[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28061-28067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13871]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Pittsburgh-Beaver 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36465f5859185b57445f57765346575b575f5a1853465718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc8c959293d2919d8e959dbc998c9d919d9590d2998c9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <SUP>#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 requirements, for the reasons stated in the proposal EPA 
continues to believe

[[Page 28062]]

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 
NO<INF>X 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 <SUP>#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 (NO<INF>X), 
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 is caused by transport from upwind 
sources. An adequate technical

[[Page 28063]]

demonstration, including emissions data and a modeling analysis, must 
be provided to support any claim of transport-dominated nonattainment.
    Comment <SUP>#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 <SUP>#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 NO<INF>X 
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 NO<INF>X, 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 (NO<INF>2) is individually regulated by EPA because of 
its health and welfare effects. As a result, the reduction of VOC and 
NO<INF>X emissions will reduce the health risks that are associated 
with exposure to VOC and NO<INF>X, 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 <SUP>#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 <SUP>#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 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.''
    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

[[Page 28064]]

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 <SUP>#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

[[Page 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 above-described 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 Pittsburgh-Beaver 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 NO<INF>x 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

[[Page 28066]]

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 Pittsburgh-Beaver 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 cost-effective 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 Pittsburgh-Beaver 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:


Sec. 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 NO<INF>X 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

[[Page 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

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>