[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40813-40824]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0176; FRL-8693-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Greene County 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan
and 2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Greene County 8-hour ozone nonattainment
Area (referred to also as the ``Greene County Area'' or ``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 the Greene County Area. In conjunction with
its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan for the Greene County Area that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Greene County Area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the
8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that
the Greene County Area has met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also submitted a 2002 base-year
inventory for the Greene County Area,

and EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Area as a SIP
revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Greene County Area
for purposes of transportation conformity, and is proposing to approve
those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request,
the maintenance plan, and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0176 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0606, Cristina Fernandez, 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-
2007-0176. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<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 Clean Air Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and
Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Greene County Area Plan
Adequate and Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Are the Clean Air Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?

    On January 25, 2007, the PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Greene County Area from nonattainment to attainment of
the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a
maintenance plan for the Greene County Area as a SIP revision to ensure
continued attainment in the Area over the next 10 years. PADEP also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Greene County Area as a
SIP revision. On May 23, 2008, PADEP submitted a revision to the
January 25, 2007 submittal to include an alternate methodology used to
project the 2009 and 2018 nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions
from stationary point sources. In addition, NOX emission
projections from the January 25, 2007 submittal were changed to reflect
the new methodology submitted in the May 23, 2008 revision.
    Greene County is currently designated a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that the Greene
County Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the
requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request
to change the designation of the Greene County Area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the Greene County maintenance plan as a SIP revision for the
Area (such approval being one of the Act criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to ensure
continued attainment in the Greene County Area for the next 10 years.
EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the
Greene County Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing
its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the
Greene County maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs
identified for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for the Area 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 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic
Compounds (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 standard is more stringent than
the previous 1-hour standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any
area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air

quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most
recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The
Greene County Area was designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of
the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to
revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Greene County Area (as well as
most other areas of the country), effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR
50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 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)
(hereafter ``South Coast''). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, 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
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; and (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. In addition, the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's
reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes 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, which is already required under EPA's
conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The Greene
County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
part D of the Clean Air Act and has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) of the Act'', EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in
South Coast is not an impediment to redesignating the Greene County
Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The CAA, title I, part D, contains two sets of provisions--subpart
1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. In
2004, the Greene County Area was classified a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.
Therefore, the Area is subject to the requirements of subpart 1 of part
D.
    Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Greene County Area has a design
value of 0.081 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete,
quality-assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Greene
County Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B. The Greene County Area

    Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Greene County Area was an incomplete data 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
    On January 25, 2007, the PADEP requested that the Greene County
Area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been achieved in the Area. The data satisfies the CAA
requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the
area's design value), must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment
area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data
is available to determine that the area attained the standard and the
area meets the redesignation requirements set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

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) allows for
redesignation, providing that:
    (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
    (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k);
    (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
    (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
    (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR
13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070).
EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests
in the following documents:

     ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
     ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
     ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
     ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
     ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on
or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
     Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and
CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated November 30, 1993;
     ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
     ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10,
1995.

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    On January 25, 2007, the PADEP requested redesignation of the
Greene County Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
Simultaneously, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Greene
County Area as a SIP revision, to ensure continued attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS over the next 10 years, until 2018. PADEP also
submitted a 2002 base-year inventory concurrently with its maintenance
plan as a SIP revision. PADEP also submitted a revision to the January
25, 2007, submittal on May 23, 2008, to include alternate methodology
used to project the 2009 and 2018 emissions amounts from stationary
point sources. In addition, NOX emission projections from
the January 25, 2007, submittal were changed to reflect the new
methodology submitted in the May 23, 2008, revision. EPA has determined
that the Greene County Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and
has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E).

V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

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

   Table 1.--Greene County Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per
                            Summer Day (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            VOC         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................................         2.1         3.6
2009............................................         1.6         2.6
2018............................................         1.0         1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Greene County Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation
criteria have been met. The following is a description of how the
PADEP's January 25, 2007, submittal with the May 23, 2008, revision
satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

A. The Greene County Area Has Attained the 8-Hour NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Greene County Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of Part 50,
based on three complete, 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 the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of
the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
    In the Greene County Area, there is one monitor that measures air
quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request,
Pennsylvania referenced ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005
(the most recent 3 years of data available as of the time of the
redesignation request) for the Greene County Area. This data has been
quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. The PADEP uses the AQS as
the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the
data transfers and content for accuracy. The fourth-high 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations for the period from 2003-2005, along with the
three-year average, are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.--Greene County Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average
            Values; Greene County Monitor, AQS ID 42-059-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual 4th high
                         Year                            reading (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................              0.083
2004.................................................              0.075
2005.................................................              0.085
2006.................................................              0.077
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 0.079 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data for 2003-2005 shows that the Greene County
Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.081 ppm. The
data collected at the Greene County Area monitor satisfies the Act
requirement that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is below the maximum design
value of 0.085 ppm. The PADEP's request for redesignation for the
Greene County Area indicates that the data is complete and was quality
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In addition, as discussed
below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to
continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA
has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken
from AQS indicate that the Greene County Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

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

    EPA has determined that the Greene County Area has met all SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under
section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all
applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully approvable with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations,
EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Greene County
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
Clean Air Act requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the
Act that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is
approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation.
Section 175A(c) of the Act. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). See also, 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis).
    This section 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 CAA 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 includes enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to
enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set
forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to the
following:
     Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State
after reasonable public notice and hearing;
     Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
     Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD);
     Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit programs;
     Provisions for air pollution modeling; and
     Provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call, October
27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX SIP Call, May
14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that these requirements are
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    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 Greene County Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. The section 110 and Part D
requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See

also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65
FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR
at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the
NOX SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOX SIP Call
rules are not ``an'' `applicable requirement' for purposes of section
110(1) because the NOX rules apply regardless of an area's
attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour)
NAAQS.'' 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).
    EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for
the Greene County Area prior to submission of the redesignation
request.
2. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour and 8-Hour
Standards
    The Greene County Area was designated a basic nonattainment area
for the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in
subpart 1 of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for
all nonattainment areas. As discussed previously, because the Greene
County Area was designated incomplete data/ nonattainment under the 1-
hour standard, there are no outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area
requirements it would be required to meet. Thus, we find that the
Court's ruling does not result in any additional 1-hour requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA notes that the Court's
ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for
the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency.
Consequently, it is possible that this area could, during a remand to
EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by
EPA to classify this under subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that
redesignation of the area cannot now go forward. This belief is based
upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating 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.
    At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Greene
County Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004)
(which upheld this interpretation); 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit 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 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 plan 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 resedignation
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at
the time it submitted its redesignation request.
    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, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request for the Greene County Area. Because the
Commonwealth submitted a complete redesignation request for the Greene
County Area prior to the deadline for any submissions required under
the 8-hour standard, we have determined that the Part D requirements do
not apply to the Greene County Area for the purposes of redesignation.
    In addition to the fact that no Part D requirements applicable
under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity and NSR requirements of Part D 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 Greene County Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Greene County Area need not comply with
the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation.
Additionally, Pennsylvania's preconstruction permitting program
regulations in Chapter 127.200-217 of the Pennsylvania Code (approved
into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)), apply only to ozone nonattainment
area sources that are located in areas classified as marginal or worse,
i.e., to subpart 2 nonattainment areas. Pennsylvania's NSR regulations
do not apply to sources in nonattainment areas classified as basic
nonattainment under subpart 1. Consequently, sources in the Greene
County Area are subject to Part D NSR requirements of Appendix S to 40
CFR part 51, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k). Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51
contains the preconstruction permitting program that applies to major
stationary

sources in nonattainment areas lacking an approved Part D NSR program.
Appendix S applies during the interim period after EPA designates an
area as nonattainment, but before EPA approves revisions to a SIP to
implement the Part D NSR requirements for that pollutant. See, 70 FR
71618 (November 29, 2005). The Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations in
the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply to attainment areas within the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR). See, Chapter 127 in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1);
See, 66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001. Therefore, after the Greene County
Area is redesignated to attainment, sources in the Greene County Area
will be subject to Part D NSR applicable under the permitting
regulations in Chapter 127, because the Greene County Area is located
in the OTR.
    All areas in the 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, and Stage II vapor
recovery or a comparable measure.
    In the case of Greene County Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation.
On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved the 1-hour
Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the Greene County Area. The
Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly
apply the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment
areas within the OTR.
3. The Greene County Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of
Redesignation
    EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request. 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 Greene County Area was a 1-hour incomplete data nonattainment
area at the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). Because the Greene
County Area was a 1-hour incomplete data nonattainment area, there are
no previous Part D SIP submittal requirements. Also, 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 purpose of redesignation of
the Greene County Area the applicable implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements. As indicated previously, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also
believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for the purpose
of redesignation have yet become due for the Greene County Area, and
therefore they need not be approved in to the SIP prior to
redesignation.

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

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

              Table 3.--Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Summer Day (tpsd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                     Point           Area           Mobile          Nonroad          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatiles Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................             1.9             1.9             2.4             1.3             7.5
2004............................             1.9             1.9             2.1             1.2             7.1
Difference (02-04)..............             0.0             0.0            -0.3            -0.1            -0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................            64.0             0.2             4.1             4.7            72.9
2004............................            53.7             0.2             3.6             4.5            62.0
Difference (02-04)..............           -10.3             0.0            -0.5            -0.2           -10.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not add due to rounding.

    Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 0.4 tpsd from 7.5
tpsd to 7.1 tpsd. During the same period, NOX emissions
decreased by 10.9 tpsd from 72.9 tpsd to 62.0 tpsd. 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 Greene
County Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. These
reductions, as well as anticipated future reductions, are due to the
following permanent and enforceable measures.
 1. Stationary Point Sources
    NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).
 2. Stationary Area Sources
    Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003).
    Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004).
 3. Highway Vehicle Sources
    Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP):

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

    Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21,
1997, and 65FR59896, October 6, 2000).
    National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (64 FR 72564, December
28, 1999).
    Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program in non-I/M Counties
(70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005).
 4. Non-Road Sources
    Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).

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

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Greene County
ozone nonattainment area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a
SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the Area for at least 10 years after redesignation. The Commonwealth is
requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the
requirement of Clean Air Act section 175A. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP
for the Greene County Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding
maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard.
What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
    Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the Commonwealth must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
    (a) An attainment emissions inventory;
    (b) a maintenance demonstration;
    (c) a monitoring network;
    (d) verification of continued attainment; and
    (e) a contingency plan.
Analysis of the Greene County Area Maintenance Plan
    (a) Attainment inventory--An attainment inventory includes the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment
inventory year is 2004. That year establishes a reasonable year within
the three-year block of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for
reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to
date. The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is based
on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOC and NOX
during 2004 and consists of a list of sources and their associated
emissions.
    (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 Greene
County Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by
vehicle type and roadway type.
    (iv) Mobile nonroad emissions--The 2004 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
2004 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion
factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in the Greene
County Area. For 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions
using small aircraft operation statistics from http://www.airnav.com,
and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-
approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
    More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004,
2009, and 2018 inventories can found in the Technical Appendices, which
are part of the January 25, 2007 state submittal and the revision
submitted on May 23, 2008.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration--On January 25, 2007, the PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA.
The Greene County Area maintenance plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC
and NOX remain at or below the attainment inventory year
2004 emissions levels throughout the Area through the year 2018. A
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v.
EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100;
68 FR at 25430-32.
    Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the
Greene County Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an
interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate
that the VOC and NOX emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance
period. The values in Table 5 reflect the alternative methodology
submitted in the May 23, 2008 submittal.

                               Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Source category                               2004            2009            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................             1.9             1.9             2.2
Area............................................................             1.9             1.7             1.7
Mobile..........................................................             2.1             1.6             1.0
Nonroad.........................................................             1.2             1.0             0.8
    Total.......................................................             7.1             6.1             5.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Source category                               2004            2009            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................            53.7            21.0            23.0
Area............................................................             0.2             0.2             0.2
Mobile..........................................................             3.6             2.6             1.3
Nonroad.........................................................             4.5             4.1             3.6
    Total.......................................................            62.0            27.9            28.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the following programs are either effective or due to
become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
     The Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (71 FR 25328, April
28, 2006).
     The NOX SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21,
2001).
     Portable Fuel Containers Rule (69 FR 70893, December 8,
2004)
     Consumer Products Rule (69 FR 70895, December 8, 2004)
     Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
(69 FR 68080, November 23, 2004).
     Federal Light-duty Highway Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP)-Tier 1/Tier 2 Emissions Standards (Model Year 1994/2004); Tier
1--(56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991), Tier 2--(65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000).
     Federal Heavy-duty Diesel Highway Engine Standards (Model
Year 2004/2007)/Low-Sulfur Highway Diesel Fuel Standards (2006); (66 FR
5002, January 18, 2001).
     Federal Nonroad Engine Emission Standards (Model Year
2008) and Nonroad Diesel Fuel 2007); (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
     NLEV/PA Clean Vehicle Program (54 FR 72564, December 28,
1999).
     PA Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Program (70
FR 58313, October 6, 2005).
     Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program for Non-I/M
Counties (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005).
    Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA
concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour
ozone standard should be maintained in the Greene County Area.
    (c) Monitoring Network--There is one ozone monitor that provided
monitoring data to support of the Commonwealth's ozone maintenance plan
for the Greene County Area. The Commonwealth has committed to continue
to operate its monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58,
with no reduction in the number of sites.
    (d) Verification of Continued Attainment--In addition to
maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program, the
Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the
Area by reviewing air quality and emissions data during the maintenance
period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of VMT data
and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the
assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A) to see if they exceed the
attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent. The PADEP
will also continue to operate the existing ozone monitoring station in
the Area pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance period
and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS system.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA states that eight years following
redesignation of the Greene County Area, PADEP will be required to
submit a second maintenance plan that will ensure attainment through
2028. PADEP has made that commitment to meet the requirement section
175A(b).
    (e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance
plan should identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    The ability of the Greene County Area to stay in compliance with
the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and
NOX emissions in the Area remaining at or below 2004 levels.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX
emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur.
    Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive
years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration at the Greene
County Area monitor is above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the
Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control
measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the
air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions leading to
the excessive ozone levels and evaluate which measures might be most
effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state and local
measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the
excessive

ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures.
    Contingency measures will also be considered in the event that a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Greene County Area
monitor. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard,
PADEP will adopt additional emissions reduction measures as
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the implementation
schedule listed later in this notice and in the Pennsylvania Air
Pollution Control Act in order to return the Area to attainment with
the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for the Greene
County Area will include, but not be limited to the following:
    Regulatory measures:

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

    Non-Regulatory measures:

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

    The plan sets forth a process to have regulatory contingency
measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays
out a process to implement non-regulatory contingency measures within
12-24 months of the trigger.

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

A. What are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These
control strategy SIPs (i.e., reasonable further progress SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and
establish MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors
to address pollution from on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance
plan, the MVEBs are termed ``on-road mobile source emission budgets.''
Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an
ozone maintenance plan. An MVEB is the portion of the total allowable
emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. An MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule
(58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish and revise
the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of a State's air quality plan that addresses
pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable
progress towards the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not
``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and ensuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, the 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
Act. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    The MVEBs for the Greene County Area are listed in Table 6 for 2009
and 2018. Table 6 presents the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). These emission
budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation
conformity determinations.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which
the area met the NAAQS. The following example is for the 2018 safety
margin: the Greene County Area attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during
the 2003 to 2005 time period. The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to
determine attainment levels of emissions for the Greene County Area.
The sum total emissions for 2004 for point, area, mobile on-road, and
mobile non-road sources for the Area are 7.1 tpsd of VOC and 62.0 tpsd
of NOX. The PADEP projected that total emissions for the
year 2018 will be 5.6 tpsd of VOC and 28.1 tpsd of NOX from
all sources in the Area. The Area-wide safety margin for 2018 would be
the difference between these amounts, or 1.5 tpsd of VOC and 33.9 tpsd
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.--Safety Margins for Greene County Area (2009 & 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      VOC emissions      NOX emissions
          Inventory year                  (tpsd)             (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment...................                7.1               62.0
2009 Interim......................                6.1               27.9
2009 Safety Margin................                1.0               34.1
2004 Attainment...................                7.1               62.0
2018 Final........................                5.6               28.1
2018 Safety Margin................                1.5               33.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Greene County Area are approvable
because the MVEBs for VOCs and NOX 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 MVEBs in the
Maintenance Plan?

    The MVEBs for the Greene County Area maintenance plan are being
posted to EPA's conformity Web site concurrently with this proposal.
The public comment period will end at the same time as the public
comment period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
concurrently processing 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 EPA is proposing to approve
the MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for
transportation conformity until the maintenance plan 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 Area's 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 Greene County
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm (from there, click
on ``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Greene County Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation
request and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the
redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of the Greene County
Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for
the Area, submitted on January 25, 2007, as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for
the Greene County Area because it meets the requirements of section
175A as described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Greene County Area,
submitted by PADEP on January 25, 2007, along with the revision
submitted on May 23, 2008 to include new methodology used to project
the 2009 and 2018 emissions amounts from stationary point sources.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by
Pennsylvania for the Greene County Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to
avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it

approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Tioga 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.).
    This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of the Greene
County Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated
maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs
identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-16278 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 61794-61795]
[DOCID:fr26oc05-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-39-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

October 20, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 17, 2005, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective
December 1, 2005:

Thirty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 11A
Third Revised Sheet No. 230C

    CIG states that these tariff sheets propose to establish a no-fuel
wheeling area located in the western portion of CIG's system.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the

``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5925 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 2_

Project Name: Petroleum Refining Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 10/ 22/ 2003 Time: 2 PM Company Name: U. S. EPA, Region 6, Dallas, TX Contact Name: Scott Wilson Phone No.: 214 665 7511 Name: Betsy Bicknell Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Issues TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN EAD described Scott Wilson, EPA Region 6, as experienced in writing and reviewing NPDES permits for petroleum refineries. I called Mr. Wilson and discussed the following issues.

Dioxins: Although EPA studied dioxin releases at refineries 10 years ago, Mr. Wilson has never seen a refinery permit with limits for dioxins. He was not aware of any refinery that employed dioxin control technology and doubted if any refinery had in process controls ( because they have no permit limits for dioxin).

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds ( PACs): Mr. Wilson said that he did not know if states had water quality standards for any of the PACs  perhaps benzo( a) pyrene. Some refinery permits have some limits for some PACs. It was Mr. Wilson's impression that the current guidelines are so old they did not thoroughly cover toxic pollutants. Mr. Wilson noted that the coke refinery at Corpus Christie, TX had some toxicity problems. He did not know if they were associated with PAC releases.

Metals. Mr. Wilson noted that selenium presents a hazard to sheep and cattle, so selenium controls may be important where wastewater is applied to grazing lands. The Houston Ship Channel has a TMDL for nickel, so refineries that discharge to it would face permit limits for nickel. Mr. Wilson wrote a permit for the Conoco refinery in Lake Charles, LA that included some metals limits ( zinc and nickel). His recollection was that the refinery improved its solids removal by adding flocculant to existing clarifiers and was able to meet the limits. Mr. Wilson didn't know of any water quality standards for vanadium, but thought that New Mexico might limit its release to POTWs.

Concerns with Existing Guidelines: Mr. Wilson feels that the limits in the existing petroleum refining effluent guidelines are too loose. For many refineries, the guidelines based permit limits are 3 to 4 times greater than the refineries actual discharges.

Stormwater and runoff: One refinery tried to combine process and stormwarter for treatment and found the treatment system overflowed during wet periods. Mr. Wilson felt that commingling un contaminated or lightly ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: contaminated stormwater runoff with more highly contaminated process wastewater led to dilution and inefficient treatment of process wastewater.

Vendors: Mr. Wilson had no suggestions for wastewater treatment equipment vendors that focus on the petroleum refining industry.