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

[Federal Register: May 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29901-29914]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30my07-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0175; FRL-8319-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Reading, Berks County,
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (Reading 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 Reading Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Reading
Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for at least 10 years after redesignation and that amends the existing
1-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Reading Area. EPA is proposing to
make a determination that the Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading
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
Reading Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, which EPA is also proposing to approve.

[[Page 29902]]

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 June 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0175 by one of the following methods:
A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: miller.linda@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0175, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0175. 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, (215) 814-2179, or
by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?

On January 25, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Reading Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-
hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, on January 25, 2007, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the Reading Area as a SIP revision to
ensure continued attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation and continued attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
until 2018. PADEP submitted a supplement to the technical support for
the maintenance plan on April 12, 2007. (Hereafter, when we say the
maintenance plan was submitted on January 25, 2007 we mean that it
submitted on January 25, 2007, with a supplement submitted on April 12,
2007.) PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory as a SIP
revision on January 25, 2007. The Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
also proposing to approve the Reading 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 Reading Area for the next ten years. EPA is
also proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory for the Reading
Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on
the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Reading Area
maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO_X)
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 NO_X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO_X 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
Reading 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

[[Page 29903]]

issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Reading Area (as well as most other areas of the country)
effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30,
2004); and see 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).
However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006)
(hereafter ``South Coast.''). The Court held that certain provisions of
EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to
be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act,
on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity requirements for certain types of
federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour
standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI. B. ``The Reading Area
Has Met All Applicable Requirements under Section 110 and Part D of the
CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,'' EPA
discusses its rationale why the decision in South Coast is not an
impediment to redesignating the Reading 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, Reading Area was
designated a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based upon air
quality monitoring data from 2001-2003, and therefore, is subject to
the requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.
Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). See 69 FR
23857, (April 30, 2004) for further information. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements. The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The ozone
monitoring data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 indicates that the
Reading Area has a design value of 0.080 ppm. Therefore, the ambient
ozone data for the Reading Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour
ozone standard.

B. The Reading Area

The Reading Area consists solely of Berks County, Pennsylvania and
was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in an April
30, 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 23857). Prior to its designation as an 8-
hour basic ozone nonattainment area, the Reading Area was designated an
incomplete data nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard. See 56 FR
56694 at 56822, November 6, 1991. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, the Reading 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 May 7, 1997
(62 FR 24826), EPA approved a request to redesignate the Reading area
to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance
plan SIP revision.
On January 25, 2007, PADEP requested that the Reading 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 Reading 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,

[[Page 29904]]

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 January 25, 2007, PADEP requested redesignation of the Reading
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On January 25, 2007,
PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Reading Area as a SIP
revision to assure continued attainment at least 10 years after
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading
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 NO_X and VOC for
transportation conformity purposes for the years 2004, 2009 and 2018.
These motor vehicle emissions (2004) and MVEBs (2009 and 2018) are
displayed in the following table:

Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons Per Day
[Rounded to one decimal place]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.............................................. 13.1 21.3
2018.............................................. 7.5 9.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

EPA is proposing to determine that Reading 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 January 25, 2007,
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

A. The Reading Area Has Attained the Ozone NAAQS

In the Reading Area, there is one monitor that measures air quality
with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request,
Pennsylvania submitted ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005
(the most recent three years of data available as of the time of the
redesignation request) for the Reading Area. This data has been quality
assured and is recorded in AQS.
Based upon this data, EPA is proposing to determine that the
Reading 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 2A.

Table 2A.--Reading Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone
Values; UGI Co Mongantown Rd and Prospect St Reading Berks Co, AQS ID 42-
011-0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th
Year high reading
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................... 0.080
2004.................................................... 0.076
2005.................................................... 0.085
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.080 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Reading Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.080 ppm. The data
collected at the Reading 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 Reading 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. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid that after review
of the quality assured 2006 data because the design value for 2004-2006
would be 0.079 ppm. In summary, EPA has determined that the data
submitted by Pennsylvania and

[[Page 29905]]

taken from AQS indicates that Reading Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
Based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005, EPA
believes that the Reading Area is still in attainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. For the 1-hour ozone standard, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H of part 50,
based on three complete and consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data. Compliance is determined on a
monitor-by-monitor basis within the area. To demonstrate attainment,
i.e., compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number
of expected exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a 3-year period
must be less than or equal to 1. (To account for missing data,
adjustment of the actual number of monitored exceedances of the
standard yields the annual expected number of exceedances at an air
quality monitoring site.) Table 2B provides a summary of the number of
expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005 and three-
year annual average.

Table 2B.--Reading Nonattainment Area Number of Expected Exceedances of
the 1-Hour Ozone Standard; UGI Co Mongantown Rd and Prospect St Reading
Berks Co, AQS ID 42-011-0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Year expected
exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................... 1.0
2004.................................................... 0.0
2005.................................................... 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 29906]]

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 Reading 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 NO_X
SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO_X SIP Call rules are not ``an
`applicable requirement' for purposes of section 110(l) because the
NO_X 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 Reading 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 redesignation 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 Reading
Area is June 15, 2007.
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling 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
Reading Area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. See September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation; 68 FR 25418, at 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, see Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here
it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purposes
of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 that were
not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
With respect to subpart 2 requirements, if the Reading Area
initially had been classified under subpart the first two part D
subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Reading 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 Reading 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
Reading 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

[[Page 29907]]

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 Reading Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Reading 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 12467-68); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio
(61 FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834-37,
June 21, 1996). In the case of the Reading Area, the Chapter 127 Part D
NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184
of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the OTR. The OTR NSR
requirements are more stringent than that required for a subpart 1/
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094),
EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting
of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the
Reading Area.
EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of
redesignation. The rational for this is based on two factors. First,
the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184
requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation
to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as
well as RACT, even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control
measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Reading
Area by virtue of the area's designation and classification. Rather,
section 184 measures are required in the Reading Area because it is
located in the OTR. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and
62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).
3. Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
As stated previously in this document, on May 7, 1997 (62 FR
24826), EPA approved a request to redesignate the Reading Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan
SIP revision. In order to redesignate the area to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard, EPA determined that Pennsylvania had fulfilled all
Part D requirements applicable to the Reading Area as a consequence of
its classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment. See Reading final
(62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997) and proposed rules (61 FR 53174, October 10,
1996).
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard, the
Reading Area was an attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section
175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling in
South Coast does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas.
First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for
redesignation requests, including the requirement to submit a
transportation conformity SIP.\1\ As we have previously stated in this
document, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating
a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See 40 CFR
51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly
retained, the Reading Area is an attainment area subject to a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency
measure (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,
and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of the
Reading Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will be
applicable after redesignation. 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
Reading 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.

[[Page 29908]]

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements,
including NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
See 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997
(Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation). The rationale for this is based
on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions
for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR
after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains
obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, and I/M even after
redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the area by virtue of the area's
nonattainment designation and classification, and thus are properly
considered not relevant to an action changing an area's designation.
See 61 FR 53174 at 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at
24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).
5. The Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading 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................................................ 4.7 21.8 8.4 20.1 55.0
Year 2004................................................ 4.7 21.7 8.1 17.0 51.5
Diff. (02-04)............................................ 0.0 0.1 0.3 3.1 3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2002................................................ 14.5 2.1 10.9 34.1 61.6
Year 2004................................................ 16.0 2.1 10.3 29.8 58.2
Difference (02-04)....................................... -1.5 0.0 0.6 4.3 3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 3.5 tpd, and
NO_X emissions were reduced by 3.3 tpd, due to the following
permanent and enforceable measures implemented in the Reading 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 Safety Inspection Program (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)

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 Reading Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Reading Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Pennsylvania submitted for
approval under section 175A of the CAA the January 25, 2007,
maintenance plan to fulfill section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour
standard as well as the section 175A(b) requirement for a 1-hour
maintenance plan. Pennsylvania submitted this SIP revision to provide
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Reading Area for at
least 10 years after redesignation and for continued maintenance of the
1-hour NAAQS until 2018 which is a total of 21 years after the area was
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the
Reading Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of
the applicable ozone standards including the 8-hour standard.

[[Page 29909]]

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. That is, the maintenance demonstration under section 175A(b)
must ensure maintenance for a total of 20 years after redesignation to
attainment. For the Reading Area the total demonstrated period of
maintenance for the 1-hour NAAQS under section 175A(b) would be until
2017 which is 20 years after the area's redesignation to attainment in
1997. 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 Reading 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 Reading
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. These 2004 levels of emissions are
representative of attainment of both the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NO_X emissions
inventories for the Reading Area, including point, area, mobile on-
road, and mobile non-road sources for a base year of 2002.
To develop the NO_X 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 Reading
Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2
and PENNDOT estimates of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle type
and roadway type.
(iv) Mobile nonroad emissions--The 2002 emissions for the majority
of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel,
gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-
fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD
model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives. For
2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey
using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion
factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in the Reading
Area. For 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small
aircraft operation statistics from http://www.airnav.com,
and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved
model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
The 2004 attainment year VOC and NO_X emissions for the
Reading 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 NO_X emissions for this area.
(b) Maintenance Demonstration--On January 25, 2007, PADEP submitted
a SIP revision to supplement its January 25, 2007, redesignation
request. The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the CAA. The Reading Area plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that
current and future emissions of VOC and NO_X remain at or
below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Reading
Area through the year 2018. The Reading Area maintenance demonstration
need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v.
EPA, supra. See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32.
Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NO_X emissions for the
Reading 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 NO_X emissions are not projected to increase
above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the 10-year
maintenance period.

[[Page 29910]]

Table 4.--Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 VOC 2009 VOC 2018 VOC
Source category emissions emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile*.......................... 17.0 13.1 7.5
Nonroad.......................... 8.1 6.7 5.6
Area............................. 21.7 21.6 24.0
Point............................ 4.7 3.4 4.3
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 51.5 44.8 41.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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*.......................... 29.8 21.3 9.0
Nonroad.......................... 10.3 8.4 5.4
Area............................. 2.1 2.2 2.3
Point............................ 16.0 16.8 19.2
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 58.2 48.7 35.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

The following are permanent and enforceable control measures to
ensure emissions during the maintenance period are equal to or less
than the emissions in the attainment year:
(1) Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69
FR 70893);
(2) Pennsylvania's Consumer Products ( December 8, 2004, 69 FR
70895); and
(3) Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080).
Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or
due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
(1) FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner
gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)--Tier 1 and Tier 2;
(2) NLEV Program, which includes the Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle
Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks (69 FR 72564,
December 28, 1999);
(3) Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road
(2006) (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); and
(4) Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel
(2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
(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,
which will have a beneficial effect on the air quality in the Reading 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
NO_X and sulfur dioxides that contribute significantly to
nonattainment and maintenance 8-hour ozone and PM_2.5 NAAQS.
Because Pennsylvania will not adopt its own CAIR requirements and
obtain approval of the required SIP revision by September 2006, the FIP
will become operative, imposing the Federal program upon CAIR-affected
electric generating units in Pennsylvania. Therefore, allowances for
CAIR-related sources will be limited to no more than the allowances
issued pursuant to the FIP but may purchase additional allowances under
the cap-and-trade rule in the FIP. The Reading Area has one source that
is directly regulated by CAIR. For the maintenance demonstration,
Pennsylvania did not rely upon any reductions from CAIR at this
facility. 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 Reading Area.
(c) Monitoring Network--There is currently one monitor measuring
ozone in the Reading Area. Pennsylvania will continue to operate its
current air quality monitor in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued Attainment--The Commonwealth will
track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Reading Area by
reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period. The
Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key factors, VMT
data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them
to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan.
The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51 Subpart A) to see if the area exceed
the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent. Based on
these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further
emission control measures should be implemented.
(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures--The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and

[[Page 29911]]

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 Reading Area to stay in compliance with the 8-
hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and
NO_X emissions in the area remaining at or below 2004 levels.
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO_X
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 Reading
Area monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the
Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control
measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the
air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the
excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most
effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also
analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state and local
measure that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time
excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures.
Contingency measures will be considered in the event that a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at any monitor in the
Reading 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 Reading Area will include, but not limited to the following:
Regulatory measures:

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

Non-regulatory measures:

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

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

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

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

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

(f) Revisions to the 1-Hour Maintenance Plan.
In addition to demonstrating continued maintenance until 2018, the
January 25, 2007, maintenance plan also amends the February 3, 1997,
maintenance plan in the approved SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(e)(1) for the
Reading Area. Pennsylvania's January 25, 2007 maintenance plan SIP
revision for the Reading Area amends the approved 1-hour maintenance
plan by removing I/M from the contingency plan. The contingency
measures in the February 3, 1997 maintenance plan would be replaced by
those in the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan. These contingency
measures would be implemented only in response to recorded exceedances
or violations of the 8-hour ozone standards and no longer tied to
exceedances or violations of the 1-hour ozone standard.
With regard to the first change, in December 2003, Pennsylvania
commenced implementation of an OTR enhanced I/M program in Berks
County. EPA believes that the actual implementation of the OTR enhanced
I/M program means that the contingency measure of a basic I/M program
is no longer available as a contingency. The maintenance demonstration
relies upon the OTR enhanced I/M program. EPA believes that the January
25, 2007 maintenance plan SIP revision has an

[[Page 29912]]

adequate suite of contingency measures. Therefore, for these reasons,
EPA believes that the contingency measures plan for the Reading Area
currently does not need to contain a basic I/M program since the OTR
enhanced program has been implemented.
With regard to removal of the 1-hour contingency measure triggers
from the maintenance plan, under 40 CFR 51.905(e) of the April 30,
2004, Phase 1 final rule, EPA may approve a SIP revision requesting the
removal of the obligation to implement contingency measures upon a
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when the State submits and EPA
approves an attainment demonstration for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for an
area initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS or a
maintenance SIP for the 8-hour NAAQS for an area initially designated
attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. EPA believes the rationale of
51.905(e) in relieving areas designated under the 8-hour standard of
their 1-hour maintenance plan triggers analogously applies to areas
that are being redesignated as attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to relieve the Reading Area of its
maintenance plan obligations with respect to implementing contingency
measures in the event of a violation of the 1-hour standard.
Furthermore, to the extent that 40 CFR 51.905(e) of the Phase 1 final
rule may be vacated by the South Coast decision, EPA believes there is
an alternate basis for allowing the Commonwealth to remove the 1-hour
triggers from the SIP-approved maintenance for the Reading Area. EPA
has determined that the 8-hour NAAQS provides increased public health
protection as compared to the 1-hour ozone standard. See 62 FR at 38859
(July 18, 1997). Because the 8-hour standard is more stringent than the
1-hour standard, a maintenance plan with triggers tied to the 8-hour
standard will be more protective of public health than a maintenance
plan with contingency measure triggers tied to the 1-hour standard.
This greater protectiveness of the 8-hour standard provides an
additional justification for removing the 1-hour triggers from the
maintenance plan.
(g) Summary of EPA's Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan.
EPA concludes that the January 25, 2007 maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA and the revisions to the 1-hour
maintenance plan otherwise meets the requirements of the CAA including
section 110(l) as it does not interfere with any applicable requirement
such as those concerning attainment, reasonable further progress
towards attainment or maintenance.

VII. Does the Maintenance Plan Establish and Identify Adequate and
Approvable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading Area.
The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 were 51.5 tpd of VOC and 58.2 tpd of
NO_X. PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and
obtained totals of 40.4 tpd of VOC and 35.3 tpd of NO_X from
all sources in the Reading Area. The safety margin for the Reading Area
for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts. This difference
is 11.1 tpd of VOC and 22.9 tpd of NO_X. 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

[[Page 29913]]

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 Reading Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions NOX emissions
Inventory year (tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment..................... 51.5 58.2
2009 Interim........................ 43.8 48.1
2009 Safety Margin.................. 7.7 10.1
2004 Attainment..................... 51.5 58.2
2018 Final.......................... 40.4 35.3
2018 Safety Margin.................. 11.1 22.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PADEP allocated 1.0 tpd VOC and 0.6 tpd NO_X to the 2009
interim VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and
the 2009 interim NO_X projected on-road mobile source
emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. For the 2018 MVEBs
the PADEP allocated 1.0 tpd VOC and 0.6 tpd NO_X from the
2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs. Once allocated to the
mobile source budgets these portions of the safety margins are no
longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source
category. Table 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for the Reading Area.

Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Reading Area Tons per Day
[Rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory year VOC emissions NOX emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source 12.1 20.7
projected emissions................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to 1.0 0.6
MVEBs..............................
2009 MVEBs.......................... 13.1 21.3
2018 projected on-road mobile source 6.5 8.4
projected emissions................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to 1.0 0.6
MVEBs..............................
2018 MVEBs.......................... 7.5 9.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Reading Area are approvable because
the MVEBs for NO_X 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
Reading Area Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
Commonwealth's January 25, 2007, request for the Reading 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 Reading 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
Reading Area, submitted on January 25, 2007, as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for
the Reading 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 Reading 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

[[Page 29914]]

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''
(66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not 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
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 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 Reading
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 dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: May 22, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-10356 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation