Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19193

QUARTERLY REPORT—Continued

Docket No. Location Type Effective

date

Huntington 96–001 .............. Kanawha River, Kanawha Falls, WV ............................................................. Safety Zone ............... 1/19/96

Huntington 96–002 .............. Kanawha Falls, WV ........................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 1/21/96

Huntington 96–003 .............. Winfield, WV ................................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 1/22/96

Huntington 96–004 .............. Gallipolis, WV ................................................................................................. Safety Zone ............... 1/31/96

Huntington 96–006 .............. M. 183 to M. 185.5 ......................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 2/29/96

Jacksonville 96–016 ............ Vilano Beach, FL ............................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 3/12/96

LA/Long Beach 96–001 ...... San Pedro Bay, CA ........................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 2/14/96

LA/Long Beach 96–004 ...... San Pedro Bay, CA ........................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 3/19/96

LA/Long Beach 96–005 ...... San Pedro Bay, CA ........................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 3/23/96

Louisville 96–002 ................ Ohio River, Cincinnati, OH ............................................................................. Safety Zone ............... 2/5/96

Miami 96–012 ..................... Key West, FL .................................................................................................. Safety Zone ............... 3/2/96

Miami 96–019 ..................... Fort Lauderdale, FL ........................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 3/18/96

Morgan City 95–003 ........... Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Houman, LA ...................................................... Safety Zone ............... 2/12/96

New Orleans 96–001 .......... M. 94 to M. 97 ................................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 2/19/96

San Diego 96–001 .............. San Diego Bay, CA ........................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 3/7/96

San Juan 96–001 ................ San Juan Harbor, PR ..................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 1/6/96

San Juan 96–011 ................ San Juan Harbor, PR ..................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 2/27/96

San Juan 96–024 ................ San Juan, PR ................................................................................................. Security Zone ............ 3/21/96

01–95–174 .......................... Charlestown, MA ............................................................................................ Security Zone ............ 3/28/96

01–95–177 .......................... Mystic, CT ....................................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 12/31/95

01–96–019 .......................... Bridgeport, CT ................................................................................................ Safety Zone ............... 3/17/96

01–96–400 .......................... Port of New York and New Jersey ................................................................. Safety Zone ............... 1/7/96

05–96–006 .......................... Albemarle Sound, NC ..................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 1/31/96

05–96–011 .......................... Hampton Roads, VA ....................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 3/14/96

07–96–002 .......................... Hillsborough Bay, Tampa, FL ......................................................................... Special Local ............. 2/3/96

07–96–022 .......................... St. Augustine, FL ............................................................................................ Special Local ............. 3/31/96

07–96–025 .......................... Bahia De Mayaguez, PR ................................................................................ Special Local ............. 3/24/96

07–96–026 .......................... Old San Juan, PR .......................................................................................... Special Local ............. 3/31/96

13–96–003 .......................... Columbia River, OR ....................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 2/13/96

13–96–005 .......................... Portland, OR ................................................................................................... Security Zone ............ 2/14/96

13–96–006 .......................... Columbia River, OR ....................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 2/14/96

13–96–007 .......................... Columbia River, OR ....................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 2/15/96

13–96–008 .......................... Queets, WA .................................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 3/27/96

13–96–009 .......................... Benton, WA .................................................................................................... Safety Zone ............... 3/28/96

[FR Doc. 96–10820 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA034–4014, PA035–4015; FRL–5465–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan for the

Pittsburgh Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is disapproving a

redesignation request for the Pittsburgh

ozone nonattainment area and a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This SIP revision consists

of a maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh

ozone nonattainment area. The effect of

this action is to disapprove the

redesignation request and its associated

maintenance plan because the area

violated the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard for ozone (the ozone

NAAQS) and additionally is not

otherwise eligible for redesignation.

This action is being taken under

sections 107 and 110 of the Clean Air

Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on May 31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107 and the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria A. Pino, (215) 597–9337, at the

EPA Region III office, or via e-mail at

pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4598), EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) for the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that

proposed disapproval of the

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

ozone nonattainment area (the

Pittsburgh area). The formal

redesignation request was submitted by

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on

November 12, 1993. At the same time,

the Commonwealth submitted a

maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh area

as a SIP revision. The Commonwealth

subsequently amended the maintenance

plan on January 13, 1994 and, again, on

May 12, 1995. During the 1995 ozone

season, the Pittsburgh area violated the

ozone NAAQS, making the area

ineligible for redesignation. Therefore,

EPA proposed to disapprove the

redesignation request and its associated

maintenance plan.

Other specific details of the

Commonwealth’s redesignation request

and maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh

area, and the rationale for EPA’s

proposed action are explained in the

NPR and will not be restated here. Both

positive and adverse public comments

were received on the NPR. EPA received

three comment letters in favor of the

proposed disapproval of the Pittsburgh
19194 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

area redesignation request and

maintenance plan. Two comment letters

were opposed to the disapproval. The

following is a summary of the adverse

comments received on the NPR, and

EPA’s response to those comments.

Comment#1: Two commenters

maintained that transport of ozone and

NOX is the primary cause of the

violations in the Pittsburgh area. The

letters contained the following

comments:

(1) ‘‘Southwestern Pennsylvania’s

ozone is primarily due to transported

ozone and NOX from upwind states.’’

(2) ‘‘Despite the potential health and

economic harm to residents of

southwestern Pennsylvania, EPA has

failed to properly control interstate

transport of ozone and NOX into

Pennsylvania.’’

(3) ‘‘EPA has failed to consider the

effects of transport in determining

whether southwestern Pennsylvania has

violated the NAAQS for ozone and

whether its maintenance plan is

adequate.’’

(4) ‘‘Transport of ozone from outside

Pennsylvania into the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley area was not considered.’’

(5) ‘‘Disapproval of southwestern

Pennsylvania’s attainment application

could worsen, rather than improve, the

region’s air quality.’’ The commenter

asserted that, because the ozone in the

Pittsburgh area is due primarily to

transport, additional emission controls

will not prevent exceedances, and may

have little or no effect on the area’s

ozone levels. Also, ‘‘extraordinary

measures’’ would be needed to prevent

exceedances.

One commenter contends that ozone

readings at monitoring points near the

West Virginia/Ohio/Pennsylvania

border demonstrate a strong correlation

between the amount of ozone

transported across the border and the

readings in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

area. The commenter claimed that

imposition of additional emission

controls in the Pittsburgh area would

further exacerbate the substantial

economic incentive in the neighboring

states of Ohio and West Virginia, which

are not included in the Ozone Transport

Region (OTR) and include areas that

have been granted redesignation to

attainment and/or NOX exemptions

under section 182(f) of the Act.

EPA’s Response: While Pennsylvania

has made great strides in improving the

air quality in the Pittsburgh area, ozone

remains a problem. EPA believes that

the Pittsburgh area generates substantial

emissions of VOC and NOX, which

contribute significantly to the

nonattainment problem there. This was

demonstrated in 1995, when

exceedances were recorded in

Pittsburgh, and ozone concentrations at

the border and in all other western and

central Pennsylvania areas were below

the standard.

On November 15, 1990, amendments

to the 1977 Clean Air Act were enacted.

Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. The

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was

designated nonattainment for ozone

prior to enactment of the amended Act.

The area retained its designation of

nonattainment under the amended Act,

and was classified as moderate on

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).

Despite being classified as moderate

since 1991, the Pittsburgh area has not

fully adopted and implemented all

statutory requirements for moderate

ozone nonattainment areas, including

automobile inspection and maintenance

(I/M) and reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for all of its major

sources of VOC and NOX. Therefore,

emissions in the Pittsburgh area have

not been reduced to the extent required

by the Clean Air Act for moderate

nonattainment areas.

Disapproval of the redesignation

request will not worsen the area’s air

quality. In fact, the opposite is true. If

the redesignation request was approved,

and the area was not required to address

its air quality problem by reducing its

emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and

NOX), the area would continue to

violate the ozone NAAQS whenever

meteorological conditions were

favorable for ozone formation. However,

if the redesignation request is

disapproved, and the area adopts and

implements all control measures

required for moderate ozone

nonattainment areas, precursor

emissions will be reduced and,

therefore, ozone concentrations in the

area will be reduced.

Pennsylvania has made no

demonstration that the ozone problem

in the Pittsburgh area is caused by

transport from upwind sources. An

adequate technical demonstration,

including emissions data and a

modeling analysis, must be provided to

support any claim of transportdominated nonattainment.

Although ozone levels recorded at

monitors near the West Virginia/Ohio/

Pennsylvania border seem to correlate

with the levels recorded further east in

the nonattainment area, this data is not

sufficient to demonstrate that the

Pittsburgh area’s ozone problem is due

to transport. During the summer of

1995, on the days when monitors in the

Pittsburgh area (‘‘downwind’’ monitors

in Allegheny and Westmoreland

Counties) recorded exceedances of the

ozone standard, ozone levels at the

monitors on the western border of the

Pittsburgh area (the ‘‘upwind’’ monitors

in Beaver and Washington Counties,

Pennsylvania) recorded increased levels

of ozone. However, these ‘‘upwind’’

monitors did not record any

exceedances of the ozone standard. In

other words, ‘‘downwind’’ monitors in

the Pittsburgh area always recorded

higher ozone levels than the monitors at

the western border. This demonstrates

the Pittsburgh area is causing its own

exceedances by generating ozone in the

area.

Furthermore, EPA intends to use its

authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A)

and (D) of the Clean Air Act, where

appropriate, to require any state to

reduce its emissions where there is

evidence, such as photochemical grid

modeling, showing that the area’s

emissions contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other state. EPA is

working with the states and other

organizations, through the Ozone

Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), to

design and complete studies that

consider upwind sources and quantify

their impacts. As the studies progress,

EPA will continue to work with the

states and other organizations to

develop mutually acceptable attainment

strategies. Under the Clean Air Act, each

state is ultimately responsible for

ensuring that emissions originating in

the state do not contribute significantly

to nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other state.

Moreover, Governor Ridge has

publicly stated that Pittsburgh has an

ozone problem. The Governor has

initiated a stakeholders process, a

cooperative effort between industry and

government, to resolve Pennsylvania’s

air quality problems. EPA officials are

actively involved in this process to help

Pennsylvania determine the most

suitable emission control measures for

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area.

Finally, even if the violations in

Pittsburgh could be attributed to

transport, EPA would not have the

authority to redesignate Pittsburgh to

attainment. Section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii)

defines an attainment area as an area

‘‘that meets’’ the national ambient air

quality standard and section

107(d)(3)(E) prohibits EPA from

redesignating an area to attainment

unless EPA determines that the area is

attaining the standard. As an area that

is experiencing violations of the ozone

standard is not attaining the standard,

EPA is not authorized by the Clean Air

Act to redesignate such an area to

attainment.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19195

Comment #2: ‘‘EPA has established an

unreasonable methodology for

determining a region’s compliance with

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, and has

failed to comply with statutory

requirements to review and revise the

standard.’’ The commenter also

criticized EPA’s method of determining

an area’s design value and EPA’s

methods used to locate monitors.

EPA’s Response: The ozone NAAQS

is a health-based standard that couples

exposure time and concentration. EPA

has determined that the level of the

NAAQS is a one-hour average ozone

concentration of 0.12 parts per million

(ppm). This standard is designed to

protect public health. Attainment of the

ozone NAAQS is determined using

three consecutive years of data to

account for year-to-year variations in

meteorological conditions as well as

year-to-year variations in VOC and NOX

emissions. Concentrations of ozone

above the NAAQS level cause

respiratory problems such as shortness

of breath, coughing, congestion, and

lung tissue damage and can result in

loss of work, and increased

hospitalizations. Those most at risk are

children, outdoor workers, people with

respiratory problems, such as asthma,

and people who spend a lot of time

outside.

Under section 109(d)(1) of the Act,

EPA is required to perform a review of

the ozone NAAQS every five years. The

last review was completed in 1993 (58

FR 13008). That review resulted in

retaining the existing standard: 0.12

ppm, 1 hour average, average annual

expected exceedances ≤1 (i.e. for a

three-year period, the average number of

expected exceedances at each

monitoring site must be less than or

equal to one per year). (See 40 CFR 50.)

However, in the February 3, 1994

Federal Register (59 FR 5164), EPA

announced that, due to new studies

published in the scientific literature on

ozone’s health and environmental

effects, another review of the ozone

NAAQS would be conducted as rapidly

as possible. EPA is planning to complete

its review and propose its findings as

early as mid-1996. EPA expects to take

final action regarding its current review

of the ozone NAAQS by mid-1997,

which is within five years of completion

of its last review.

The 0.12 ppm ozone standard and the

method used by EPA to determine

whether an area is attaining the ozone

standard were decided upon through

notice and comment rulemaking and are

contained in 40 CFR Part 50 § 50.9 and

App. H (44 FR 8220 (Feb. 8, 1979)). EPA

is bound by that standard and that

method unless and until it is changed

through further rulemaking. Thus, this

rulemaking is simply not the

appropriate forum for raising concerns

regarding the ozone standard or the

methods for determining attainment of

the standard. EPA is simply following

its own regulations that were

promulgated previously pursuant to

notice and comment rulemaking

procedures.

Section 183(g) of the Act requires EPA

to conduct a study of whether the

methodology EPA used to establish a

design value for ozone provides an

adequate indicator of ozone air quality.

(The design value is an indicator that

EPA uses to determine the extent of an

area’s nonattainment problem.) In

accordance with this requirement, EPA

conducted a study and published its

results in December 1994 in a report

entitled Clean Air Act Ozone Design

Value Study: Final Report (EPA–454/R–

94–035). The report concluded that:

(1) The EPA design value method

yields ozone design values that are

consistent with the current NAAQS.

(2) The EPA design value provides a

reasonable estimate of peak ozone levels

within urban areas and the degree of

nonattainment of the area.

(3) Ozone design values calculated

using EPA’s method correlate highly

with other methods.

(4) A meteorologically adjusted design

value may not be the best indicator of

the air people actually breathe, and is a

major departure from current EPA

policy.

Finally, monitor location is

determined through a cooperative

process between EPA and states. EPA

has detailed criteria for the placement of

monitors (40 CFR 58). Monitors are

located throughout a nonattainment

area, in a network designed to

characterize the air quality of the entire

area. EPA and the states conduct annual

reviews of monitoring networks to

determine if monitors are properly

located. EPA’s latest review of the

Pittsburgh area monitoring network,

conducted in the spring of 1995,

indicated that the monitor locations

were adequate in assessing the ambient

air quality in the area.’’

Comment #3: ‘‘EPA’s methodology for

measuring attainment fails to properly

assess southwestern Pennsylvania’s

compliance with the Clean Air Act since

most of the population of the region is

not experiencing ozone levels in

violation of the federal standard.’’ The

commenter contends that the Pittsburgh

area’s moderate classification was based

on high ozone levels in 1988, and that

in each of the 6 subsequent years, 1989–

1994, the area’s ozone levels were

‘‘better than’’ the standard. In

recognition of this, EPA determined that

the area met the standard in July of

1995. The violation in 1995 was a

function of the weather, and the federal

ozone standard fails to make

adjustments for unusual weather. VOC

and NOX, which react to form ozone, are

not considered pollutants. Ozone levels

are low most days, because the

temperature is usually below 90

degrees.

The commenter went on to state that

only 2 of 11 monitors violated the

standard, and that although there were

9 exceedance days, the exceedance

lasted only 1 or two hours on most of

the exceedance days. Only on the

hottest day of the year, July 15, did the

exceedance last more than 4 hours.

Ozone is low in most areas, on most

days, and at most times of the day.

EPA’s Response: As stated above,

exceedances of 0.12 ppm ozone for one

hour or longer have been determined to

cause measurable health effects in

healthy individuals. Compliance with

the ozone NAAQS is determined using

three consecutive years of data to

account for year-to-year variations in

emissions and meteorological

conditions. As noted above, these

determinations were made pursuant to

long-standing EPA regulations, and this

rulemaking is simply not the

appropriate forum for comments

regarding the ozone standard or the

methodology for determining attainment

of the standard. The area first had air

quality data that met the NAAQS in

1992, considering the years 1990–1992,

and continued to meet the standard in

1993 and 1994. Then, in 1995, the area

once again violated the NAAQS. In light

of the methodology used to determine

attainment of the ozone NAAQS, even if

meteorological conditions were unusual

in 1995 (an allegation that the

commenter failed to substantiate with

any analysis or data), there is no basis

for ignoring the violations monitored

during that time period.

As shown in the tables below, the area

was not without exceedances from 1989

to 1994. From 1987 to 1995, the number

of exceedances varied from year to year

with no discernable pattern. This

variation is due to year-to-year

variations in emissions and

meteorological conditions.
19196 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PITTSBURGH AREA: NUMBER OF OZONE EXCEEDANCES: 1987–1995

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

10 41 5 0 2 0 1 4 17

Because the area has not adequately

reduced its VOC and NOX emissions, it

is subject to ozone exceedances

whenever meteorological conditions are

conducive to ozone formation. One of

the goals of the Clean Air Act is to

minimize the health risks that people

encounter. Since meteorological

conditions cannot be controlled, the

way to reduce health risks due to ozone

in the Pittsburgh area is to reduce the

anthropogenic emissions of VOC and

NOX, both of which are considered

pollutants. Furthermore, many VOCs are

listed as hazardous air pollutants under

section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is individually

regulated by EPA because of its health

and welfare effects. As a result, the

reduction of VOC and NOX emissions

will reduce the health risks that are

associated with exposure to VOC and

NOX, as well as reducing the health

risks due to elevated ozone levels.

Ozone is a regional pollutant. It is not

formed in the same place as its VOC and

NOX precursors are generated. The VOC

and NOX that react to form ozone are

usually generated from different

sources. These pollutants are

transported through the air (by the

wind) to a common location, and then

react in the presence of sunlight.

Because of this transport, emissions

from the entire area contribute to ozone

exceedances, even if the exceedances

are recorded only at a few monitors.

Therefore, all ozone monitors in an

ozone nonattainment area must be free

of violations for the area to be

considered meeting the ozone NAAQS.

Comment #4: ‘‘EPA should have

redesignated the Pittsburgh area prior to

the summer of 1995.’’ The commenter

wrote that, since the request was

submitted in 1993, EPA had ample

opportunity and justification to approve

it, and that for 4 consecutive three-year

periods, 1989–1994, the NAAQS was

achieved. Another commenter stated

that, because of the debate over vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M), EPA

refused to redesignate the area.

EPA’s Response: Under section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, the following

five criteria must be met for an ozone

nonattainment area to be redesignated to

attainment:

1. The area must meet the ozone

NAAQS.

2. The area must meet applicable

requirements of section 110 and Part D

of the Act.

3. The area must have a fully

approved SIP under section 110(k) of

the Act.

4. The area must show that its

experienced improvement in air quality

is due to permanent and enforceable

measures.

5. The area must have a fully

approved maintenance plan under

section 175A of the Act, including

contingency measures.

In order for EPA to redesignate an

area, all five of these criteria must be

met. It is true, that from 1992 to 1994,

the Pittsburgh area met the first

criterion. The area did have ambient air

quality data that met the ozone NAAQS.

However, the area did not meet the

remaining four criteria.

According to criteria 2 and 3, all

applicable Part D requirements,

including new source review (NSR),

NOX and VOC reasonably available

control technology (RACT), and I/M,

must be submitted to EPA and approved

into the SIP before a redesignation

request can be approved. As the area

lacks SIP-approved RACT rules for

major sources of NOX and VOC, SIPapproved I/M, and SIP-approved NSR,

EPA could not approve its redesignation

request.

The violations that were recorded in

1995 indicate that criterion 4 was not

met. The permanent and enforceable

emission reductions achieved in the

area were evidently not adequate to

maintain the improved air quality that

was experienced between 1989 and

1994, which was due, in part, to the

meteorological conditions experienced

during that period.

Criterion 5 was established to ensure

that any area that is redesignated to

attainment will be able to maintain

compliance with the NAAQS for at least

a ten-year maintenance period following

the redesignation. The Pittsburgh area

does not meet criterion 5 because its

maintenance plan is unapprovable. The

maintenance plan does not project

maintenance of the NAAQS for the

required 10 years beyond EPA approval

of the redesignation request. The

submitted maintenance plan projects

emissions only up to 2004. When the

maintenance plan was last amended in

1995, it should have projected

emissions out to at least 2006, to allow

time for EPA to process the requests. In

addition, the maintenance plan contains

inadequate contingency measures.

Contingency measures are needed to

correct violations that might occur

during the maintenance period, in order

to ensure that public health is protected.

The only contingency measure provided

in the maintenance plans is improved

rule effectiveness. No source categories

have been chosen, and no rule

effectiveness matrix or protocol has

been completed.

Comment #5: ‘‘The exceedances

during the summer of 1995 were the

result of unusual meteorological

conditions.’’

EPA’s Response: Ozone formation is a

very complex process, which involves

meteorological conditions as well as the

concentration of VOCs and NOX in the

air. As stated above, attainment of the

ozone NAAQS is determined using

three consecutive years of data to

account for variations in meteorological

conditions as well as variations in VOC

and NOX emissions. Since we cannot

control the weather, we must control

levels of ozone in the breathable air by

controlling the concentration of NOX

and VOC in the air. Our goal is to ensure

that everyone is breathing healthy air,

regardless of the weather.

Comment #6: ‘‘EPA is not treating

Pennsylvania in the same manner as

other similarly situated states.’’

According to the commenter, EPA is not

treating four other states with pending

redesignation requests (Ohio, Kentucky,

Michigan and Georgia) for areas that

experienced violations in 1995 in the

same way as Pittsburgh. The commenter

also claims that EPA treated Pittsburgh

differently by not approving its

November 1993 redesignation request,

whereas EPA did approve redesignation

requests for other ozone nonattainment

areas.

EPA’s Response: EPA is aware of three

other ozone nonattainment areas that

have pending redesignation requests

and that experienced violations of the

NAAQS in 1995. These areas include

two moderate ozone nonattainment

areas: Muskegon, Michigan, and the

Cincinnati area (a multi-state area that

covers parts of Ohio and northern

Kentucky); and one marginal area:

Birmingham, Alabama.

EPA is not aware of any area in

Georgia in this situation. EPA

acknowledges that it has not yet
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19197

proposed disapproval of those

redesignation requests.

These areas differ from Pittsburgh,

however. In the case of the two other

moderate areas, EPA’s 18-month period

for acting on the redesignation requests

has not yet expired and EPA is not yet

legally obligated to take action on those

requests. In contrast, in the case of

Pittsburgh, EPA’s statutory 18-month

period for taking action expired in May

of 1995. See CAA § 107(d)(3)(D). Thus,

the time period for EPA to act on the

Pittsburgh redesignation has expired,

but has not done so in the case of

Muskegon and Cincinnati. Birmingham

is a marginal area that has a less serious

ozone air quality problem than

Pittsburgh, a moderate area. Although

EPA has not yet acted on Birmingham’s

redesignation request, that fact does not

justify further inaction on Pittsburgh’s

request in light of the expiration of the

18-month statutory time period for

acting on Pittsburgh’s November 12,

1993 request.

EPA notes that it has not and may not

(in light of section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) and

107(d)(3)(E)) approve a redesignation

request for an area that is violating the

ozone standard. Thus, the three other

areas just discussed, like Pittsburgh, are

and must remain designated

nonattainment areas until they attain

the standard and satisfy the other

redesignation criteria.

With respect to the comment that EPA

treated Pittsburgh differently by not

approving its redesignation request

while approving others, EPA notes that

Pittsburgh’s request, unlike the others

EPA approved, does not and did not

meet other redesignation criteria of

section 107(d)(3)(E). (See Response to

Comment 4.) Thus, EPA did not treat

Pittsburgh differently from other

similarly situated areas by not

approving its redesignation request

while approving others. The others

satisfied the statutory criteria for

redesignation; Pittsburgh’s did not.

Final Action

Because the Pittsburgh area is not

eligible for redesignation, EPA is

disapproving Pennsylvania’s request for

redesignation of the Pittsburgh area and

the accompanying maintenance plan,

which was originally submitted on

November 12, 1993, and amended on

January 13, 1994 and May 12, 1995.

When the final disapproval of the

maintenance plan is effective, the

Pittsburgh area will no longer be able to

demonstrate conformity to the

submitted maintenance plan pursuant to

the transportation conformity

requirements in 40 CFR 93.128(i). Since

the submitted maintenance plan budget

will no longer apply for transportation

conformity purposes, the build/no-build

and less-than-90 tests will apply

pursuant to 40 CFR 93.122. In addition,

the Commonwealth submitted a 15%

rate-of-progress plan (15% plan) on

March 22, 1996. Ninety days after this

submittal date, the emissions budget

contained in this 15% plan will apply

for conformity purposes pursuant to 40

CFR 93.118 and 93.128(a)(1)(ii), as well

as the build/no-build test under 40 CFR

93.122.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed/promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

As described in the NPR, EPA has

determined that the disapproval of the

redesignation request will not affect a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA’s denial of the Commonwealth’s

redesignation request under section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not affect

any existing requirements applicable to

small entities nor does it impose new

requirements. The area retains its

current designation status and will

continue to be subject to the same

statutory requirements. To the extent

that the area must adopt regulations,

based on its nonattainment status, EPA

will review the effect of those actions on

small entities at the time the

Commonwealth submits those

regulations.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action, pertaining to the

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Pittsburgh ozone

nonattainment area, must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 1, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Parts 61 and 206

RIN 3067–AC35

National Flood Insurance Program;

Group Flood Insurance Policy for

Individual and Family Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Interim final rule with request

for comments.