Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28061

have been authorized, is subject to

disciplinary action or criminal

prosecution or both.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 96–13831 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA084–4018; FRL–5511–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Revocation of Determination of

Attainment of Ozone Standard by the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone

Nonattainment Area and

Reinstatement of Applicability of

Certain Reasonable Further Progress

and Attainment Demonstration

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notification

of its determination that the PittsburghBeaver Valley ozone nonattainment area

is no longer attaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone, based on monitored

violations of the standard during the

1995 ozone season. EPA is also

reinstating the applicability of certain

reasonable further progress (RFP) and

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other requirements,

of Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act

for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone

nonattainment area because the area is

no longer in attainment for ozone.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on August 15, 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, U.S.

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) 566–2181, at the

EPA Region III office, or at

pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov via e-mail.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a policy

memorandum dated May 10, 1995, from

John Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, to the

Regional Air Division Directors, entitled

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,

Attainment Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ EPA

stated that it is reasonable to interpret

provisions regarding reasonable further

progress (RFP) and attainment

demonstrations, along with certain other

related provisions, so as not to require

certain SIP submissions if an ozone

nonattainment area subject to those

requirements is monitoring attainment

of the ozone standard.

Based on this memo, on July 19, 1995,

EPA published a final determination (60

FR 37015) that the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley and Reading ozone

nonattainment areas had attained the

ozone standard and that the SIP

requirements for reasonable further

progress, (namely the 15% plans and

attainment demonstrations required

under section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air

Act, and the contingency measures

required under section 172(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act) no longer applied so long

as these areas did not violate the ozone

standard. The notice also stated that the

sanctions clocks started on January 18,

1994, for these areas for failure to

submit the RFP requirements were

halted. The effective date of the final

determination occurred one day after

the sanction clocks expired and these

areas were, in fact, under the offset

sanction at the time of EPA’s final

determination. However, the sanctions

were lifted as a result of EPA’s final

determination for the same reason that

the final determination would have

halted the sanctions clocks.

EPA has reviewed the 1995 ambient

air quality data (consistent with the

requirements contained in 40 CFR part

58 and recorded in AIRS) for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone

nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh

area), and determined that the area is no

longer in attainment. During the 1995

ozone season 17 exceedances of the

standard were recorded, and two

monitors in the Pittsburgh area recorded

violations of the ozone NAAQS. The

current design value for the Pittsburgh

area, computed using the ozone

monitoring data for 1993 through 1995,

is 133 parts per billion (ppb). The

average annual number of expected

exceedances is 8.2 for that same time

period. An area is considered in

nonattainment when the average annual

number of expected exceedances is

greater than 1.0. A more detailed

summary of the ozone monitoring data

for the area is provided in the Technical

Support Document for this notice.

Other specific details of the

attainment determination revocation

and the reinstatement of the 15% plan,

attainment demonstration, and

contingency measures requirements for

the Pittsburgh area, and the rationale for

EPA’s proposed action are explained in

the February 12, 1996 notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPR) (61 FR

5360) and will not be restated here. Both

positive and adverse public comments

were received on the NPR.

During the public comment period

EPA received one comment letter in

favor of the proposal, and two letters

that contained adverse comments.

Following meetings with the

representatives of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection, EPA subsequently received

another letter from one of the

commenters, the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, setting forth a proposed

schedule of milestones for meeting the

attainment demonstration requirement.

The following is a summary of the

adverse comments received on the NPR,

and EPA’s response to those comments.

Comment #1: The Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania opposed EPA’s proposed

reinstatement of the requirements of

sections 182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9) on

August 15, 1996. According to the

Commonwealth, the August 15, 1996

date did not allow the state enough time

to develop and adopt the necessary

regulations and make the required

submissions. The Commonwealth

contended that the August 15, 1996 date

was not consistent with EPA’s own

policy of providing a reasonable time

taking into account the pertinent

circumstances, did not allow sufficient

time for the Southwestern Pennsylvania

Ozone Stakeholders process (established

by the Commonwealth) to be completed,

was inconsistent with the time frame for

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program submissions established by the

National Highway Systems Designation

Act (NHSDA) of 1995, and did not

provide sufficient time for the state

rulemaking process to occur.

Subsequently, following meetings

between EPA and the state, in a letter

dated May 17, 1996, the Commonwealth

proposed a schedule of milestones for

submissions from the Commonwealth to

EPA to comply with the attainment

demonstration requirement for the

Pittsburgh area. That schedule includes

milestone dates beginning on August 15,

1996, and ending on December 31, 1997.

Response: First, with respect to the

proposed August 15, 1996 date for the

reinstatement of the 15% plan and

section 172(c)(9) contingency measures
28062 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

requirements, for the reasons stated in

the proposal EPA continues to believe

that date is reasonable and provides the

state with an adequate time to prepare

and adopt a SIP revision to comply with

those requirements. The reasonableness

of that date is conclusively

demonstrated by the fact that the

Commonwealth submitted to EPA a

15% plan, and the contingency

measures for the Pittsburgh area, as a

SIP revision, on March 22, 1996. EPA

notes that this submittal also

demonstrates that there is no

inconsistency between the submittal

date for an interim I/M program under

the NHSDA provisions (March 27,

1996), and the August 15, 1996 date for

the reinstatement of the requirements as

the state is relying in its 15% plan on

such an I/M program, which it

submitted to EPA on March 22, 1996.

EPA worked with the Commonwealth to

develop this 15% plan, and provided

comments on the plan for the public

record. Therefore, EPA is adopting in

this final action the proposed August

15, 1996 date for the reinstatement of

the 15% plan and contingency measures

requirements.

Second, with respect to the date for

the reinstatement of the attainment

demonstration requirement of section

182(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, EPA believes

that the comments received indicate

that it is appropriate for EPA to modify

its proposal to allow additional time for

the submission of all of the aspects or

elements of an attainment

demonstration. EPA believes that there

is a range of time periods that would

satisfy the criteria of the May 10, 1995

policy regarding a reasonable time for

the reinstatement of the suspended

requirements and that it is also

permissible to establish a schedule of

milestones requiring the submission of

various elements of an attainment

demonstration culminating with the

submission of fully-adopted,

enforceable regulations necessary to

implement control measures necessary

to attain the ozone standard. While EPA

does not agree with all of the comments

made by the Commonwealth, EPA

believes that the schedule proposed by

the Commonwealth in the letter of May

17, 1996 is a reasonable one in light of

the particular circumstances pertinent

to the submission of an attainment

demonstration for the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley ozone nonattainment area.

Under that schedule, the attainment

demonstration would be split into a

number of elements, the first being due

to be submitted to EPA on August 15,

1996, EPA’s original proposed date for

the reinstatement of the attainment

demonstration requirement. That first

element, the photochemical oxidant

modeling demonstration that identifies

VOC and NOX reduction levels

necessary for attainment of the ozone

NAAQS in the area and a list of

available control strategies, is the

necessary first step in the process of

putting together a complete attainment

demonstration for the Pittsburgh area.

EPA believes that the August 15, 1996

date is a reasonable date for this first

element as it will provide adequate time

for the completion of the modeling

efforts but ensure that the

Commonwealth is moving forward

expeditiously towards the submission of

a full attainment demonstration.

Under the schedule, the second

element, an official SIP revision (for

which the Commonwealth has

completed the public notice and hearing

process) containing a photochemical

oxidant modeling demonstration and a

list of available control strategies must

be submitted by the Commonwealth to

EPA by October 1, 1996. This will

provide an adequate opportunity for

public input on these matters through a

notice and comment process at the state

level and through the Southwestern

Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders

process established by the state for

addressing Pittsburgh’s ozone problems,

while still ensuring that these issues

will be addressed in an expeditious

manner.

The third element under the schedule

is a SIP submission from the

Commonwealth to EPA that must be

made by April 1, 1997. This submission

must consist of any emission reduction

strategies selected by the

Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area

for which new regulations are not

required and an enforceable

commitment, which has undergone

public notice and hearing, to submit to

EPA by December 31, 1997, as final,

fully-adopted and enforceable

regulations any emission reduction

strategies selected by the

Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area

for which new regulations are required.

This will ensure that any selected

strategies that do not require new

regulations are submitted to EPA prior

to the 1997 ozone season for

incorporation in the SIP and that any

selected strategies for which new

regulations are required will be

submitted in an expeditious time frame,

but one that will provide necessary

additional time for state rulemaking

activities. Submission of those

regulations by December 31, 1997,

should provide adequate lead time for

the implementation of such regulations

and EPA action regarding those

regulations prior to the 1998 ozone

season.

The final element under the schedule

is the December 31, 1997 date for the

submission of final, fully-adopted and

enforceable regulations to implement all

selected control strategies for which

new regulations are necessary.

EPA believes that this schedule

represents a reasonable accommodation

between the need for expeditious

compliance with the reinstated

attainment demonstration requirement

and the time for the state regulatory

process, the technical work regarding

the underlying modeling, and allowing

for public input regarding these efforts

through the state notice and comment

process and the Commonwealth’s

stakeholder process, which is scheduled

for completion by the end of 1996. EPA

notes, however, that the obligations

regarding submittals to EPA established

under this milestone schedule exist

regardless of the outcome of the

stakeholder process.

EPA rejects the contention of the

commenter that the dates for the

reinstatement of the suspended

requirements were based on a

commitment to establish such dates in

a settlement agreement to settle pending

litigation. No settlement agreement

regarding the proposed dates had been

entered into at the time of the proposal

and the fact that EPA is establishing the

dates in this final action based on a

careful evaluation of all circumstances

and comments on the proposal,

including the Commonwealth’s letter of

May 17, 1996, demonstrates that EPA

had not committed itself to the August

15, 1996 date at the time of the

proposal.

The sanctions consequences of this

schedule are discussed below in the

CONCLUSIONS section of this notice.

Comment #2: ‘‘Transport of ozone

from outside Pennsylvania into the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was not

considered.’’

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 volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen (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. The

Commonwealth has performed no

modeling analyses to demonstrate that

the ozone problem in the Pittsburgh area
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28063

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

transport-dominated nonattainment.

Comment #3: ‘‘The 1995 ozone season

data was not officially submitted to EPA

until November 1995.’’

Response: While the Commonwealth

did not officially submit the data to EPA

until November 1995, the

Commonwealth was aware of the

violations much sooner. Although the

data had to go through official quality

assurance procedures, the

Commonwealth had a strong indication

that the area had violated the ozone

NAAQS before November 1995. In fact,

in an October 11, 1995 letter to EPA,

Governor Ridge acknowledged the

violations of the ozone NAAQS that

occurred in the Pittsburgh area during

the summer of 1995.

Comment #4: ‘‘The 1995 ozone season

area data was unexpected and unusual

in comparison to recent data.’’

Response: As shown in the tables

below, the area was not without

exceedances in recent years. 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.

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

precursor 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.

Finally, the comment letter referred to

comments that this same commenter

made on another, related action, EPA’s

February 7, 1996 proposed disapproval

of Pennsylvania’s ozone redesignation

request for the Pittsburgh area (61 FR

4598). On May 1, 1996, EPA responded

to those comments in the final rule

disapproving Pennsylvania’s

redesignation request for the Pittsburgh

area (61 FR 19193). Those comments

and EPA’s responses will not be restated

here but are incorporated by reference to

the extent relevant to this action.

The second commenter’s position is

that EPA’s July 19, 1995 waiver of the

15% plan and attainment demonstration

requirements for the Pittsburgh area was

unlawful because it relieved moderate

ozone nonattainment areas from

requirements established for those areas

in sections 172, 176, 179, 181, and 182

of the Clean Air Act.

Comment #1: ‘‘An area cannot be

removed from nonattainment status

except by the redesignation process

under section 107(d)(3), which provides

that the redesignation cannot occur

unless the area not only attained the

standard but also met several other

prerequisites. Because the July 19

decision did not purport to find—and

had no basis for finding—that these

other prerequisites had been met, and

did not purport to relieve the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area of its

nonattainment status, that decision

could not lawfully exempt the area from

the requirements imposed by sections

172, 176, 179, 181, and 182.’’

Response: The rationale and

justification for EPA’s July 19, 1995

action were thoroughly explained in

that rulemaking and EPA incorporates

by reference the explanations provided

therein as to the lawfulness of EPA’s

action. EPA also incorporates by

reference the discussions of the

rationales and bases for such actions

contained in other notices regarding

similar actions taken with respect to

other ozone nonattainment areas—Salt

Lake City, Utah (60 FR 36723, July 18,

1995), Muskegon and Grand Rapids,

Michigan (60 FR 37366, July 20, 1995),

and Cleveland, Ohio (61 FR 20458, May

7, 1996). EPA also notes that it

disapproved the Commonwealth’s

November 13, 1993 redesignation

request for the Pittsburgh area on May

1, 1996 (61 FR 19193), and that the issue

of whether the July 19, 1995 action had

any impact on EPA’s evaluation of the

redesignation request has now been

rendered moot.

Comment #2: The proposal ‘‘makes no

mention of either the conformity

requirements of section 176(c) or the

federal implementation plan

requirements of section 110(c).’’ The

same ozone NAAQS violations that

compel reimposition of the section

182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9) requirements

also compel imposition of the

conformity and federal implementation

plan (FIP) requirements as well—and on

the same schedule.

Response: With respect to the

conformity requirements, EPA believes

that they are not affected by this action.

Rather, the conformity requirements are

as they were explained in the May 1,

1996 disapproval of the Pittsburgh

redesignation request and maintenance

plan (61 FR 19193): ‘‘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 lessthan-90 tests will apply pursuant to 40

CFR 93.122. In addition, the

Commonwealth submitted a 15% rateof-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.’’

With respect to the FIP clock, EPA

believes that the FIP clock is analogous

to the sanctions clock and, therefore,

would be reinstated in the same manner

as the sanctions clock. Thus, the FIP

clock, like the sanctions clock, would

resume as to the particular submission

at issue, with one day less than six

months to run (the amount of time left

on the FIP clock at the time of the July

19, 1995 determination of attainment).

For example, with respect to the 15%

plan and contingency measure

requirements that are being reinstated as

of August 15, 1996, the FIP clock would
28064 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

be reinstated at that time, with one day

less than six months to run. With

respect to the elements of the attainment

demonstration, the FIP clock would

resume as to each element two weeks

after the due date for each element (the

date on which the sanctions would be

reinstated if the submission were not

made), with one day less than six

months to run.

Comment #3: Since it is the

commenter’s position that the

requirements never ceased being

applicable, the commenter agreed that

August 15, 1996 is ‘‘a more than

reasonable time from the

Commonwealth to meet those

requirements.’’ The commenter also

stated that, ‘‘Further delay in these

already long-overdue public health

measures must not be tolerated.’’

Response: As stated above, EPA

believed that August 15, 1996 provided

the Commonwealth with a reasonable

amount of time to develop and submit

a 15% plan, contingency measures, and

an attainment demonstration. However,

for the reasons set out in this notice,

EPA believes that, considering the

Commonwealth’s particular

circumstances (including its regulatory

adoption process and the Southwestern

Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders

process) the Commonwealth needs time

beyond August 15, 1996 to complete an

attainment demonstration for the

Pittsburgh area.

Conclusions

EPA has considered all the comments

received, and is committed to working

with the Commonwealth to resolve the

Pittsburgh area’s ozone problem.

Towards that end, EPA is a member of

the Southwestern Pennsylvania Ozone

Stakeholders Group and is participating

in the Stakeholders process to help

identify appropriate control measures,

agreeable to all affected parties, that will

bring the area into attainment for ozone

as quickly as possible, without causing

an undue economic burden to the

citizens of the area.

Furthermore, EPA still believes that

the August 15, 1996 date provides the

Commonwealth a reasonable amount of

time to develop a 15% plan and the

contingency measures. As noted above,

the Commonwealth submitted to EPA a

15% plan, and the contingency

measures, as an official SIP revision on

March 22, 1996. EPA worked with the

Commonwealth to develop this 15%

plan and the contingency measures, and

provided comments on the plan for the

public record.

Taking the individual circumstances

the Commonwealth faces in addressing

its outstanding SIP requirements,

including the Commonwealth’s rule

adoption process and the Southwestern

Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders

process, EPA has determined that it is

reasonable to allow more time than

proposed for the submission of a full

attainment demonstration SIP.

EPA is still revoking the attainment

determination for the Pittsburgh area,

and reinstating the RFP and attainment

demonstration requirements as of the

effective date of this action. However, in

lieu of requiring the Commonwealth to

submit the attainment determination for

the Pittsburgh area as a formal SIP

revision by August 15, 1996, EPA is

establishing the following milestones.

(1) By August 15, 1996, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA,

and make available for public comment

as a proposed SIP submission, complete

photochemical oxidant modeling for the

Pittsburgh area which identifies the

VOC and NOx reductions levels

necessary for attainment, and a list of

available control strategies.

(2) By October 1, 1996, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

SIP revision containing a photochemical

oxidant modeling demonstration and a

list of available control strategies.

(3) By April 1, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

full SIP revision for those emission

reduction strategies selected by the

Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area

for which new regulations are not

required.

(4) By April 1, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

committal SIP revision for those

emission reduction strategies selected

by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh

area that require new regulations.

(5) By December 31, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA as

a SIP revision adopted final fully

enforceable regulations encompassing

the emission reduction strategies

contained in the committal SIP.

Unless the Commonwealth makes the

required submittal to EPA, the sanctions

and sanction clocks halted by the July

19, 1995 action suspending the

attainment demonstration requirements

at issue will be reinstated, as to each of

the submittals included in this

milestone schedule, two weeks after the

date set for each of the submittals by the

Commonwealth to EPA. If the

Commonwealth fails to make a

submission by the required date, the

offset sanction would go back into effect

two weeks after the relevant milestone

date, and the highway sanction clock

would be reinstated at that time where

it was halted on July 19, 1995 (i.e., with

approximately 6 months remaining).

Sanctions or sanctions clocks would be

stopped if the Commonwealth makes

the relevant overdue submittal, if EPA

affirmatively determines that the actual

material submitted by the

Commonwealth contains the

information necessary to enable EPA to

determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone

requirement. This determination would

not be a determination regarding the

merits of the submission, but only a

determination as to whether it contains

the necessary elements for EPA to

proceed to evaluate its merits. EPA shall

make the determination as to whether

the submittal contains the necessary

information within two weeks of the

actual submission date by the

Commonwealth. EPA’s determination

will be issued, in writing, in a letter to

the Secretary of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

and will be publicly available.

In the event the Commonwealth

makes a required submittal by the

pertinent milestone date, EPA shall,

within two weeks of the milestone date,

make a determination, in writing, as to

whether the actual material submitted

by the Commonwealth contains the

information necessary to enable EPA to

determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone

requirement. If EPA determines that the

material submitted to EPA by the

Commonwealth fails to satisfy this

minimum criterion, the offset sanction

would be reinstated upon that

determination by EPA and the highway

sanction clock would be reinstated at

that time where it was halted on July 19,

1995 (i.e., with approximately 6 months

remaining). Sanctions or sanctions

clocks would be stopped if the

Commonwealth subsequently makes a

submittal to cure the deficiencies

identified by EPA, and if EPA

affirmatively determines in writing that

the material submitted by the

Commonwealth cures the identified

deficiencies. Again, EPA shall make the

determination as to the adequacy of the

submittal within two weeks of the date

of the actual submittal to EPA. Each of

the determinations referenced in this

paragraph will be made, in writing, in

a letter to the Secretary of the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection and made

publicly available.

In those instances where EPA

determines that the Commonwealth’s

submittal does not contain the

information necessary to enable EPA to

determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28065

requirement, EPA’s letter so informing

the Commonwealth will articulate the

basis for EPA’s determination, specify

the remedy, and identify the actions

necessary by the Commonwealth to

remedy its submission to satisfy the

relevant milestone.

Although this departs from the

normal approach to the cessation of a

sanctions clock or the lifting of

sanctions that have already been

imposed, EPA believes that the abovedescribed approach is justified in the

present unique circumstances. With this

action, EPA is establishing a new

submission schedule for requirements

that had been suspended by the July 19,

1995 action taken pursuant to the May

10, 1995 policy. Thus, in this case, the

underlying requirements that had led to

the starting of sanctions clocks and the

actual imposition of offset sanctions for

one day have been suspended since July

19, 1995. EPA believes it is appropriate

and justifiable to establish the

previously-described mechanism in the

context of carrying out the terms of the

July 19, 1995 action in the event of a

revocation of that determination of

attainment due to subsequent violations,

and the establishment of a milestone

schedule that provides the state with a

reasonable time to comply with the

reinstated requirements through the

submission of individual elements of

those requirements over a period of

time. That mechanism provides that in

the case where the Commonwealth

makes a submission to comply with the

schedule herein established, sanctions

and sanctions clocks would not be

reinstated unless EPA determines that

the submission was deficient following

the process that was described

previously.

To ensure that such determinations

are made by EPA expeditiously, EPA is

taking the unusual step of committing to

make such determinations within two

weeks of a submission from the

Commonwealth. This will assure that

sanctions are not either delayed or

prolonged due to inaction on the part of

EPA. Thus, EPA has also committed to

act within two weeks on a submission

from the Commonwealth made to cure

a previously-identified deficiency. This

will assure that sanctions and sanctions

clocks reinstated due to an identified

deficiency in a submission will be

turned off expeditiously in the event the

Commonwealth cures that deficiency.

EPA views these commitments to act

within two weeks, to determine whether

a submission contains the information

necessary to enable EPA to determine

whether the Commonwealth’s

submission complies with the milestone

requirements, as establishing an

enforceable commitment or duty to

make those determinations. As noted

earlier, these determinations are not

determinations on the merits of the

individual submissions, but are only

determinations regarding whether the

contents of the submission are adequate

for EPA to evaluate the merits of the

submission. EPA also emphasizes that,

in the event the Commonwealth makes

no submission at all by the milestone

date in the schedule, sanctions and

sanctions clocks would be reinstated

automatically, without further action on

the part of EPA and would only be

stopped upon an affirmative

determination by EPA regarding the

adequacy of the submission.

As stated previously, in those

instances where EPA determines that

the Commonwealth’s submittal does not

contain the information necessary to

enable EPA to determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone

requirement, EPA’s letter so informing

the Commonwealth will articulate the

basis for EPA’s determination, specify

the remedy, and identify the actions

necessary by the Commonwealth to

remedy its submission to satisfy the

relevant milestone.

EPA believes that these commitments

are warranted under the special

circumstances presented by this

situation, including the establishment

by EPA of a phased schedule for the

submission of specified elements of a

full attainment demonstration upon the

revocation of a determination of

attainment that had suspended the

underlying requirements and the fact

that the Commonwealth has publicly

committed to support this schedule in a

letter to the rulemaking docket. EPA

also notes that due to the fact that the

offset sanctions had already been

imposed in July of 1995, there is no

safety margin upon the reinstatement of

the suspended requirements, i.e., the

sanction would be immediately

reimposed upon the reinstatement of the

requirements. Thus, EPA believes it is

justifiable for it to establish a

mechanism that, in the event the

Commonwealth makes a submission to

comply with the milestone schedule,

will require EPA to act in an

expeditious manner before the sanctions

would be reinstated.

With respect to the FIP clock, EPA

believes that the FIP clock is analogous

to the sanctions clock and, therefore,

would be reinstated in the same manner

as the sanctions clock. Thus, the FIP

clock, like the sanctions clock, would

resume as to the particular submission

at issue with one day less than six

months to run (the amount of time left

on the FIP clock at the time of the July

19, 1995 determination of attainment).

Final Action

Due to the monitored violations of the

ozone standard, EPA has determined

that the air quality in the PittsburghBeaver Valley moderate ozone

nonattainment area is no longer

attaining the ozone standard. As a

consequence, EPA is reinstating the

requirements of section 182(b)(1)

concerning the submission of the 15%

RFP plan and ozone attainment

demonstration and the requirements of

section 172(c)(9) concerning

contingency measures. In order to

provide a reasonable time for the

Commonwealth to develop and submit

these SIP elements, EPA is revoking the

determination of attainment and

reinstating these SIP requirements,

effective beginning August 15, 1996.

EPA believes that, under the

circumstances presented here, setting an

effective date of August 15, 1996 would

provide the Commonwealth a

reasonable amount of time to submit a

15% plan and related contingency

measures. The Commonwealth

submitted a 15% plan, and the

contingency measures, on March 22,

1996.

Furthermore, for the reasons set forth

above, the following schedule is

reasonable for the development and

adoption of an attainment

demonstration.

(1) By August 15, 1996, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA,

and make available for public comment

as a proposed SIP submission, complete

photochemical oxidant modeling for the

Pittsburgh area which identifies the

VOC and NOx reductions levels

necessary for attainment, and a list of

available control strategies.

(2) By October 1, 1996, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

SIP revision containing a photochemical

oxidant modeling demonstration and a

list of available control strategies.

(3) By April 1, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

full SIP revision for those emission

reduction strategies selected by the

Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area

for which new regulations are not

required.

(4) By April 1, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

committal SIP revision for those

emission reduction strategies selected

by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh

area that require new regulations.

(5) By December 31, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA as

a SIP revision adopted final fully

enforceable regulations encompassing
28066 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the emission reduction strategies

contained in the committal SIP.

Sanctions, sanction clocks, and FIP

clocks will be reinstated as discussed in

this notice.

EPA’s July 19, 1995, final

determination put the Commonwealth

on notice that these requirements would

be reinstated if a violation occurred.

Since the Commonwealth has been

aware of the violations and their

consequences since last summer, EPA

believes that this schedule constitutes

sufficient time for the Commonwealth to

prepare to meet the reactivated

requirements. Sanctions will not be

imposed if the Commonwealth submits

an attainment demonstration for the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment

area that EPA does not find deficient in

accordance with the schedule and

process set out above. As discussed

above, the situation as to conformity is

not changed by this rulemaking action

and is as it was explained in the May

1, 1995 final action disapproving the

redesignation request for the PittsburghBeaver Valley ozone nonattainment

area.

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 this action

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

reinstates temporarily suspended

requirements in accordance with the

terms of the July 19, 1995 action that

suspended them. 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 this action will not

affect a substantial number of small

entities. EPA’s action does not create

any new requirements but reinstates

previously applicable requirements that

had temporarily been suspended.

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 regarding the PittsburghBeaver Valley ozone nonattainment area

must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

(Insert date 60 days from date of

publication). 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,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 21, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2037 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2037 Control Strategy: Carbon

Monoxide and Ozone .

* * * * *

(b)(1)(i) Determination—EPA has

made a determination, effective August

15, 1996, that the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley ozone nonattainment area (the

Pittsburgh area) is no longer in

attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard for ozone due to

monitored violations of the standard.

Therefore, effective August 15, 1996,

EPA is revoking the determination of

attainment for the area made July 19,

1995, and is reinstating the reasonable

further progress and attainment

demonstration requirements of section

182(b)(1) and contingency measure

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act beginning on August 15,

1996. With regard to the attainment

demonstration requirements, EPA has

determined that the following schedule

is reasonable for the development,

adoption, and submittal of an

attainment demonstration by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the

Commonwealth).

(A) By August 15, 1996, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA,

and make available for public comment

as a proposed SIP submission, complete

photochemical oxidant modeling for the

Pittsburgh area which identifies the

VOC and NOX reductions levels

necessary for attainment, and a list of

available control strategies.

(B) By October 1, 1996, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

SIP revision containing a photochemical

oxidant modeling demonstration and a

list of available control strategies.

(C) By April 1, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

full SIP revision for those emission

reduction strategies selected by the

Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area

for which new regulations are not

required.

(D) By April 1, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA a

committal SIP revision for those

emission reduction strategies selected

by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh

area that require new regulations.

(E) By December 31, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit to EPA as

a SIP revision adopted final fully

enforceable regulations encompassing

the emission reduction strategies

contained in the committal SIP.

(ii) Unless the Commonwealth makes

the required submittal to EPA, the

sanctions and sanction clocks halted by

the July 19, 1995 action suspending the

attainment demonstration requirements

at issue will be reinstated, as to each of

the submittals included in this

milestone schedule, two weeks after the

date set for each of the submittals by the

Commonwealth to EPA. If the

Commonwealth fails to make a

submission by the required date, the

offset sanction would go back into effect

two weeks after the relevant milestone

date, and the highway sanction clock

would be reinstated at that time where

it was halted on July 19, 1995 (i.e., with

approximately 6 months remaining).

Sanctions or sanctions clocks would be

stopped if the Commonwealth makes
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28067

the relevant overdue submittal, if EPA

affirmatively determines in writing that

the actual material submitted by the

Commonwealth contains the

information necessary to enable EPA to

determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone

requirement. EPA shall make the

determination, in writing, as to whether

the submittal contains the necessary

information within two weeks of the

actual submission date by the

Commonwealth. In the event the

Commonwealth makes a required

submittal by the pertinent milestone

date, EPA shall, within two weeks of the

milestone date, make a determination,

in writing, as to whether the actual

material submitted by the

Commonwealth contains the

information necessary to enable EPA to

determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone

requirement. If EPA determines that the

material submitted to EPA by the

Commonwealth fails to satisfy this

minimum criterion, the offset sanction

would be reinstated upon that

determination by EPA and the highway

sanction clock would be reinstated at

that time where it was halted on July 19,

1995 (i.e., with approximately 6 months

remaining). Sanctions or sanctions

clocks would be stopped if the

Commonwealth subsequently makes a

submittal to cure the deficiencies

identified by EPA, and if EPA

affirmatively determines in writing that

the material submitted by the

Commonwealth cures the identified

deficiencies. EPA shall make the

determination as to the adequacy of the

submittal within two weeks of the date

of the actual submittal to EPA. Each of

the determinations referred to in this

subparagraph shall be made in writing,

in a letter to the Secretary of the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection and made

publicly available. In those instances

where EPA determines that the

Commonwealth’s submittal does not

contain the information necessary to

enable EPA to determine whether the

Commonwealth’s submission complies

with the pertinent milestone

requirement, EPA’s letter so informing

the Commonwealth will articulate the

basis for EPA’s determination, specify

the remedy, and identify the actions

necessary by the Commonwealth to

remedy its submission to satisfy the

relevant milestone. With respect to the

15 percent plan and contingency

measure requirements that are being

reinstated as of August 15, 1996, the FIP

clock will be reinstated at that time,

with one day less than six months to

run. With respect to the elements of the

attainment demonstration, the FIP clock

will resume as to each element (the date

on which the sanctions would be

reinstated if the submissions were not

made), with one day less than six

months to run.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–13871 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA–7642]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities, where the sale of flood

insurance has been authorized under

the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP), that are suspended on the

effective dates listed within this rule

because of noncompliance with the

floodplain management requirements of

the program. If the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) receives

documentation that the community has

adopted the required floodplain

management measures prior to the

effective suspension date given in this

rule, the suspension will be withdrawn

by publication in the Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of

each community’s suspension is the

third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the third

column of the following tables.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine

whether a particular community was

suspended on the suspension date,

contact the appropriate FEMA Regional

Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea Jr., Division Director,

Program Implementation Division,

Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,

SW., Room 417, Washington, DC 20472,

(202) 646–3619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP

enables property owners to purchase

flood insurance which is generally not

otherwise available. In return,

communities agree to adopt and

administer local floodplain management

aimed at protecting lives and new

construction from future flooding.

Section 1315 of the National Flood

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance

coverage as authorized under the

National Flood Insurance Program, 42

U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an

appropriate public body adopts

adequate floodplain management

measures with effective enforcement

measures. The communities listed in

this document no longer meet that

statutory requirement for compliance

with program regulations, 44 CFR part

59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities

will be suspended on the effective date

in the third column. As of that date,

flood insurance will no longer be

available in the community. However,

some of these communities may adopt

and submit the required documentation

of legally enforceable floodplain

management measures after this rule is

published but prior to the actual

suspension date. These communities

will not be suspended and will continue

their eligibility for the sale of insurance.

A notice withdrawing the suspension of

the communities will be published in

the Federal Register.

In addition, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency has identified the

special flood hazard areas in these

communities by publishing a Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of

the FIRM if one has been published, is

indicated in the fourth column of the

table. No direct Federal financial

assistance (except assistance pursuant to

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief

and Emergency Assistance Act not in

connection with a flood) may legally be

provided for construction or acquisition

of buildings in the identified special

flood hazard area of communities not

participating in the NFIP and identified

for more than a year, on the Federal

Emergency Management Agency’s

initial flood insurance map of the

community as having flood-prone areas

(section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.

4106(a), as amended). This prohibition

against certain types of Federal

assistance becomes effective for the

communities listed on the date shown

in the last column.

The Acting Associate Director finds

that notice and public comment under

5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and

unnecessary because communities listed

in this final rule have been adequately

notified.

Each community receives a 6-month,

90-day, and 30-day notification

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer

that the community will be suspended

unless the required floodplain

management measures are met prior to

the effective suspension date. Since

these notifications have been made, this

final rule may take effect within less

than 30 days.