Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Pittsburgh Ozone Nonattainment Area

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA034-4014, PA035-4015; FRL-5465-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the

Pittsburgh Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving a

redesignation request for the Pittsburgh ozone nonattainment area and a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision consists of a maintenance plan for

the Pittsburgh ozone nonattainment area. The effect of this action is

to disapprove the redesignation request and its associated maintenance

plan because the area violated the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard for ozone (the ozone NAAQS) and additionally is not otherwise

eligible for redesignation. This action is being taken under sections

107 and 110 of the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on May 31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and

the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino, (215) 597-9337, at the

EPA Region III office, or via e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4598), EPA

published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania that proposed disapproval of the redesignation request and

maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment

area (the Pittsburgh area). The formal redesignation request was

submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on November 12, 1993. At

the same time, the Commonwealth submitted a maintenance plan for the

Pittsburgh area as a SIP revision. The Commonwealth subsequently

amended the maintenance plan on January 13, 1994 and, again, on May 12,

1995. During the 1995 ozone season, the Pittsburgh area violated the

ozone NAAQS, making the area ineligible for redesignation. Therefore,

EPA proposed to disapprove the redesignation request and its associated

maintenance plan.

Other specific details of the Commonwealth's redesignation request

and maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh area, and the rationale for

EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated

here. Both positive and adverse public comments were received on the

NPR. EPA received three comment letters in favor of the proposed

disapproval of the Pittsburgh area redesignation request and

maintenance plan. Two comment letters were opposed to the disapproval.

The following is a summary of the adverse comments received on the NPR,

and EPA's response to those comments.

Comment#1: Two commenters maintained that transport of ozone and

NOX is the primary cause of the violations in the Pittsburgh area.

The letters contained the following comments:

[[Page 19194]]

(1) ``Southwestern Pennsylvania's ozone is primarily due to

transported ozone and NOX from upwind states.''

(2) ``Despite the potential health and economic harm to residents

of southwestern Pennsylvania, EPA has failed to properly control

interstate transport of ozone and NOX into Pennsylvania.''

(3) ``EPA has failed to consider the effects of transport in

determining whether southwestern Pennsylvania has violated the NAAQS

for ozone and whether its maintenance plan is adequate.''

(4) ``Transport of ozone from outside Pennsylvania into the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was not considered.''

(5) ``Disapproval of southwestern Pennsylvania's attainment

application could worsen, rather than improve, the region's air

quality.'' The commenter asserted that, because the ozone in the

Pittsburgh area is due primarily to transport, additional emission

controls will not prevent exceedances, and may have little or no effect

on the area's ozone levels. Also, ``extraordinary measures'' would be

needed to prevent exceedances.

One commenter contends that ozone readings at monitoring points

near the West Virginia/Ohio/Pennsylvania border demonstrate a strong

correlation between the amount of ozone transported across the border

and the readings in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area. The commenter

claimed that imposition of additional emission controls in the

Pittsburgh area would further exacerbate the substantial economic

incentive in the neighboring states of Ohio and West Virginia, which

are not included in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and include areas

that have been granted redesignation to attainment and/or NOX

exemptions under section 182(f) of the Act.

EPA's Response: While Pennsylvania has made great strides in

improving the air quality in the Pittsburgh area, ozone remains a

problem. EPA believes that the Pittsburgh area generates substantial

emissions of VOC and NOX, which contribute significantly to the

nonattainment problem there. This was demonstrated in 1995, when

exceedances were recorded in Pittsburgh, and ozone concentrations at

the border and in all other western and central Pennsylvania areas were

below the standard.

On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 Clean Air Act were

enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-

7671q. The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was designated nonattainment

for ozone prior to enactment of the amended Act. The area retained its

designation of nonattainment under the amended Act, and was classified

as moderate on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). Despite being classified

as moderate since 1991, the Pittsburgh area has not fully adopted and

implemented all statutory requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment

areas, including automobile inspection and maintenance (I/M) and

reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all of its major

sources of VOC and NOX. Therefore, emissions in the Pittsburgh

area have not been reduced to the extent required by the Clean Air Act

for moderate nonattainment areas.

Disapproval of the redesignation request will not worsen the area's

air quality. In fact, the opposite is true. If the redesignation

request was approved, and the area was not required to address its air

quality problem by reducing its emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and

NOX), the area would continue to violate the ozone NAAQS whenever

meteorological conditions were favorable for ozone formation. However,

if the redesignation request is disapproved, and the area adopts and

implements all control measures required for moderate ozone

nonattainment areas, precursor emissions will be reduced and,

therefore, ozone concentrations in the area will be reduced.

Pennsylvania has made no demonstration that the ozone problem in

the Pittsburgh area is caused by transport from upwind sources. An

adequate technical demonstration, including emissions data and a

modeling analysis, must be provided to support any claim of transport-

dominated nonattainment.

Although ozone levels recorded at monitors near the West Virginia/

Ohio/Pennsylvania border seem to correlate with the levels recorded

further east in the nonattainment area, this data is not sufficient to

demonstrate that the Pittsburgh area's ozone problem is due to

transport. During the summer of 1995, on the days when monitors in the

Pittsburgh area (``downwind'' monitors in Allegheny and Westmoreland

Counties) recorded exceedances of the ozone standard, ozone levels at

the monitors on the western border of the Pittsburgh area (the

``upwind'' monitors in Beaver and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania)

recorded increased levels of ozone. However, these ``upwind'' monitors

did not record any exceedances of the ozone standard. In other words,

``downwind'' monitors in the Pittsburgh area always recorded higher

ozone levels than the monitors at the western border. This demonstrates

the Pittsburgh area is causing its own exceedances by generating ozone

in the area.

Furthermore, EPA intends to use its authority under sections

110(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the Clean Air Act, where appropriate, to

require any state to reduce its emissions where there is evidence, such

as photochemical grid modeling, showing that the area's emissions

contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other state. EPA is working with the states and

other organizations, through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group

(OTAG), to design and complete studies that consider upwind sources and

quantify their impacts. As the studies progress, EPA will continue to

work with the states and other organizations to develop mutually

acceptable attainment strategies. Under the Clean Air Act, each state

is ultimately responsible for ensuring that emissions originating in

the state do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or

interfere with maintenance by, any other state.

Moreover, Governor Ridge has publicly stated that Pittsburgh has an

ozone problem. The Governor has initiated a stakeholders process, a

cooperative effort between industry and government, to resolve

Pennsylvania's air quality problems. EPA officials are actively

involved in this process to help Pennsylvania determine the most

suitable emission control measures for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

area.

Finally, even if the violations in Pittsburgh could be attributed

to transport, EPA would not have the authority to redesignate

Pittsburgh to attainment. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) defines an

attainment area as an area ``that meets'' the national ambient air

quality standard and section 107(d)(3)(E) prohibits EPA from

redesignating an area to attainment unless EPA determines that the area

is attaining the standard. As an area that is experiencing violations

of the ozone standard is not attaining the standard, EPA is not

authorized by the Clean Air Act to redesignate such an area to

attainment.

Comment #2: ``EPA has established an unreasonable methodology for

determining a region's compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, and has failed to comply with statutory

requirements to review and revise the standard.'' The commenter also

criticized EPA's method of determining an area's design value and EPA's

methods used to locate monitors.

EPA's Response: The ozone NAAQS is a health-based standard that

couples

[[Page 19195]]

exposure time and concentration. EPA has determined that the level of

the NAAQS is a one-hour average ozone concentration of 0.12 parts per

million (ppm). This standard is designed to protect public health.

Attainment of the ozone NAAQS is determined using three consecutive

years of data to account for year-to-year variations in meteorological

conditions as well as year-to-year variations in VOC and NOX

emissions. Concentrations of ozone above the NAAQS level cause

respiratory problems such as shortness of breath, coughing, congestion,

and lung tissue damage and can result in loss of work, and increased

hospitalizations. Those most at risk are children, outdoor workers,

people with respiratory problems, such as asthma, and people who spend

a lot of time outside.

Under section 109(d)(1) of the Act, EPA is required to perform a

review of the ozone NAAQS every five years. The last review was

completed in 1993 (58 FR 13008). That review resulted in retaining the

existing standard: 0.12 ppm, 1 hour average, average annual expected

exceedances 1 (i.e. for a three-year period, the average

number of expected exceedances at each monitoring site must be less

than or equal to one per year). (See 40 CFR 50.) However, in the

February 3, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 5164), EPA announced that, due

to new studies published in the scientific literature on ozone's health

and environmental effects, another review of the ozone NAAQS would be

conducted as rapidly as possible. EPA is planning to complete its

review and propose its findings as early as mid-1996. EPA expects to

take final action regarding its current review of the ozone NAAQS by

mid-1997, which is within five years of completion of its last review.

The 0.12 ppm ozone standard and the method used by EPA to determine

whether an area is attaining the ozone standard were decided upon

through notice and comment rulemaking and are contained in 40 CFR Part

50 Sec. 50.9 and App. H (44 FR 8220 (Feb. 8, 1979)). EPA is bound by

that standard and that method unless and until it is changed through

further rulemaking. Thus, this rulemaking is simply not the appropriate

forum for raising concerns regarding the ozone standard or the methods

for determining attainment of the standard. EPA is simply following its

own regulations that were promulgated previously pursuant to notice and

comment rulemaking procedures.

Section 183(g) of the Act requires EPA to conduct a study of

whether the methodology EPA used to establish a design value for ozone

provides an adequate indicator of ozone air quality. (The design value

is an indicator that EPA uses to determine the extent of an area's

nonattainment problem.) In accordance with this requirement, EPA

conducted a study and published its results in December 1994 in a

report entitled Clean Air Act Ozone Design Value Study: Final Report

(EPA-454/R-94-035). The report concluded that:

(1) The EPA design value method yields ozone design values that are

consistent with the current NAAQS.

(2) The EPA design value provides a reasonable estimate of peak

ozone levels within urban areas and the degree of nonattainment of the

area.

(3) Ozone design values calculated using EPA's method correlate

highly with other methods.

(4) A meteorologically adjusted design value may not be the best

indicator of the air people actually breathe, and is a major departure

from current EPA policy.

Finally, monitor location is determined through a cooperative

process between EPA and states. EPA has detailed criteria for the

placement of monitors (40 CFR 58). Monitors are located throughout a

nonattainment area, in a network designed to characterize the air

quality of the entire area. EPA and the states conduct annual reviews

of monitoring networks to determine if monitors are properly located.

EPA's latest review of the Pittsburgh area monitoring network,

conducted in the spring of 1995, indicated that the monitor locations

were adequate in assessing the ambient air quality in the area.''

Comment #3: ``EPA's methodology for measuring attainment fails to

properly assess southwestern Pennsylvania's compliance with the Clean

Air Act since most of the population of the region is not experiencing

ozone levels in violation of the federal standard.'' The commenter

contends that the Pittsburgh area's moderate classification was based

on high ozone levels in 1988, and that in each of the 6 subsequent

years, 1989-1994, the area's ozone levels were ``better than'' the

standard. In recognition of this, EPA determined that the area met the

standard in July of 1995. The violation in 1995 was a function of the

weather, and the federal ozone standard fails to make adjustments for

unusual weather. VOC and NOX, which react to form ozone, are not

considered pollutants. Ozone levels are low most days, because the

temperature is usually below 90 degrees.

The commenter went on to state that only 2 of 11 monitors violated

the standard, and that although there were 9 exceedance days, the

exceedance lasted only 1 or two hours on most of the exceedance days.

Only on the hottest day of the year, July 15, did the exceedance last

more than 4 hours. Ozone is low in most areas, on most days, and at

most times of the day.

EPA's Response: As stated above, exceedances of 0.12 ppm ozone for

one hour or longer have been determined to cause measurable health

effects in healthy individuals. Compliance with the ozone NAAQS is

determined using three consecutive years of data to account for year-

to-year variations in emissions and meteorological conditions. As noted

above, these determinations were made pursuant to long-standing EPA

regulations, and this rulemaking is simply not the appropriate forum

for comments regarding the ozone standard or the methodology for

determining attainment of the standard. The area first had air quality

data that met the NAAQS in 1992, considering the years 1990-1992, and

continued to meet the standard in 1993 and 1994. Then, in 1995, the

area once again violated the NAAQS. In light of the methodology used to

determine attainment of the ozone NAAQS, even if meteorological

conditions were unusual in 1995 (an allegation that the commenter

failed to substantiate with any analysis or data), there is no basis

for ignoring the violations monitored during that time period.

As shown in the tables below, the area was not without exceedances

from 1989 to 1994. From 1987 to 1995, the number of exceedances varied

from year to year with no discernable pattern. This variation is due to

year-to-year variations in emissions and meteorological conditions.

Pittsburgh Area: Number of Ozone Exceedances: 1987-1995

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

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

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

10..... 41 5 0 2 0 1 4 17

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

[[Page 19196]]

Because the area has not adequately reduced its VOC and NOX

emissions, it is subject to ozone exceedances whenever meteorological

conditions are conducive to ozone formation. One of the goals of the

Clean Air Act is to minimize the health risks that people encounter.

Since meteorological conditions cannot be controlled, the way to reduce

health risks due to ozone in the Pittsburgh area is to reduce the

anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NOX, both of which are

considered pollutants. Furthermore, many VOCs are listed as hazardous

air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) is individually regulated by EPA because of its

health and welfare effects. As a result, the reduction of VOC and

NOX emissions will reduce the health risks that are associated

with exposure to VOC and NOX, as well as reducing the health risks

due to elevated ozone levels.

Ozone is a regional pollutant. It is not formed in the same place

as its VOC and NOX precursors are generated. The VOC and NOX

that react to form ozone are usually generated from different sources.

These pollutants are transported through the air (by the wind) to a

common location, and then react in the presence of sunlight. Because of

this transport, emissions from the entire area contribute to ozone

exceedances, even if the exceedances are recorded only at a few

monitors. Therefore, all ozone monitors in an ozone nonattainment area

must be free of violations for the area to be considered meeting the

ozone NAAQS.

Comment #4: ``EPA should have redesignated the Pittsburgh area

prior to the summer of 1995.'' The commenter wrote that, since the

request was submitted in 1993, EPA had ample opportunity and

justification to approve it, and that for 4 consecutive three-year

periods, 1989-1994, the NAAQS was achieved. Another commenter stated

that, because of the debate over vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M), EPA refused to redesignate the area.

EPA's Response: Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, the

following five criteria must be met for an ozone nonattainment area to

be redesignated to attainment:

1. The area must meet the ozone NAAQS.

2. The area must meet applicable requirements of section 110 and

Part D of the Act.

3. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of

the Act.

4. The area must show that its experienced improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and enforceable measures.

5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan under

section 175A of the Act, including contingency measures.

In order for EPA to redesignate an area, all five of these criteria

must be met. It is true, that from 1992 to 1994, the Pittsburgh area

met the first criterion. The area did have ambient air quality data

that met the ozone NAAQS. However, the area did not meet the remaining

four criteria.

According to criteria 2 and 3, all applicable Part D requirements,

including new source review (NSR), NOX and VOC reasonably

available control technology (RACT), and I/M, must be submitted to EPA

and approved into the SIP before a redesignation request can be

approved. As the area lacks SIP-approved RACT rules for major sources

of NOX and VOC, SIP-approved I/M, and SIP-approved NSR, EPA could

not approve its redesignation request.

The violations that were recorded in 1995 indicate that criterion 4

was not met. The permanent and enforceable emission reductions achieved

in the area were evidently not adequate to maintain the improved air

quality that was experienced between 1989 and 1994, which was due, in

part, to the meteorological conditions experienced during that period.

Criterion 5 was established to ensure that any area that is

redesignated to attainment will be able to maintain compliance with the

NAAQS for at least a ten-year maintenance period following the

redesignation. The Pittsburgh area does not meet criterion 5 because

its maintenance plan is unapprovable. The maintenance plan does not

project maintenance of the NAAQS for the required 10 years beyond EPA

approval of the redesignation request. The submitted maintenance plan

projects emissions only up to 2004. When the maintenance plan was last

amended in 1995, it should have projected emissions out to at least

2006, to allow time for EPA to process the requests. In addition, the

maintenance plan contains inadequate contingency measures. Contingency

measures are needed to correct violations that might occur during the

maintenance period, in order to ensure that public health is protected.

The only contingency measure provided in the maintenance plans is

improved rule effectiveness. No source categories have been chosen, and

no rule effectiveness matrix or protocol has been completed.

Comment #5: ``The exceedances during the summer of 1995 were the

result of unusual meteorological conditions.''

EPA's Response: Ozone formation is a very complex process, which

involves meteorological conditions as well as the concentration of VOCs

and NOX in the air. As stated above, attainment of the ozone NAAQS

is determined using three consecutive years of data to account for

variations in meteorological conditions as well as variations in VOC

and NOX emissions. Since we cannot control the weather, we must

control levels of ozone in the breathable air by controlling the

concentration of NOX and VOC in the air. Our goal is to ensure

that everyone is breathing healthy air, regardless of the weather.

Comment #6: ``EPA is not treating Pennsylvania in the same manner

as other similarly situated states.'' According to the commenter, EPA

is not treating four other states with pending redesignation requests

(Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Georgia) for areas that experienced

violations in 1995 in the same way as Pittsburgh. The commenter also

claims that EPA treated Pittsburgh differently by not approving its

November 1993 redesignation request, whereas EPA did approve

redesignation requests for other ozone nonattainment areas.

EPA's Response: EPA is aware of three other ozone nonattainment

areas that have pending redesignation requests and that experienced

violations of the NAAQS in 1995. These areas include two moderate ozone

nonattainment areas: Muskegon, Michigan, and the Cincinnati area (a

multi-state area that covers parts of Ohio and northern Kentucky); and

one marginal area: Birmingham, Alabama.

EPA is not aware of any area in Georgia in this situation. EPA

acknowledges that it has not yet proposed disapproval of those

redesignation requests.

These areas differ from Pittsburgh, however. In the case of the two

other moderate areas, EPA's 18-month period for acting on the

redesignation requests has not yet expired and EPA is not yet legally

obligated to take action on those requests. In contrast, in the case of

Pittsburgh, EPA's statutory 18-month period for taking action expired

in May of 1995. See CAA Sec. 107(d)(3)(D). Thus, the time period for

EPA to act on the Pittsburgh redesignation has expired, but has not

done so in the case of Muskegon and Cincinnati. Birmingham is a

marginal area that has a less serious ozone air quality problem than

Pittsburgh, a moderate area. Although EPA has not yet acted on

Birmingham's redesignation request, that fact does not justify further

inaction on Pittsburgh's

[[Page 19197]]

request in light of the expiration of the 18-month statutory time

period for acting on Pittsburgh's November 12, 1993 request.

EPA notes that it has not and may not (in light of section

107(d)(1)(A)(i) and 107(d)(3)(E)) approve a redesignation request for

an area that is violating the ozone standard. Thus, the three other

areas just discussed, like Pittsburgh, are and must remain designated

nonattainment areas until they attain the standard and satisfy the

other redesignation criteria.

With respect to the comment that EPA treated Pittsburgh differently

by not approving its redesignation request while approving others, EPA

notes that Pittsburgh's request, unlike the others EPA approved, does

not and did not meet other redesignation criteria of section

107(d)(3)(E). (See Response to Comment 4.) Thus, EPA did not treat

Pittsburgh differently from other similarly situated areas by not

approving its redesignation request while approving others. The others

satisfied the statutory criteria for redesignation; Pittsburgh's did

not.

Final Action

Because the Pittsburgh area is not eligible for redesignation, EPA

is disapproving Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the

Pittsburgh area and the accompanying maintenance plan, which was

originally submitted on November 12, 1993, and amended on January 13,

1994 and May 12, 1995.

When the final disapproval of the maintenance plan is effective,

the Pittsburgh area will no longer be able to demonstrate conformity to

the submitted maintenance plan pursuant to the transportation

conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.128(i). Since the submitted

maintenance plan budget will no longer apply for transportation

conformity purposes, the build/no-build and less-than-90 tests will

apply pursuant to 40 CFR 93.122. In addition, the Commonwealth

submitted a 15% rate-of-progress plan (15% plan) on March 22, 1996.

Ninety days after this submittal date, the emissions budget contained

in this 15% plan will apply for conformity purposes pursuant to 40 CFR

93.118 and 93.128(a)(1)(ii), as well as the build/no-build test under

40 CFR 93.122.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/promulgated

does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs

of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and

imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs

to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

As described in the NPR, EPA has determined that the disapproval of

the redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small

entities. EPA's denial of the Commonwealth's redesignation request

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small entities nor does it impose new

requirements. The area retains its current designation status and will

continue to be subject to the same statutory requirements. To the

extent that the area must adopt regulations, based on its nonattainment

status, EPA will review the effect of those actions on small entities

at the time the Commonwealth submits those regulations.

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action, pertaining to the disapproval of

Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the

Pittsburgh ozone nonattainment area, must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 1, 1996. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96-10698 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P