49400 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

adult family members, military retirees, and 

non-DoD personnel not covered in the DoD 

Voluntary Education Partnership 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between the DoD Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness and the Institution. This 

addendum is not to be construed in any way 

as giving rise to a contractual obligation of 

the Department of the Navy to provide funds 

to the academic Institution that would be 

contrary to Federal law. 

2. Responsibilities. 

a. Commanding Officer responsible for 

execution of the Voluntary Education 

Program. The commanding officer 

responsible for execution of the voluntary 

education program will: 

(1) Determine the local voluntary 

education program needs for the Navy 

population to be served and recommend to 

the installation commander the educational 

programs to be offered on the base; 

(2) Administer this agreement and provide 

program management support; 

(3) Manage the Navy College Program 

Distance Learning Partnership (NCPDLP) 

agreements. 

b. Navy College Office (NCO): In support of 

this addendum, the NCO will maintain a 

continuing liaison with the designated 

Institution representative and be responsible 

for inspections and the acceptance of the 

Institution’s services. The NCO will provide 

assistance to the Institution representative to 

provide military and Navy culture 

orientation to the Institution personnel. 

c. Institution. The Institution will: 

(1) If a distance learning partner 

institution: 

(i) Comply with NCPDLP agreements, if an 

institution participates in NCPDLP. 

(ii) Provide a link to the academic 

institution through the Navy College Program 

Web site, only if designated as an NCPDLP 

school. 

(iii) Display the academic Institution’s 

advertising materials (i.e., pamphlets, 

posters, and brochures) at all NCOs, only if 

designated as an NCPDLP school. 

(2) Appoint and designate an Institution 

representative to maintain a continuing 

liaison with the NCO staff. 

(3) Comply with wide area work flow 

processes for invoicing of tuition assistance. 

Grades will be submitted to the Navy College 

Management Information System grade entry 

application. 

(4) Ensure library resource arrangements 

are in accordance with the standards of the 

Institution’s accrediting association and the 

State regulatory agency having jurisdiction 

over the academic Institution. 

(5) Respond to email messages from 

students within a reasonable period of time— 

generally within two workdays, unless 

extenuating circumstances would justify 

additional time. 

(6) Comply with host command procedures 

before starting instructor-based courses on 

any Navy installation. The NCO will 

negotiate a separate agreement with the 

academic Institution in concert with the host 

command procedures. 

(7) Mail an official transcript indicating 

degree completion, at no cost to the sailor or 

the Government to: Center for Personal and 

Professional Development, Attn: Virtual 

Education Center, 1905 Regulus Ave., Suite 

234, Virginia Beach, VA 23461–2009. 

Dated: August 9, 2013. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19747 Filed 8–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0474; FRL–9846–9 ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Revisions to Utah Administrative Code 

and an Associated Plan Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

September 20, 1999. The September 20, 

1999 submittal revised the numbering 

and format of the Utah Administrative 

Code (UAC) rules within Utah’s SIP. In 

this action, EPA is acting on those rules 

from the September 20, 1999 submittal 

that still require EPA action. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, 

Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part G, Fluoride,’’ and to 

disapprove R307–110–29, ‘‘Section XXI, 

Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program.’’ In conjunction with our 

proposed disapproval of R307–110–29, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, which Utah submitted as a 

revision to the SIP on February 6, 1996, 

and which was incorporated by 

reference in R307–110–29 as part of the 

September 20, 1999 submittal. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2013–0474, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2013– 

0474. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49401 

1On April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19383), EPA issued 

a correction notice that corrected certain aspects of 

the regulatory text in EPA’s February 14, 2006 

action. 

2Under a February 2, 2010 settlement agreement 

with WildEarth Guardians, as amended on June 30, 

2011, EPA is required to sign a proposed 

rulemaking action on the September 20, 1999 

submittal by July 31, 2013, and a final rulemaking 

action by December 20, 2013. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7814, 

or ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What action is EPA proposing and why? 

a. R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part G, Fluoride’’ 

b. R307–110–29, ‘‘Section XXI, Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program’’ 

c. Utah SIP Revision: Section XXI, ‘‘Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program’’ 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (coarse particulate matter). 

(iv) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (fine particulate matter). 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to 

the Utah Administrative Code. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

Utah’s September 20, 1999 submittal 

revised the numbering and format of the 

Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules 

within Utah’s SIP. The purpose was to 

provide for a more consistent 

numbering system and a coherent 

structure allowing provisions to be 

located more easily within Utah’s rules. 

On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), 

we approved many of the re-numbered 

rules from the September 20, 1999 

submittal, but we deferred action on 

others or explained why no action on 

the rules was necessary.1 In subsequent 

rulemaking actions, we acted on other 

rules from the September 20, 1999 

submittal, or on later versions of the 

rules that superseded the version 

submitted on September 20, 1999. In 

this action, we are acting on those rules 

from the September 20, 1999 submittal 

that still require EPA action.2

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, 

Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part G, Fluoride,’’ and we are 

proposing to disapprove R307–110–29, 

‘‘Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program.’’ In conjunction 

with our proposed disapproval of R307– 

110–29, we are also proposing to 

disapprove the Utah Diesel Inspection 

and Maintenance Program (Section XXI 

of the Utah SIP), which Utah submitted 

to EPA as a SIP revision on February 6, 

1996 and which R307–110–29 of the 

September 20, 1999 submittal 

incorporated by reference. 

In the docket for this proposal, we 

have included a table that lists the rules 

from the September 20, 1999 submittal 

that are not addressed by today’s action 

and that explains why no action on such 

rules is required. 

III. What action is EPA proposing and 

why? 

A. R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part G, Fluoride’’ 

We are proposing to approve the 

renumbering of R307–110–16, ‘‘Section 

IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part G, Fluoride.’’ This 

provision incorporates by reference 

Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, as amended 

by the Utah Air Quality Board on 

December 18, 1992, into the UAC. 

In our October 13, 2005 proposed rule 

on Utah’s September 20, 1999 submittal 

(70 FR 59681), we did not propose to act 

on the renumbering of R307–110–16. As 

our reason, we stated: ‘‘Utah repealed 

this rule from the federally approved 

SIP in their June 17, 1998 SIP submittal 

that EPA approved on May 20, 2002 (67 

FR 35442).’’ (70 FR 59687) That 

statement was incorrect. The May 20, 

2002 action did not remove R307–110– 

16 (under its previous numbering) or 

associated Utah SIP section IX, Part G 

from the SIP. Instead, that action 

removed R307–1–4.11, ‘‘Regulation for 

the Control of Fluorides from Existing 

Plants’’ from the SIP, in part based on 

the dismantling of the only facility to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49402 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10). 

4Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 

which the provision applied. In fact, on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), we 

approved the renumbering of Utah SIP 

Section IX, Part G, and this section 

remains in the SIP. However, we have 

not acted on the corresponding 

renumbering of R307–110–16 in the 

September 20, 1999 submittal. As R307– 

110–16 merely incorporates by reference 

SIP Section IX, Part G, which itself is 

currently in the SIP, we propose to 

approve the renumbering of R307–110– 

16. 

B. R307–110–29, ‘‘Section XXI, Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program’’ 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–110–29, ‘‘Section XXI, Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program.’’ 

R307–110–29 incorporated by reference 

the Utah Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program (Section XXI of 

the SIP), as adopted by the Utah Air 

Quality Board on July 12, 1995 (and 

submitted to EPA on February 6, 1996), 

which we have not acted on previously. 

In our October 13, 2005 notice of 

proposed rulemaking (70 FR 59681), we 

stated that we would not act to approve 

R307–110–29 because the rule 

incorporated by reference Utah’s 

February 6, 1996 SIP submittal. We 

noted that we would address the 

February 6, 1996 SIP submittal at a later 

date (70 FR 59687). We restated our 

intentions in our final rule of February 

14, 2006 (71 FR 7679) in which we 

noted that we would act on R307–110– 

29 when we acted on Utah’s February 6, 

1996 SIP submittal (71 FR 7681). With 

this proposed rule, we are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s February 6, 1996 

submittal of its Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program (see section III.C. 

below). Therefore, EPA is also 

proposing to disapprove R307–110–29 

because it incorporates by reference the 

State’s Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program that we are 

proposing to disapprove. 

C. Utah SIP Revision: Section XXI, 

‘‘Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program’’ 

We are proposing to disapprove 

Utah’s Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program contained in 

Section XXI of the Utah SIP, which Utah 

submitted on February 6, 1996 

(hereafter, the ‘‘Program’’). The Program 

requires the inspection of dieselpowered vehicles by means of an 

emissions opacity test. The opacity of 

vehicle emissions is measured, using 

what is known as a snap-idle opacity 

test, to determine the need for vehicle 

repair and maintenance. Utah adopted 

the Program with the goal of reducing 

particulate emissions from diesel 

vehicles in the PM10 3 nonattainment 

areas along the Wasatch Front—namely, 

Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. 

Our proposed disapproval is based on 

several issues. First, relevant literature 

and studies indicate that there is not an 

accepted correlation between opacity 

and particulate matter mass emissions 

in diesel vehicles. Given this lack of 

correlation between opacity and PM 

mass emissions, it is unlikely that the 

snap-opacity test is a good predictor of 

PM emissions, and the State has not 

provided data to support a different 

conclusion. Second, the Governor’s 

February 6, 1996 submittal of the 

Program did not specify a number of 

critical parameters, such as the relevant 

opacity limits or specifications for test 

equipment. While many of the missing 

parameters were included in revisions 

to Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties’ 

inspection and maintenance ordinances 

that the Utah Division of Air Quality 

forwarded to us on April 12, 2006, the 

State did not amend Section XXI of the 

SIP to include the revised ordinances, 

and the Governor did not submit such 

an amendment to us to replace the 

version submitted on February 6, 1996. 

Therefore, the Program as submitted is 

not enforceable as a practical matter. 

Finally, relevant literature and studies 

suggest that adjusting diesel vehicles to 

reduce the opacity of emissions may 

result in an increase in emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are 

precursors to the formation of PM2.5,4

PM10, and ground level ozone. It is 

possible, therefore, that repairing 

vehicles to the opacity test could 

exacerbate the PM challenge in Utah, 

and the State again has not provided 

data to contradict this possibility. We 

note that on November 13, 2009, Davis, 

Salt Lake, and Utah Counties were 

designated nonattainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). 

Also, both Salt Lake and Utah Counties 

retain their original legal designation of 

nonattainment for PM10. 

We are unable to conclude that 

approval of the Program would 

strengthen the SIP or would be 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l). Section 110(1) 

states that a SIP revision cannot be 

federally-approved if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress towards 

attainment of a NAAQS or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. The 

potential increase in NOX emissions 

from the Program could interfere with 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the relevant counties. We 

have no conclusive data to show that 

the potential benefits of the Program 

outweigh the potential emission 

increases with respect to pollutants of 

concern. Furthermore, the State has not 

provided data that would support the 

benefits it ascribes to the Program. 

Instead, it references a 1988 study that 

attempts to indirectly infer a level of 

emission reductions resulting from 

fixing a statistically insignificant 

number of old-technology diesel 

vehicles to reduce exhaust opacity, but 

without conducting the type of beforeand-after-repair mass-emission transient 

testing on the contemporary fleet of 

diesel vehicles needed to actually 

quantify any potential impacts on 

emissions. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are 

proposing to disapprove Section XXI of 

the SIP, ‘‘Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program,’’ as submitted by 

the State on February 6, 1996. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law 

that meets federal requirements and 

proposes to disapprove state law that 

does not meet federal requirements; if 

finalized as proposed, this action would 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this 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); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49403 

• 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 

[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 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. 

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) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS