[Federal Register: July 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 132)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37683-37695]
[DOCID:fr11jy07-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453; FRL-8336-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour
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) revision submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area. In conjunction with its redesignation
request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance
plan for Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh
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
Pittsburgh 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.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0453 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief,
Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0453. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing To Take?
II. What is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and SIP Revision?
VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the Actions that EPA is Proposing To Take?

    On April 26, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment of the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on April 26, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision
to ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year
inventory as a SIP revision on April 26, 2007. The Pittsburgh Area is
currently designated as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and is
covered by a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA is proposing to
determine that the Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area for the next ten
years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory
for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified
in the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the
MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) for transportation conformity purposes.

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
Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 (DC Cir. 2006).
On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA,
Docket No. 04-1201 (hereafter ``South Coast''), in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule
was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related
to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour
attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8
decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let
stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-
backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December
22, 2006 decision that EPA had 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) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain
types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the
Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-
hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
    Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The
Pittsburgh 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 decisions in South
Coast are not an impediment to redesignating the Pittsburgh 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,

Pittsburgh 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. Based upon
ozone monitoring data for the period 2003 through 2006 (inclusive), the
Pittsburgh Area has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period
2003 through 2005 and has a design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year
period 2004 through 2006. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Pittsburgh Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B. The Pittsburgh Area

    The Pittsburgh Area is comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,
Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh Area
had been designated and classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment
area for the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6,
1991. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved a request to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard and approved a maintenance plan SIP revision.
    On April 26, 2007, PADEP requested that the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 April 26, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Pittsburgh
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On April 26, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a SIP
revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh 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 2009 and
2018. These MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are displayed in the following table:

                Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
             [Tons per day (rounded to two decimal places)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                            VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..............................................      54.54     101.53
2018..............................................      32.91      41.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and SIP Revision?

    EPA is proposing to determine that Pittsburgh Area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met. The following is a description of how PADEP's April 26, 2007,
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA.

A. The Pittsburgh Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS

    In the Pittsburgh Area, there are currently thirteen monitors that
measure air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation
request, Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data which included
the years 2003 through 2006 (the most recent years of data available as
of the time of the redesignation request) for the Pittsburgh Area. This
data has been quality assured and is recorded in Air Quality System
(AQS).
    Based upon this data, EPA is proposing to determine that the
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the 8-hour
ozone standard, 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). PADEP uses the
AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures
the data transfers and content for accuracy. The monitors generally
should have remained at the same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The fourth-
high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year
average, are summarized in Table 2 for the four monitors with the
highest 2005 and 2006 design values in the Pittsburgh area.

   Table 2.--Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
                                 Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual 4th
                                                                 High
                            Year                               Reading
                                                                (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monitor: California & 11th, Harrison Twp, Allegheny Co., AQS ID 42-003-
                                  1005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.081
2004.......................................................        0.076
2005.......................................................        0.087
2006.......................................................        0.088
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning, Armstrong Co., AQS ID 42-005-
                                  0001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.086
2004.......................................................        0.082
2005.......................................................        0.086
2006.......................................................        0.080
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.082 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Monitor: Route 168 & Tomlinson Road, Beaver Co., AQS ID 42-007-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.087
2004.......................................................        0.081
2005.......................................................        0.086
2006.......................................................        0.082
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monitor: Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID 42-
                                003-0010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................        0.088
2004.......................................................        0.072
2005.......................................................        0.092
2006.......................................................        0.078
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm
The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.080 ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data show that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.084 ppm for 2003 through 2005 and
still is attaining the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm at the
monitors with the highest design value for 2004 through 2006. The data
collected at the Pittsburgh 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.
PADEP's request for redesignation for the Pittsburgh 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.

B. The Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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. See Section 175A(c) of the CAA. See 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 rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's
December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because
even in light of the Court's decisions 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 Pittsburgh 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
    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.
    Under an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), EPA classified
the Pittsburgh Area as a subpart 1 nonattainment area under the 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA believes that no subpart 1 requirements need to be
approved prior to redesignation. Of the nonattainment plan provisions
due under section 172, none were due prior to submission of the
complete redesignation request because EPA's November 29, 2005 final
rule (70 FR 71612) set the deadline for these requirements at 3 years
after resignation, which for the Pittsburgh Area is June 15, 2007.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's rulings in South
Coast 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 cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1)
EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements 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
Pittsburgh Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to
meet only 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, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation; and 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 DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC
Cir. 2002), in which the DC 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 Pittsburgh Area
initially had been classified under subpart the first two-part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Pittsburgh Area under section
182(a) of the CAA would be: (1) A base-year inventory requirement
pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA, and, (2) 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 Pittsburgh Area,
but nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which covers all
portions of the Pittsburgh Area and which EPA believes satisfies the
emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard under section
182(a)(3)(B). This regulation is codified at Section 135.21 ``Emission
statements'' in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); see also 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 SIP concurrently with the
maintenance plan as fulfilling the requirements, if necessary, of both
section 182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that
Pennsylvania's SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D
of the CAA. 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 Pittsburgh Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Pittsburgh 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.'' See rulemakings for
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467-12468); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio
(61 FR at 20458, 20469-20470); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831,
31834-31837, June 21, 1996). In the case of Pennsylvania, 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 Ozone Transport Region
(OTR). The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required
for a marginal area. Nevertheless, 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
Pittsburgh Area.
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    As stated previously in this document, on October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094), EPA approved a request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan
SIP revision.
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Pittsburgh
Area was an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's decisions in
South Coast do not impact redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision
clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions
budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that
those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations
until replaced by 8-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs). To
meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations
at 40 CFR part 93. As discussed elsewhere in this document,

EPA is proposing to approve 8-hour MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area. Once
these 8-hour MVEBs are approved the 1-hour budgets will no longer apply
under anti-backsliding.
    With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the
Pittsburgh Area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measures (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.
    Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter any requirements
that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.
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 reasonably available control
technology (RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M), and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of
the Pittsburgh Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR
will continue to be applicable after redesignation as discussed
previously in this document.
    EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
See the Reading, Pennsylvania redesignation proposed and final rules,
61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997),
respectively. 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, 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. The Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area was a
1-hour maintenance area which had been a moderate nonattainment area at
the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). No 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 Pittsburgh 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
Pennsylvania has fulfilled all 8-hour Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation.

C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 3.

                             Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004
                                             [In tons per day (tpd)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Year                              Point       Area     Nonroad     Mobile     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................       16.5      100.3       51.5       86.4      254.7
Year 2004................................................       15.5       98.1       48.8       73.3      235.7
Diff. (02-04)............................................        1.0        2.2        2.7       13.1       19.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................      250.4       11.5       86.1      173.9      522.0
Year 2004................................................      202.8       11.7       81.5      148.8      444.8
Diff. (02-04)............................................       47.6       -0.2        4.6       25.1       77.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 19.0 tpd, and
NOX emissions were reduced by 77.2 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures implemented in the Pittsburgh Area:
    (1) Stationary Area Sources
    (a) Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003),
    (b) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004);
    (2) Highway Vehicle Sources
    (a) Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), Tier 1 (56 FR
25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000),
    (b) Federal Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles Standards (62 FR 54694,
October 21, 1997 and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000),

    (c) National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) (64 FR 72564, December 28,
1999),
    (d) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program (64 FR
32411, June 17, 1999 and 70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005);
    (3) Nonroad Sources--Federal Nonroad Engine and Fuels (40 CFR parts
89 to 91, and 1039, 1048 and 1051); and
    (4) Stationary Point Sources--Pennsylvania's Interstate Pollution
Transport Reduction Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR
57428, September 29, 2006) (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001 and 71 FR
57428, September 29, 2006).
    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 Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted for
approval under section 175A of the CAA the April 26, 2007, maintenance
plan to fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard.
Pennsylvania submitted this SIP revision to provide for maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for at least 10 years
after redesignation. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the ozone
NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Pittsburgh Area meets the
requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable ozone
standards including the 8-hour 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(a), 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. Section 175A(b) requires that
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 Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year
attainment period of 2003-2005 and accounts for reductions attributable
to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.
    PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emissions
inventories for the Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicle 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. Commercial aircraft operations are significant in the
Pittsburgh area. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) accounts for
all commercial operations in the Pittsburgh area. PADEP quantified the
emissions at PIT with the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System
(EDMS) that is an EPA-approved model. For other 2002 aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small aircraft operation
statistics from http://www.airnav.com, and emission factors and

operational characteristics in EDMS. For PIT, growth was estimated
using estimates of future operations at PIT from the FAA APO Terminal
Area Forecast Detailed Report. For other aircraft operations, growth
was calculated using estimates of small airport activity from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s APO terminal area forecast
detailed report.
    The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOX emissions for the
Pittsburgh 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 April 26, 2007, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision to supplement its April 26, 2007, redesignation request.
The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA. The Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area through the
year 2018. The Pittsburgh 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 25430-25432.
    Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Pittsburgh Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. PADEP chose 2009 as an
interim year in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to
demonstrate that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected
to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-
year maintenance period.

            Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2004 VOC     2009 VOC      2018 VOC
        Source category           emissions     emissions     emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*........................         73.3         54.54         32.91
Nonroad........................         48.8         39.1          34.6
Area...........................         98.1         92.4          96.1
Point..........................         15.5         16.4          20.3
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................        235.7        202.44        183.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2004 NOX     2009 NOX      2018 NOX
        Source category           emissions     emissions     emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*........................        148.8        101.53         41.15
Nonroad........................         81.5         70.5          55.6
Area...........................         11.7         12.1          12.2
Point..........................        202.8        255.2         273.6
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................        444.8        439.33        382.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 and are equal to or less
than the emissions in the attainment year:
    (1) Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69
FR 70893);
    (2) Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR
70895);
    (3) Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080); and
    (4) Pennsylvania's Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction
Regulations (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, September 29,
2006).
    Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
    (1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner
gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)--Tier 1 and Tier 2;
    (2) NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle
Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999);
    (3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road
(2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001);
    (4) Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel
(2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004); and
    (5) Pennsylvania's vehicle emission inspection/maintenance program
(October 6, 2005, 70 FR 58313).
    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
and will have a beneficial effect on the air quality in the Pittsburgh
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. If
Pennsylvania has not adopted its own CAIR requirements and obtained
EPA's approval of the required SIP revision by September 2007, the FIP
will impose the Federal program upon CAIR-affected electric generating
units in Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Area does have several sources
which are subject to regulation under CAIR. For the maintenance
demonstration, Pennsylvania did not rely upon any reductions from CAIR
from these facilities. 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 Pittsburgh Area.
    (c) Monitoring Network--Currently there are thirteen monitors
measuring ozone in the Pittsburgh Area. Pennsylvania will continue to
operate

an air quality monitoring network 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 Pittsburgh 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 part 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 Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area design 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 adopted in the event that a violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs in the Pittsburgh Area. 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 Pittsburgh 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 two municipal
planning organizations in the Pittsburgh Area; for projects which will
also have an energy efficient co-benefit, the Pennsylvania Energy
Harvest program; for projects which would be undertaken 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 6 months of the trigger, work with the area planning
commissions to identify land use planning

strategies and projects with quantifiable and timely emission benefits.
Work with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development and other State agencies to assist in these measures.
--Within 9 months of the trigger, enter into agreements with
implementing organizations if state loans or grants are involved.
Quantify projected emission benefits.
--Within 12 months of the trigger, submit a revised SIP to EPA.
--Within 12-24 months of the trigger, implement strategies and
projects.

    (g) Summary of EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan
    EPA concludes that the April 26, 2007 maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pittsburgh Area?

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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh
Area.
    The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 were 235.7 tpd of VOC and 444.8 tpd of
NOX. PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and
obtained totals of 183.91 tpd of VOC and 382.55 tpd of NOX
from all sources in the Pittsburgh Area. The safety margin for the
Pittsburgh Area for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts.
This difference is 51.79 tpd of VOC and 62.25 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 Pittsburgh Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC           NOX
               Inventory year                   emissions     emissions
                                                  (tpd)         (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment.............................        235.7         444.8
2009 Interim................................        202.44        439.33
2009 Safety Margin..........................         33.26          5.47
2004 Attainment.............................        235.7         444.8
2018 Final..................................        183.91        382.55
2018 Safety Margin..........................         51.79         62.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP allocated 3.58 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC on-road mobile
source emissions projection and 3.06 tpd NOX to the 2009
interim NOX on-road mobile source emissions projection to
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 4.60
tpd VOC and 3.32 tpd NOX from the 2018 safety margins to the
2018 on-road mobile source emissions projections 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 Pittsburgh Area.

Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area tons per day
                      [Rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC          NOX
                Inventory year                   emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 on-road mobile source projected emissions        50.96        98.47
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs.........         3.58         3.06
2009 MVEBs....................................        54.54       101.53
2018 on-road mobile source projected emissions        28.31        37.83
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs.........         4.60         3.32
2018 MVEBs....................................        32.91        41.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan?

    The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan are being posted
to EPA's conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal. The public
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period
for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing
the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the
MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part
of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for 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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq
, (once there, click on the ``Conformity'' button,

then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
Commonwealth's April 26, 2007, request for the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area, submitted on April 26, 2007, as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for
the Pittsburgh Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA as described previously in this notice. EPA is also
proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the
Pittsburgh Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR28355 (May 22, 2001)). This
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows 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 Pittsburgh
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 dioxides,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: June 28, 2007.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-3325 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16405-16407]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07810]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83028; File No. SR-BOX-2018-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility
To Amend the Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap

April 10, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 28, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the Fee Schedule [sic] on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options
facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on
April 2, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available from
the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make a number of changes to the manual
transaction fees for certain strategy Qualified Open Outcry (``QOO'')
Orders under Section II.D. ``Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap'' of the BOX
Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to raise the fee cap
for all reversal, conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategies \5\
executed on the same trading day from $700 to $1,000. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to include all strategies, regardless of option
class, that execute in the same day to this proposed $1,000 fee cap.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to remove the $25,000 per month per
Participant cap for QOO Order fees in combined strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``reversal strategy'' is established by combining a short
security position with a short put and a long call position that
shares the same strike and expiration. A ``conversion strategy'' is
established by combining a long position in the underlying security
with a long put and a short call position that shares the same
strike and expiration. A ``jelly roll strategy'' is created by
entering into two separate positions simultaneously. One position
involves buying a put and selling a call with the same strike price
and expiration. The second position involves selling a put and
buying a call, with the same strike price, but with a different
expiration from the first position. A ``box spread strategy'' is a
strategy that synthesizes long and short stock positions to create a
profit. Specifically, a long call and short put at one strike is
combined with a short call and long put at a different strike to
create synthetic long and synthetic short stock positions,
respectively. These definitions are identical to the terms defined
in the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') Fee Schedule;
NYSE American Options Fee Schedule ``(``NYSE'') and Phlx Pricing
Schedule (``PHLX''), Strategy Caps on Multiply Listed Options Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the above changes is to increase order flow to
certain strategy QOO Orders on the BOX Trading Floor, which will
benefit all market participants. The Exchange notes that these changes
will apply equally to all Participants, regardless of Participant type
or the size of the Participant.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes raising the fee cap to $1,000 for reversal,
conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategies executed on the same
trading day is reasonable and appropriate. The fee cap is designed to
incentivize order flow in certain QOO Strategy Orders, and the Exchange
believes that the increased fee cap, coupled with the other changes
discussed herein, will result in increased participation in these types
of orders on the BOX Trading Floor. As such, the Exchange believes that
increased participation on the Trading Floor will result in increased
liquidity on the BOX Floor which will benefit all market participants.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee cap is not
unfairly discriminatory as all Participants are subject to the cap,
regardless of account type.
    The Exchange believes that subjecting all strategies, regardless of
option class, to the proposed $1,000 daily fee cap is reasonable and
appropriate. As stated above, the Strategy QOO Fee Cap is designed to
incentivize order flow to the BOX Trading Floor. The Exchange believes
that removing the ``same options class'' qualification will further
result in increased participation and order flow in these types of
orders. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will
result in increased liquidity on BOX which will benefit all market
participants. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all Participants,
regardless of account type.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that eliminating the monthly cap of
$25,000 per Participant is appropriate. The Exchange notes that once
Participants are subject to the proposed daily fee cap of $1,000
regardless of option class, the current monthly fee cap of $25,000 is
not necessary. For example, in the month of March, if a Participant
traded the applicable strategies to achieve the proposed $1,000 daily
fee cap on each trading day, the Participant would only be charged
$21,000 total (21 trading days in March multiplied by the proposed
$1,000 fee cap) and could never reach the $25,000 cap. As such, the
Exchange believes that the $25,000 monthly fee cap for combined
strategies is unnecessary and proposes to remove the monthly fee cap
from the BOX Fee Schedule.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change burdens competition and will instead help
promote competition by continuing to provide incentives for market
participants to submit strategy orders to the BOX Trading Floor.
Further, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will
impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all Floor
Participants are subject to the proposed changes, regardless of account
type.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-11, and should be submitted on
or before May 7, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07810 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P