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
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 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 (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

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. 

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 

mg/m3. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49405 

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. 

2For 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. 

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). 

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 μg/m3] 

County AQS site ID Site name 

98th percentile value 2010–2012 

24-hour 

design value 

Complete data? 1

2010 2011 2012 

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 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 24- 

hour 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 

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 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49406 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4Thus, 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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49407 

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

6EPA’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)). 

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: 

‘‘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: 

‘‘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). 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49408 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7The 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. 

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49409 

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. 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

ADDRESSES: 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS