Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area, 49403-49409 [2013-19760]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 30, 2013. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2013–19597 Filed 8–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS [EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753; FRL–9900–07– Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 ACTION: Proposed rule. EPA is proposing to make a determination of attainment for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Pittsburgh Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’). EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2010–2012. If EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attainment, the requirements for the Pittsburgh Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to the attainment of the standard shall be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve a request submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) dated January 17, 2013, to establish motor vehicle emission budgets for the Pittsburgh Area to meet transportation conformity requirements. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Pittsburgh Area will remain nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Pittsburgh Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 13, 2013. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2012–0753 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted 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. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 49403 Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 0753. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of Proposed Actions II. Background III. EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data IV. Effect of Determination of Attainment for 2006 PM2.5 Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title 1 (Subpart 4) E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 49404 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules V. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related Provisions of Subpart 4 VI. Description of 2011 Clean Data MVEBs VII. Proposed Actions VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of Proposed Actions In accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7509(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposal is based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2010–2012 monitoring period, which show that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for direct PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for transportation conformity purposes. Following EPA’s public comment period, responses to any comments received will be addressed. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS II. Background On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) (hereby ‘‘the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS’’) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (hereafter ‘‘the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’) became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40 CFR 50.13. The more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to PM2.5 at this level. Many petitioners challenged aspects of EPA’s 2006 revisions to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). As a result of this challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (hereafter ‘‘the Court’’ or ‘‘the D.C. Circuit’’) remanded the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA for further proceedings. The 2006 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS were not affected by the remand and remain in effect. The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ pmfinal.pdf. The maximum quarter data substitution test (maximum quarter test) was applied to four incomplete monitors in the Pittsburgh Area for 2010–2012. In the maximum quarter test, maximum recorded values are substituted for the missing data, and the resulting 24-hour design value is compared to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A monitor with incomplete data passes the test if the 24-hour design value with maximum values substituted III. EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air meets the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Quality Data The ‘‘Complete Data’’ column of Table Today’s rulemaking action proposes 1 below indicates which incomplete to determine that the Pittsburgh Area monitors passed the maximum quarter has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 test, and therefore attain the 2006 24NAAQS, based on quality-assured, hour PM2.5 NAAQS. quality-controlled, and certified data for One monitor in the Pittsburgh Area, the 2010–2012 monitoring period. the Greensburg monitor (at site 42–129– Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 0008), did not meet the completeness 50.13(c), the 2006 24-hour primary and requirement for one quarter of 2011. secondary PM2.5 standards are met when EPA has addressed missing data from the 98th percentile 24-hour the Greensburg monitor by performing a concentration, as determined in statistical analysis of the data, in which accordance with 40 CFR part 50, a linear regression relationship is appendix N, is less than or equal to 35.0 established between the site with mg/m3. Data handling conventions and incomplete data and a nearby site which computations necessary for determining has more complete data in the period in whether areas have met the PM2.5 which the incomplete site is missing NAAQS, including requirements for data. The linear regression relationship data completeness, are listed in is based on time periods in which both appendix N of 40 CFR part 50. monitors were operating. The linear For the Pittsburgh Area to be in regression equation developed from the attainment with respect to the 2006 24relationship between the monitors is hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 24-hour design used to fill in missing data for the value of the Pittsburgh Area must be incomplete monitor, so that the normal less than the standard. The 24-hour data completeness requirement of 75 design value determined for an area is percent of data in each quarter of the the highest 3-year average of the annual three years is met. After the missing 98th percentile measured at all the data for the site are filled in, the results monitors. Only valid and complete air are verified through an additional quality data can be used for comparison statistical test. The results of EPA’s to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A statistical analysis indicated that while year meets data completeness the Greensburg monitor had less than requirements when at least 75 percent of complete data, the data are sufficient to the scheduled sampling days for each demonstrate that the NAAQS has been quarter have valid data. However, years met. Additional details on data are considered valid, notwithstanding completeness issues for the Pittsburgh quarters with less than complete data, if Area’s monitoring sites can be found in the resulting annual 98th percentile the Technical Support Document (TSD) value or resulting 24-hour standard for this action entitled, ‘‘Technical design value is greater than the level of Support Document for the Pennsylvania the standard. Determination of Attainment of the 2006 Several monitors in the Pittsburgh 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Area were not meeting the completeness National Ambient Air Quality Standard requirement for one or more quarters for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley during 2010–2012 monitoring period. Nonattainment Area,’’ which is EPA has addressed missing data from available online at www.regulations.gov, incomplete monitors by applying either Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– the maximum quarter substitution test 0753. (‘‘maximum quarter test’’) or EPA’s EPA has reviewed the quality-assured, statistical procedure, described in EPA’s quality-controlled, and certified ambient April 1999 guidance document air monitoring data recorded in EPA’s ‘‘Guideline on Data Handling Air Quality System (AQS) database for Conventions for the PM NAAQS,’’ 24-hour PM2.5 for the Pittsburgh Area which is available online at https:// during the 2010–2012 monitoring NAAQS, which became effective on December 14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated the Pittsburgh Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Pittsburgh Area consists of Allegheny (not including the townships which are part of the LibertyClairton nonattainment area), Beaver, Butler, and Westmoreland Counties, and portions of Armstrong, Greene, and Lawrence Counties. This proposed action only addresses the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Pittsburgh Area. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules period, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50. Table 1 provides valid 24-hour PM2.5 air quality 49405 NAAQS for the 2010–2012 monitoring period. data for the Pittsburgh Area for comparison to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 TABLE 1—PITTSBURGH AREA’S 2010–2012 24-HOUR PM2.5 AIR QUALITY DATA [In μg/m3] 98th percentile value County AQS site ID 2010 Allegheny ...... Allegheny ...... Allegheny ...... Allegheny ...... Allegheny ...... Beaver .......... Washington ... Washington ... Washington ... Westmoreland 42–003–0008 42–003–0067 42–003–0093 42–003–1008 42–003–1301 42–007–0014 42–125–0005 42–125–0200 42–125–5001 42–129–0008 Lawrence ..................... S. Fayette .................... North Park ................... Harrison ....................... N. Braddock ................ Beaver Falls ................ Charleroi ...................... Washington ................. Florence ...................... Greensburg ................. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EPA’s review of quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient PM2.5 air monitoring data of the Pittsburgh Area during 2010–2012 indicates that the Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Currently, all monitors are measuring concentrations averaging below the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/ m3. The 24-hour design value of the Pittsburgh PM2.5 Area for 2010–2012 is 33 mg/m3, based on monitoring data collected at the North Braddock site (42–003–1301) and the Greensburg site (42–129–0008). On the basis of this review, EPA proposes to determine that the Pittsburgh Area attains the 2006 24hour PM2.5 based on data for the 2010– 2012 monitoring period. IV. Effect of Determination of Attainment for 2006 PM2.5 Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (Subpart 4) This section of EPA’s proposal addresses the effects of a final determination of attainment for the Pittsburgh Area. For the 1997 PM2.5 standard, 40 CFR 51.1004 of EPA’s Implementation Rule embodies EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ interpretation under subpart 1. The provisions of section 51.1004 set forth the effects of a determination of attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. (72 FR 20585, 20665, April 25, 2007). While the regulatory provisions of 51.1004(c) do not explicitly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the underlying statutory interpretation is the same for both standards. (77 FR 76427, December 28, 2012; proposed determination of 1 ‘‘Max Quarter’’ denotes the maximum quarter data substitution test, and ‘‘Statistical’’ denotes that EPA’s statistical procedure has been applied to address the missing data and calculate a ‘‘complete’’ design value. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 2010–2012 24-hour design value Site name Jkt 229001 2011 30 29 27 34 37 29 27 27 22 33 2012 27 31 26 30 34 30 29 27 12 33 attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard for Milwaukee, WI). On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the DC Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’ or ‘‘Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4. The Court remanded EPA’s Implementation Rule for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s decision. In light of the Court’s decision and its remand of the Implementation Rule, EPA in this proposed rulemaking action addresses the effect of a final determination of attainment for the Pittsburgh Area, if that area were considered a moderate nonattainment area under subpart 4.2 As 2 For the purposes of evaluating the effects of this proposed determination of attainment under subpart 4, we are considering the Pittsburgh Area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Section 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 20 18 16 21 27 27 26 25 17 29 26 26 23 28 33 29 28 27 20 33 Complete data? 1 Yes. Yes. Yes (Max Quarter). Yes (Max Quarter). Yes (Max Quarter). Yes. Yes (Max Quarter). Yes. Yes. No (Statistical). set forth in more detail below, under EPA’s Clean Data Policy interpretation, a determination that the area has attained the standard suspends the state’s obligation to submit attainmentrelated planning requirements of subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions of subpart 1) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. These include requirements to submit an attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, because the purpose of these provisions is to help reach attainment, a goal which has already been achieved. A. Background on Clean Data Policy Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ interpretation to attainmentrelated provisions of subparts 1, 2 and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several EPA memoranda and regulations. In addition, numerous individual rulemakings actions published in the Federal Register have applied the interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb) standards. The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy interpretation as embodied in EPA’s 8-hour ozone Implementation Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.3 (NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed EPA’s Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the rulemakings actions applying EPA’s interpretation. Sierra Club v. attainment by the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)). In addition, EPA also evaluates the applicable requirements of subpart 1. 3 ‘‘EPA’s Final Rule to implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard— Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).’’ (70 FR 71612, 71645–46) (November 29, 2005). E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 49406 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion), Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009. As noted previously in the rulemaking action, EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy interpretation in both its 1997 8-hour ozone implementation rule and in its PM2.5 Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.1004(c). (72 FR 20585, 20665, April 25, 2007). While the D.C. Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision, remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the Court did not address the merits of that regulation, nor cast doubt on EPA’s existing interpretation of the statutory provisions. However, in light of the Court’s decision, EPA sets forth here the Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4, for the purpose of identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard for the Pittsburgh Area. EPA has previously articulated its Clean Data interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the PM10 standard. See e.g., (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010) (determination of attainment of the PM–10 standard in Coso Junction, California); (75 FR 6571, February 10, 2010), (71 FR 6352, February 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona area); (71 FR 13021, March 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); (71 FR 40023, July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West Virginia area); (71 FR 44920, August 8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona area); (71 FR 63642, October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, California area); (72 FR 14422, March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona area); (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California area). Thus EPA has established that, under subpart 4, an attainment determination suspends the obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other measures related to attainment. V. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related Provisions of Subpart 4 In EPA’s proposed and final rulemaking actions determining that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM10 standard, EPA set forth at length its rationale for applying the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit upheld EPA’s final rulemaking, and specifically EPA’s Clean Data Policy, in the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, supra. Nos. 06–75831 and 08– 71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009. In rejecting petitioner’s VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 challenge to the Clean Data Policy under subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated, ‘‘As EPA explained, if an area is in compliance with PM10 standards, then further progress for the purpose of ensuring attainment is not necessary.’’ The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1 contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. See Section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas, and under the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM10 requirements.’’ (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). These subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures. EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (sections 171 and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already attaining the ozone NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment ‘‘will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.’’ 57 FR 13564. See 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642 (proposed and final determination of attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed and final determination of attainment for Coso Junction). Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that: Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as defined in PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 section [171(1)] of this title, toward attainment by the applicable date. With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of part D, RFP ‘‘means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM10 areas of subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date. Although section 189(c) states that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further progress ‘‘toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,’’ as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state will achieve the next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS. In the General Preamble, EPA noted with respect to section 189(c) that the purpose of the milestone requirement ‘‘is to provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).’’ (57 FR 13539, April 16, 1992). If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.4 Similarly, the requirements of 4 Thus, EPA believes that it is a distinction without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an area is ‘‘redesignated attainment,’’ as opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as applying until the ‘‘attainment date,’’ since section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozonespecific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific requirements may only be required ‘‘for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules section 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that: Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a demonstration . . . that the milestone has been met. Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with respect to the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has attained. The memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, stated: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ‘‘Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP submission either.’’ See 1995 Seitz memorandum at 5. With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for ‘‘a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . . .’’ As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the Seitz memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking discussed in the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies once the standard has been attained. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 redesignation to attainment since ‘‘attainment will have been reached.’’ 57 FR 13564. Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) 5 as no longer applying when an area has attained the standard because those ‘‘contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 57 FR 13564; Seitz memo, pp. 5–6. Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas: ‘‘shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].’’ The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment by the attainment date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: ‘‘The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.’’ See 57 FR 13564. Thus, these requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard. Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ‘‘provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures’’ (i.e., RACM) are implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, (57 FR 13560, April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’ of an area’s attainment demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to reasonable further progress or to 5 See PO 00000 section 182(c)(9) for ozone. Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 49407 attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR 13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required.6 EPA is interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1). The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency measures and other related requirements exists only for as long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to attainment in the area, such as provisions to address pollution transport. As set forth previously, based on our proposed determination that the Pittsburgh Area is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that the obligations to submit planning provisions to meet the requirements for an attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures are suspended for so long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If in the future, EPA determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the area again violates the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for suspending the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measure obligations would no longer exist. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). VI. Description of 2011 Clean Data MVEBs Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and 6 EPA’s interpretation that the statute requires implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 (5th Cir. 2002), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162– 163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 49408 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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. The CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the goals of the SIP. This means that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of NAAQS; worsen the severity of an existing violation; or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. As described in 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5) of the transportation conformity rule and the preamble of the Transportation Conformity Restructuring Amendments (77 FR 14982, March 14, 2012), any nonattainment area that EPA determines has air quality monitoring data that meet the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50 and 58 and that show attainment of a NAAQS (clean data) must satisfy one of the following requirements: (1) The budget test and/or interim emissions tests as required by section 93.118 and 93.119; (2) the budget test as required by section 93.118, using the adequate or approved MVEBs in the submitted or applicable control strategy implementation plan for the NAAQS for which the area is designated nonattainment; or (3) the budget test as required by section 93.118, using the motor vehicle emissions in the most recent year of attainment as MVEBs, if the state or local air quality agency requests that the motor vehicle emissions in the most recent year of attainment be used as budgets, and EPA approves the request in the rulemaking that determines that the area has attained the NAAQS for which the area is designated nonattainment. On January 17, 2013, EPA received a request for the approval and establishment of MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for the Pittsburgh Area from PADEP for the year 2011. The transportation conformity rule allows the state air quality agency to request that motor vehicle emissions in the most recent year of clean data be used as budgets. EPA must approve that request in the rulemaking that determines that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS (40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii)). These budgets were calculated using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator emissions model (MOVES). The MOVES model is EPA’s state-of-the-art tool for estimating highway emissions that incorporates the latest emissions data. For more information, see EPA’s ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Model Revisions for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (April 2012). The Pittsburgh Area may establish clean data MVEBs under 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii) because the following criteria were met: (1) The state requested that budgets be established in conjunction with EPA’s determination of attainment (Clean Data) rulemaking for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA approved the request; and (2) the Pittsburgh Area has not submitted a maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and EPA has determined that the Area is not subject to the CAA RFP and attainment demonstration requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In accordance with the transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1) and (2)(iv) and (v), only MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for year 2011 are applicable for meeting conformity requirements in the Pittsburgh Area. The transportation conformity rule requires that before a SIP is submitted the area must address direct PM2.5 emissions and must also address NOX emissions unless EPA and the state have made a finding that transportationrelated emissions of NOX are not a significant contributor to the area’s PM2.5 problem. Therefore, the Commonwealth has requested that MVEBs be established for on-road emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX. With regard to the remaining PM2.5 precursors which are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia (NH3), the transportation conformity rule indicates that before a SIP is submitted, these precursors must be addressed only if either EPA or the Commonwealth makes a finding that onroad emissions of any of these precursors is a significant contributor to the area’s PM2.5 problem. Neither EPA nor the Commonwealth has made such a finding with regard to any of these precursors. Therefore, consistent with the transportation conformity rule, the Commonwealth did not request that MVEBs be established for VOCs, SO2 or NH3. EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in March 2010 (75 FR 14260, March 24, 2010). Those actions were not part of the final rule recently remanded to EPA by the DC Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, in which the court remanded to EPA the implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation provisions of subpart 4, rather than solely under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not affect EPA’s proposed approval of the Pittsburgh Area MVEBs. First, as noted above, EPA’s conformity rules implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS were separate actions from the overall PM2.5 implementation rule addressed by the Court and were not considered or disturbed by the decision. Therefore, the conformity regulations were not at issue in NRDC v. EPA.7 In addition, as discussed elsewhere in today’s proposal, the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on 2010– 2012 air quality data. EPA has reviewed the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs that were submitted by the Commonwealth. EPA reviewed the budgets by applying the general requirements of the transportation conformity rule’s adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)–(v)). These criteria are not directly applicable because they apply to budgets that are submitted as part of a SIP submittal and the budgets that are under review in this action were submitted under the transportation conformity rule provision that allows a state to request that budgets be established through the EPA’s clean data determination process. However, these criteria establish a general framework for the review of any MVEBs before those budgets are made effective for the use in transportation conformity determinations. A more detailed evaluation of how the Pittsburgh Area satisfied the requirements for clean data MVEBs can be found in a separate TSD for this action entitled, ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Review of the Clean Data Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) for the Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area,’’ which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753. EPA is proposing to approve the following MVEBs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Table 2: 7 The 2004 rulemaking action addressed most of the transportation conformity requirements that apply in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The 2005 conformity rule included provisions addressing treatment of PM2.5 precursors in MVEBs. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2). The 2010 rulemaking addressed requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. While none of these provisions were challenged in the NRDC case, EPA also notes that the court declined to address challenges to EPA’s presumptions regarding PM2.5 precursors in the PM2.5 implementation rule. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d at 437 n.10. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1 49409 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS Geographic area Year PM2.5 (tons/year) NOX (tons/year) Pittsburgh Area ............................................................................................................................ 2011 961.71 28,973.05 If EPA approves these MVEBs in the final rulemaking action, the new MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. The 2011 MVEBs, if approved in the final rulemaking action, will be effective on the date of publication of EPA’s final rulemaking action in the Federal Register. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VII. Proposed Actions EPA proposes to determine, based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, that the Pittsburgh Area is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Based upon EPA’s proposed determination that Pittsburgh Area is currently attaining the standard, EPA proposes to determine that the obligation to submit the following attainment-related planning requirements are not applicable for so long as the Area continues to attain the PM2.5 standard: Subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), the RFP provisions of section 189(c), and related attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, and contingency measure provisions requirements of subpart 1, section 172. This proposed rulemaking action, if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). In conjunction with this proposed finding of attainment, pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii), as described in the transportation conformity rule and the preamble of the Transportation Conformity Restructuring Amendments (77 FR 14982, March 14, 2012), EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This rulemaking action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain federal requirements. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Aug 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • 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); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed determination of attainment of the Pittsburgh Area with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the MVEBs, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the determination is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 31, 2013. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2013–19760 Filed 8–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0392; FRL–9900–06– Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Delaware pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements including, but not limited to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. Delaware has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 13, 2013. SUMMARY: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2013–0392 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49403-49409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0753; FRL-9900-07-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination of attainment for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ``the
Pittsburgh Area'' or ``the Area''). EPA is proposing to determine that
the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), based upon quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2010-2012. If EPA
finalizes this proposed determination of attainment, the requirements
for the Pittsburgh Area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to the attainment of
the standard shall be suspended for so long as the Area continues to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing
to approve a request submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) dated January 17, 2013, to establish
motor vehicle emission budgets for the Pittsburgh Area to meet
transportation conformity requirements. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action does not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The
designation status of the Pittsburgh Area will remain nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA
determines that the Pittsburgh Area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 13,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0753 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0753, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, 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-
2012-0753. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Proposed Actions
II. Background
III. EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data
IV. Effect of Determination of Attainment for 2006 PM2.5
Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title 1 (Subpart 4)

[[Page 49404]]

V. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4
VI. Description of 2011 Clean Data MVEBs
VII. Proposed Actions
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Actions

In accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7509(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to determine that
the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The proposal is based upon quality-assured and certified ambient
air monitoring data for the 2010-2012 monitoring period, which show
that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for direct
PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for
transportation conformity purposes. Following EPA's public comment
period, responses to any comments received will be addressed.

II. Background

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
(hereby ``the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS'') based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated
a new 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The revised 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (hereafter ``the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS'') became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40
CFR 50.13. The more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating
that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to
PM2.5 at this level.
Many petitioners challenged aspects of EPA's 2006 revisions to the
PM2.5 NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau Federation and
National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir.
2009). As a result of this challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (hereafter ``the Court'' or ``the D.C.
Circuit'') remanded the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA for
further proceedings. The 2006 24-hour primary and secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS were not affected by the remand and remain in
effect.
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on December
14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated the Pittsburgh Area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Pittsburgh Area consists of Allegheny (not including the townships
which are part of the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area), Beaver,
Butler, and Westmoreland Counties, and portions of Armstrong, Greene,
and Lawrence Counties. This proposed action only addresses the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Pittsburgh Area.

III. EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data

Today's rulemaking action proposes to determine that the Pittsburgh
Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on
quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified data for the 2010-
2012 monitoring period. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.13(c), the
2006 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met
when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to
35.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Data handling conventions and computations
necessary for determining whether areas have met the PM2.5
NAAQS, including requirements for data completeness, are listed in
appendix N of 40 CFR part 50.
For the Pittsburgh Area to be in attainment with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 24-hour design value of the
Pittsburgh Area must be less than the standard. The 24-hour design
value determined for an area is the highest 3-year average of the
annual 98th percentile measured at all the monitors. Only valid and
complete air quality data can be used for comparison to the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A year meets data completeness
requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days
for each quarter have valid data. However, years are considered valid,
notwithstanding quarters with less than complete data, if the resulting
annual 98th percentile value or resulting 24-hour standard design value
is greater than the level of the standard.
Several monitors in the Pittsburgh Area were not meeting the
completeness requirement for one or more quarters during 2010-2012
monitoring period. EPA has addressed missing data from incomplete
monitors by applying either the maximum quarter substitution test
(``maximum quarter test'') or EPA's statistical procedure, described in
EPA's April 1999 guidance document ``Guideline on Data Handling
Conventions for the PM NAAQS,'' which is available online at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf.
The maximum quarter data substitution test (maximum quarter test)
was applied to four incomplete monitors in the Pittsburgh Area for
2010-2012. In the maximum quarter test, maximum recorded values are
substituted for the missing data, and the resulting 24-hour design
value is compared to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A monitor
with incomplete data passes the test if the 24-hour design value with
maximum values substituted meets the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The ``Complete Data'' column of Table 1 below indicates which
incomplete monitors passed the maximum quarter test, and therefore
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
One monitor in the Pittsburgh Area, the Greensburg monitor (at site
42-129-0008), did not meet the completeness requirement for one quarter
of 2011. EPA has addressed missing data from the Greensburg monitor by
performing a statistical analysis of the data, in which a linear
regression relationship is established between the site with incomplete
data and a nearby site which has more complete data in the period in
which the incomplete site is missing data. The linear regression
relationship is based on time periods in which both monitors were
operating. The linear regression equation developed from the
relationship between the monitors is used to fill in missing data for
the incomplete monitor, so that the normal data completeness
requirement of 75 percent of data in each quarter of the three years is
met. After the missing data for the site are filled in, the results are
verified through an additional statistical test. The results of EPA's
statistical analysis indicated that while the Greensburg monitor had
less than complete data, the data are sufficient to demonstrate that
the NAAQS has been met. Additional details on data completeness issues
for the Pittsburgh Area's monitoring sites can be found in the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action entitled, ``Technical
Support Document for the Pennsylvania Determination of Attainment of
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area,'' which
is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0753.
EPA has reviewed the quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data recorded in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database for 24-hour PM2.5 for the Pittsburgh
Area during the 2010-2012 monitoring

[[Page 49405]]

period, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50.
Table 1 provides valid 24-hour PM2.5 air quality data for
the Pittsburgh Area for comparison to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for the 2010-2012 monitoring period.

Table 1--Pittsburgh Area's 2010-2012 24-Hour PM2.5 Air Quality Data
[In [micro]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th percentile value 2010-2012 24-
County AQS site ID Site name --------------------------------------- hour design Complete data? \1\
2010 2011 2012 value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny.......................... 42-003-0008 Lawrence.............. 30 27 20 26 Yes.
Allegheny.......................... 42-003-0067 S. Fayette............ 29 31 18 26 Yes.
Allegheny.......................... 42-003-0093 North Park............ 27 26 16 23 Yes (Max Quarter).
Allegheny.......................... 42-003-1008 Harrison.............. 34 30 21 28 Yes (Max Quarter).
Allegheny.......................... 42-003-1301 N. Braddock........... 37 34 27 33 Yes (Max Quarter).
Beaver............................. 42-007-0014 Beaver Falls.......... 29 30 27 29 Yes.
Washington......................... 42-125-0005 Charleroi............. 27 29 26 28 Yes (Max Quarter).
Washington......................... 42-125-0200 Washington............ 27 27 25 27 Yes.
Washington......................... 42-125-5001 Florence.............. 22 12 17 20 Yes.
Westmoreland....................... 42-129-0008 Greensburg............ 33 33 29 33 No (Statistical).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's review of quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified
ambient PM2.5 air monitoring data of the Pittsburgh Area
during 2010-2012 indicates that the Area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Currently, all monitors are measuring
concentrations averaging below the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The 24-hour design value of the Pittsburgh
PM2.5 Area for 2010-2012 is 33 [mu]g/m\3\, based on
monitoring data collected at the North Braddock site (42-003-1301) and
the Greensburg site (42-129-0008). On the basis of this review, EPA
proposes to determine that the Pittsburgh Area attains the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 based on data for the 2010-2012 monitoring period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Max Quarter'' denotes the maximum quarter data
substitution test, and ``Statistical'' denotes that EPA's
statistical procedure has been applied to address the missing data
and calculate a ``complete'' design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Effect of Determination of Attainment for 2006 PM2.5
Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (Subpart 4)

This section of EPA's proposal addresses the effects of a final
determination of attainment for the Pittsburgh Area. For the 1997
PM2.5 standard, 40 CFR 51.1004 of EPA's Implementation Rule
embodies EPA's ``Clean Data Policy'' interpretation under subpart 1.
The provisions of section 51.1004 set forth the effects of a
determination of attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. (72
FR 20585, 20665, April 25, 2007). While the regulatory provisions of
51.1004(c) do not explicitly apply to the 2006 PM2.5
standard, the underlying statutory interpretation is the same for both
standards. (77 FR 76427, December 28, 2012; proposed determination of
attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard for Milwaukee, WI).
On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
the DC Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule'' or ``Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than
the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4. The Court
remanded EPA's Implementation Rule for further proceedings consistent
with the Court's decision. In light of the Court's decision and its
remand of the Implementation Rule, EPA in this proposed rulemaking
action addresses the effect of a final determination of attainment for
the Pittsburgh Area, if that area were considered a moderate
nonattainment area under subpart 4.\2\ As set forth in more detail
below, under EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation, a determination
that the area has attained the standard suspends the state's obligation
to submit attainment-related planning requirements of subpart 4 (and
the applicable provisions of subpart 1) for so long as the area
continues to attain the standard. These include requirements to submit
an attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures,
because the purpose of these provisions is to help reach attainment, a
goal which has already been achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ For the purposes of evaluating the effects of this proposed
determination of attainment under subpart 4, we are considering the
Pittsburgh Area to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5 nonattainment
area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and would
remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA
reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area.
Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the
evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to
those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas.
Section 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment
areas and include an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and
quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section 189(c)). In addition, EPA also
evaluates the applicable requirements of subpart 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background on Clean Data Policy

Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its ``Clean
Data Policy'' interpretation to attainment-related provisions of
subparts 1, 2 and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several
EPA memoranda and regulations. In addition, numerous individual
rulemakings actions published in the Federal Register have applied the
interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, including the 1-hour and 1997
ozone, PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO), and
lead (Pb) standards. The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy
interpretation as embodied in EPA's 8-hour ozone Implementation Rule,
40 CFR 51.918.\3\ (NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Other
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed EPA's
Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the rulemakings
actions applying EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v.

[[Page 49406]]

EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032
(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion), Latino Issues Forum, v.
EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March
2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).'' (70 FR
71612, 71645-46) (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted previously in the rulemaking action, EPA incorporated its
Clean Data Policy interpretation in both its 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rule and in its PM2.5 Implementation Rule in
40 CFR 51.1004(c). (72 FR 20585, 20665, April 25, 2007). While the D.C.
Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision, remanded the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the Court did not address the
merits of that regulation, nor cast doubt on EPA's existing
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
However, in light of the Court's decision, EPA sets forth here the
Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4, for the purpose of
identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 standard for the Pittsburgh Area. EPA has previously
articulated its Clean Data interpretation under subpart 4 in
implementing the PM10 standard. See e.g., (75 FR 27944, May
19, 2010) (determination of attainment of the PM-10 standard in Coso
Junction, California); (75 FR 6571, February 10, 2010), (71 FR 6352,
February 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona area); (71 FR 13021, March 14, 2006)
(Yuma, Arizona area); (71 FR 40023, July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West
Virginia area); (71 FR 44920, August 8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona area);
(71 FR 63642, October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, California area);
(72 FR 14422, March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona area); (75 FR 27944, May
19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California area). Thus EPA has established
that, under subpart 4, an attainment determination suspends the
obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP,
contingency measures, and other measures related to attainment.

V. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4

In EPA's proposed and final rulemaking actions determining that the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM10
standard, EPA set forth at length its rationale for applying the Clean
Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit
upheld EPA's final rulemaking, and specifically EPA's Clean Data
Policy, in the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, supra.
Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2,
2009. In rejecting petitioner's challenge to the Clean Data Policy
under subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated, ``As EPA
explained, if an area is in compliance with PM10 standards,
then further progress for the purpose of ensuring attainment is not
necessary.''
The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the
more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See Section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10
nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013 decision in
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act
Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the ``General
Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart
1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related
to, the more specific PM10 requirements.'' (57 FR 13538,
April 16, 1992). These subpart 1 requirements include, among other
things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (sections 171
and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already
attaining the ozone NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, showing that
the state will make RFP towards attainment ``will, therefore, have no
meaning at that point.'' 57 FR 13564. See 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642
(proposed and final determination of attainment for San Joaquin
Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed and final determination
of attainment for Coso Junction).
Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that:

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the
Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress, as defined in section [171(1)] of this title,
toward attainment by the applicable date.

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of
part D, RFP ``means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus,
whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2),
the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the
specific RFP requirements for PM10 areas of subpart 4,
section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by
the applicable attainment date.
Although section 189(c) states that revisions shall contain
milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to
attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further
progress ``toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,'' as
defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has
attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or
meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section
189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a
milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state will achieve
the next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone.
Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and
achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
In the General Preamble, EPA noted with respect to section 189(c)
that the purpose of the milestone requirement ``is to provide for
emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable
attainment date (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).''
(57 FR 13539, April 16, 1992). If an area has in fact attained the
standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already
been fulfilled.\4\ Similarly, the requirements of

[[Page 49407]]

section 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no longer apply so long as
an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in
relevant part that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Thus, EPA believes that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment,'' as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date,'' since
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general
RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the
text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in
light of the definition of RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated
in section 189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies
once the standard has been attained.

Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone
applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of
such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
demonstration . . . that the milestone has been met.

Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further
milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission
showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the
position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of
section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in
the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with respect to the requirements of
section 182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA also
noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of subpart 2,
which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a
determination that an area has attained. The memorandum, also citing
additional provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP
requirements, stated:

``Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the
attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or
182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit
the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not
submit the related SIP submission either.'' See 1995 Seitz
memorandum at 5.

With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads
to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide
for ``a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP]
will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . . .''
As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring
attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area
to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble,
and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the Seitz
memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to
provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation
to attainment since ``attainment will have been reached.'' 57 FR 13564.
Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of section 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(c)(9) \5\ as no longer applying when an
area has attained the standard because those ``contingency measures are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' 57 FR
13564; Seitz memo, pp. 5-6. Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in
nonattainment areas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See section 182(c)(9) for ozone.

``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to
be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress,
or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under
this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
action by the State or [EPA].''

The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements.
Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress
targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the
attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment by the
attainment date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come
into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA
stated in the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements
for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus, these requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the standard.
Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (i.e., RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, (57 FR
13560, April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so
that RACM requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment
demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration
no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer
applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require
only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to
reasonable further progress or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR
13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no
additional RACM measures are required.\6\ EPA is interpreting section
189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ EPA's interpretation that the statute requires
implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002),
and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions
concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency
measures and other related requirements exists only for as long as the
area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has
monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements
being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would
again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision
or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a
final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent
SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements
for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and
when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved
of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the
Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to
attainment in the area, such as provisions to address pollution
transport.
As set forth previously, based on our proposed determination that
the Pittsburgh Area is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that the obligations to
submit planning provisions to meet the requirements for an attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures are suspended for so
long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. If in the future, EPA determines after notice-
and-comment rulemaking that the area again violates the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for suspending the attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measure obligations would no
longer exist. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).

VI. Description of 2011 Clean Data MVEBs

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and

[[Page 49408]]

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. The CAA requires Federal
actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the
goals of the SIP. This means that such actions will not cause or
contribute to violations of NAAQS; worsen the severity of an existing
violation; or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
As described in 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5) of the transportation
conformity rule and the preamble of the Transportation Conformity
Restructuring Amendments (77 FR 14982, March 14, 2012), any
nonattainment area that EPA determines has air quality monitoring data
that meet the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50 and 58 and that show
attainment of a NAAQS (clean data) must satisfy one of the following
requirements: (1) The budget test and/or interim emissions tests as
required by section 93.118 and 93.119; (2) the budget test as required
by section 93.118, using the adequate or approved MVEBs in the
submitted or applicable control strategy implementation plan for the
NAAQS for which the area is designated nonattainment; or (3) the budget
test as required by section 93.118, using the motor vehicle emissions
in the most recent year of attainment as MVEBs, if the state or local
air quality agency requests that the motor vehicle emissions in the
most recent year of attainment be used as budgets, and EPA approves the
request in the rulemaking that determines that the area has attained
the NAAQS for which the area is designated nonattainment.
On January 17, 2013, EPA received a request for the approval and
establishment of MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for the
Pittsburgh Area from PADEP for the year 2011. The transportation
conformity rule allows the state air quality agency to request that
motor vehicle emissions in the most recent year of clean data be used
as budgets. EPA must approve that request in the rulemaking that
determines that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS (40 CFR
93.109(c)(5)(iii)). These budgets were calculated using the Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator emissions model (MOVES). The MOVES model is
EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating highway emissions that
incorporates the latest emissions data. For more information, see EPA's
``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Model
Revisions for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation
Conformity, and Other Purposes'' (April 2012).
The Pittsburgh Area may establish clean data MVEBs under 40 CFR
93.109(c)(5)(iii) because the following criteria were met: (1) The
state requested that budgets be established in conjunction with EPA's
determination of attainment (Clean Data) rulemaking for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA approved the request; and (2) the
Pittsburgh Area has not submitted a maintenance plan for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS and EPA has determined that the Area is not
subject to the CAA RFP and attainment demonstration requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
In accordance with the transportation conformity regulations at 40
CFR 93.102(b)(1) and (2)(iv) and (v), only MVEBs for PM2.5
and NOX for year 2011 are applicable for meeting conformity
requirements in the Pittsburgh Area. The transportation conformity rule
requires that before a SIP is submitted the area must address direct
PM2.5 emissions and must also address NOX
emissions unless EPA and the state have made a finding that
transportation-related emissions of NOX are not a
significant contributor to the area's PM2.5 problem.
Therefore, the Commonwealth has requested that MVEBs be established for
on-road emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX. With
regard to the remaining PM2.5 precursors which are volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia
(NH3), the transportation conformity rule indicates that
before a SIP is submitted, these precursors must be addressed only if
either EPA or the Commonwealth makes a finding that on-road emissions
of any of these precursors is a significant contributor to the area's
PM2.5 problem. Neither EPA nor the Commonwealth has made
such a finding with regard to any of these precursors. Therefore,
consistent with the transportation conformity rule, the Commonwealth
did not request that MVEBs be established for VOCs, SO2 or
NH3.
EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in March 2010 (75 FR 14260, March 24, 2010).
Those actions were not part of the final rule recently remanded to EPA
by the DC Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, in which the court
remanded to EPA the implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS
because it concluded that EPA must implement that NAAQS pursuant to the
PM-specific implementation provisions of subpart 4, rather than solely
under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not
affect EPA's proposed approval of the Pittsburgh Area MVEBs.
First, as noted above, EPA's conformity rules implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS were separate actions from the overall
PM2.5 implementation rule addressed by the Court and were
not considered or disturbed by the decision. Therefore, the conformity
regulations were not at issue in NRDC v. EPA.\7\ In addition, as
discussed elsewhere in today's proposal, the Pittsburgh Area attained
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on 2010-2012 air
quality data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The 2004 rulemaking action addressed most of the
transportation conformity requirements that apply in
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The 2005
conformity rule included provisions addressing treatment of
PM2.5 precursors in MVEBs. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2). The
2010 rulemaking addressed requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. While none of these provisions were challenged in the NRDC
case, EPA also notes that the court declined to address challenges
to EPA's presumptions regarding PM2.5 precursors in the
PM2.5 implementation rule. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d at 437
n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA has reviewed the direct PM2.5 and NOX
MVEBs that were submitted by the Commonwealth. EPA reviewed the budgets
by applying the general requirements of the transportation conformity
rule's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(v)). These criteria
are not directly applicable because they apply to budgets that are
submitted as part of a SIP submittal and the budgets that are under
review in this action were submitted under the transportation
conformity rule provision that allows a state to request that budgets
be established through the EPA's clean data determination process.
However, these criteria establish a general framework for the review of
any MVEBs before those budgets are made effective for the use in
transportation conformity determinations. A more detailed evaluation of
how the Pittsburgh Area satisfied the requirements for clean data MVEBs
can be found in a separate TSD for this action entitled, ``Technical
Support Document for the Review of the Clean Data Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) for the
Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter
Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area,'' which
is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0753.
EPA is proposing to approve the following MVEBs for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Table 2:

[[Page 49409]]

Table 2--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tons/
Geographic area Year year) NOX (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Area.............................................. 2011 961.71 28,973.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If EPA approves these MVEBs in the final rulemaking action, the new
MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity determinations.
The 2011 MVEBs, if approved in the final rulemaking action, will be
effective on the date of publication of EPA's final rulemaking action
in the Federal Register.

VII. Proposed Actions

EPA proposes to determine, based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured and certified data meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, that the Pittsburgh Area is currently
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Based upon EPA's
proposed determination that Pittsburgh Area is currently attaining the
standard, EPA proposes to determine that the obligation to submit the
following attainment-related planning requirements are not applicable
for so long as the Area continues to attain the PM2.5
standard: Subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration
pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section
189(a)(1)(C), the RFP provisions of section 189(c), and related
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, and contingency measure provisions
requirements of subpart 1, section 172. This proposed rulemaking
action, if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to
attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3).
In conjunction with this proposed finding of attainment, pursuant
to 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5)(iii), as described in the transportation
conformity rule and the preamble of the Transportation Conformity
Restructuring Amendments (77 FR 14982, March 14, 2012), EPA is also
proposing to approve the MVEBs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This rulemaking action proposes to make a determination of
attainment based on air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain federal requirements. This action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed determination of attainment of the
Pittsburgh Area with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and the MVEBs, does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
determination is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

Dated: July 31, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-19760 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.