[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49403-49409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected].
    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 [email protected].

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 http://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