[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 202 (Friday, October 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59213-59216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20567]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344; FRL-8484-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Mercer County Portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base
Year Inventory
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the
Mercer County portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (``Youngstown Area'' or ``Area'') be
redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of Mercer County, Pennsylvania
and Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. EPA is approving
the ozone redesignation request for Mercer County. In a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 32190, June 12, 2007) EPA approved the ozone
redesignation request for Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Mercer County that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour
maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for
Mercer County which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the Mercer County maintenance plan for purposes
of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is
approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the
2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 19,
2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection 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 Environment
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41246), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for Mercer County that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on March 27, 2007. Other
specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request SIP
revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed
actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the NPR.
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). 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 D. C. 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 CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour
attainment dates and
[[Page 59214]]
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 CAA, 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 MVEBs 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.
For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from 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.
In its proposal, EPA proposed to find that the area had satisfied
the requirements under the 1-hour standard whether the 1-hour standard
was deemed to be reinstated or whether the Court's decision on the
petition for rehearing were modified to require something less than
compliance with all applicable 1-hour requirements. Because EPA
proposed to find that the area satisfied the requirements under either
scenario, EPA is proceeding to finalize the redesignation and to
conclude that the area met the requirements under the 1-hour standard
applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.
These include the provisions of EPA's anti-backsliding rules, as well
as the additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court
in its rulings. In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its
vacatur so as to uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding
requirements that were not successfully challenged. Therefore, EPA
finds that the area has met the anti-backsliding requirements, see 40
CFR 51.900 et seq.; 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by
virtue of the area's classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well
as the four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the
Court, or that such requirements are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, with respect to the requirement for
transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its
June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-
backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-
hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To
meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity
regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. The court clarified that 1-hour
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on
March 27, 2007 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 Mercer
County has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of
this redesignation request will change the designation of Mercer County
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for Mercer County submitted on March 27,
2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is also approving the
MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its redesignation request.
In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory
submitted by PADEP on March 27, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the MVEBs for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in Mercer County for the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes.\1\
As a result of our finding, Mercer County must use the MVEBs from the
submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the
following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA found the MVEBs for Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio adequate in a Notice of Adequacy on April 18, 2007
(72 FR 19491).
Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Summer
Day (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.................................................. 4.2 11.2
2018.................................................. 2.6 4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer County is subject to the CAA's requirement for the basic
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 rule also does not
[[Page 59215]]
have tribal implications because it will 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).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not 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).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, approving the redesignation of Mercer County to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.
Dated: October 10, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry to the end of the table to read as follows:
52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and Mercer County...... 03/27/07 10/19/07 [Insert
2002 Base Year Emissions page number where
Inventory. the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.339, the table entitled ``Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Youngstown-Warren-
Sharon, OH-PA: Mercer County to read as follows:
Sec. 81.339 Pennsylvania.
* * * * *
Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designationa Category/Classification
Designated Area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59216]]
* * * * * * *
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA
Area:
Mercer County.............. 11/19/07 Attainment
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-20567 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P