and 2018 years for the Harrisburg Area.

      Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Safety Margin for the Harrisburg Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           VOC emissions   NOX emissions
             Inventory year                    (tpd)           (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment.........................            87.2           112.5
2009 Interim............................            76.5            96.2
2009 Safety Margin......................            10.7            16.3
2004 Attainment.........................            87.2           112.5
2018 Final..............................            67.2            63.9
2018 Safety Margin......................            20.0            48.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP allocated 1,803 kilograms per day (2.0 tpd) VOC and 1,988 
kilograms per day (2.2 tpd) NOX to the 2009 interim VOC 
projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009 
interim NOX projected on-road mobile source emissions 
projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs for the portion of the planning 
area covered by the HATS. Likewise for the HATS portion, for the 2018 
MVEBs, the PADEP allocated 2,497 kilograms per day (2.8 tpd) VOC and 
2,035 kilograms (2.2 tpd) of NOX from the 2018 safety 
margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. The PADEP allocated 505 kilograms 
per day (0.6 tpd) VOC and 489 kilograms per day (0.5 tpd) 
NOX to the 2009 interim VOC

[[Page 30533]]

projected on-road mobile source emissions projections and the 2009 
interim NOX projected on-road mobile source emissions 
projections to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs for the portion of the planning 
area covered by the LEBCO MPO. Likewise for the LEBCO MPO portion, for 
the 2018 MVEBs, the PADEP allocated 565 kilograms per day (0.6 tpd) VOC 
and 475 kilograms (0.5 tpd) 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 8 
shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry 
Counties, and table 9 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Lebanon 
County.

  Table 8.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry
                             Counties (HATS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Inventory year               VOC emissions     NOX emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2009 projected on-road mobile           21,212 (23.4)     39,929 (44.0)
 source projected emissions.........
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to            1,803 (2.0)       1,988 (2.2)
 MVEBs..............................
2009 MVEBs..........................     23,014 (25.4)     41,917 (46.2)
2018 projected on-road mobile source     13,639 (15.0)     16,374 (18.0)
 projected emissions................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to            2,497 (2.8)       2,035 (2.2)
 MVEBs..............................
2018 MVEBs..........................     16,136 (17.8)     18,409 (20.3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 9.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Lebanon County (LEBCO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Inventory year               VOC emissions     NOX emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source       3,796 (4.2)       8,439 (9.3)
 projected emissions................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to              505 (0.6)         489 (0.5)
 MVEBs..............................
2009 MVEBs..........................       4,301 (4.7)       8,928 (9.8)
2018 projected on-road mobile source       1,947 (2.1)       3,209 (3.5)
 projected emissions................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to              565 (0.6)         475 (0.5)
 MVEBs..............................
2018 MVEBs..........................       2,512 (2.8)       3,684 (4.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area are approvable 
because the MVEBs for NOX and VOC 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 
Harrisburg Area Maintenance Plan?

    The MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan are being posted 
to EPA's conformity Website concurrently with this proposal. The public 
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period 
for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing 
the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the 
MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part 
of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation 
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are 
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the 
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.
    If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the 
proposed approval of the Harrisburg 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 Harrisburg 
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, click on ``Adequacy Review of SIP 
Submissions for Conformity'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg Area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the 
redesignation of the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment 
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 
Harrisburg Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final 
approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of 
the Harrisburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour 
ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated 
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area, submitted on March 27, 2007, 
as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area because it meets the 
requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. 
EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the 
Harrisburg Area, and the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the 
Harrisburg Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is 
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. 
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 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. 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

[[Page 30534]]

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: May 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-10585 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P