  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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   SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 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 [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174 by one of the following methods:

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

B.	E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

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.

 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     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through     HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or e-mail.  The
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website is
an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

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

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   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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 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;

“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

Year	Annual 4th High 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 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

Year	Number of 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
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.  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 reasonably available
control technology (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.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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. 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.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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), 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,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
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.

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   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
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.    SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 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 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)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year		Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

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		Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

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:

Stationary Point Sources

      Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21,
2001)

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
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   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"
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)

Source Category 	2004 VOC Emissions   	2009 VOC Emissions	2018 VOC
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.

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

Source Category 	2004 NOx Emissions    	2009 NOx Emissions	2018 NOx
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:

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

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

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 and Tier 2;

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

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

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 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).

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

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (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

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions 	NOx Emissions

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	6.6	12.3

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.7	 0.4

2009 MVEBs	7.3	12.7

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	4.1	 6.0

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	1.0	 0.7

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

If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the 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:
 HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq"  http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq ,
(once there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for
“Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”).

VIII.   Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to determine that the 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
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   SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 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 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the
Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or 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.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

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

							/s/

___________________________                 __________________________

Dated:  May 22, 2007			            Donald S. Welsh

						Regional Administrator,

						Region III.

 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.

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

  PAGE   4

  PAGE   29

  PAGE   46

  PAGE   47

  PAGE   56


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5692]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-148-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

January 30, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 25, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, and the following tariff sheets, to
become effective February 25, 2007:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 283
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 312
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 323
Third Revised Sheet No. 325

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1919 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P