Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Nonattainment Area, 25014-25019 [2014-10114]
Download as PDF
25014
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Plan’’ at the end of the section with the
heading ‘‘Attainment and Maintenance
Planning—Ozone.’’ to read as follows:
Subpart WW—Washington
2. Section 52.2470 is amended in table
2 of paragraph (e) by adding an entry ‘‘8Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
Name of SIP provision
*
*
*
State
submittal
date
*
EPA approval date
*
Comments
*
*
*
*
*
*
Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Ozone
*
*
8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.
*
*
Seattle-Tacoma ......................
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–09878 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0599; FRL–9909–16–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California San
Francisco Bay Area and Chico
Nonattainment Areas; Fine Particulate
Matter Emissions Inventories;
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) published a direct final
rule that appeared in the Federal
Register on March 14, 2014. The
document approved revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) concerning emissions inventories
for the 2006 24-hour fine particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for the San Francisco Bay
Area and Chico PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. We are approving these emissions
inventories under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act). An error in the
amendatory instruction is identified and
corrected in this action.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 13,
2014 without further notice.
ADDRESSES: Docket: Generally,
documents in the docket for this action
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
2/5/08
*
5/2/14 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105–3901.
While all documents in the docket are
listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
Tharp, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4142,
tharp.lisa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
published a direct final rule on March
14, 2014 (79 FR 14404) approving
revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning
emissions inventories. In that approval
EPA erroneously added the incorrect
paragraph numbers to § 52.220,
paragraph (c). Therefore the amendatory
instruction is being corrected to reflect
the corrected section paragraph
numbering.
2. On page 14409, third column, third
line under the section heading § 52.220
Identification Plan, correct paragraph
number ‘‘(434)’’ to read ‘‘(435)’’; and
3. On page 14409, third column, line
twenty-two under the section heading
§ 52.220 Identification Plan, correct
paragraph number ‘‘(435)’’ to read
‘‘(436)’’.
Dated: April 18, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014–09721 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753; FRL–9910–32–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Determination of
Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Standard for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Correction
AGENCY:
In the direct final rule published in
the Federal Register on March 14, 2014
(79 FR 14404), the following corrections
are made:
1. On page 14409, third column, line
2 of amendatory instruction number 2,
correct ‘‘adding paragraphs (c)(434) and
(435) to’’ to read ‘‘adding paragraphs
(c)(435) and (436) to’’;
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making a determination
of attainment regarding the PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the
Pittsburgh Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’). EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
25015
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
has determined that the Pittsburgh Area
has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), based upon quality-assured
and certified ambient air monitoring
data for 2010–2012. Preliminary data for
2013 show that the area continues to
attain the standard. This determination
of attainment suspends the
requirements for the Pittsburgh Area to
submit an attainment demonstration
and associated reasonably available
control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency
measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
related to the attainment of the standard
for so long as the Area continues to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
This action does not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under
section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The designation status of the
Pittsburgh Area will remain
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA
determines that the Pittsburgh Area
meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment, including
an approved maintenance plan. EPA is
also approving the 2011 motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) used for
transportation conformity purposes for
the Pittsburgh Area. This action is being
taken under the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Pittsburgh
Area.
On August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49403),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) seeking comment on
EPA’s proposed determination that the
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the
quality-controlled, quality-assured, and
certified data from 2010–2012, and
EPA’s proposed approval of the 2011
MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes for the Pittsburgh Area. In
response to the NPR, EPA received two
comments, one dated September 10,
2013 from Mr. Harold Peterson and the
other dated September 13, 2013 from
Mr. Joseph Minott representing the
Clean Air Council. A summary of the
comments and EPA’s response is
provided in Section III (Summary of
Public Comment and EPA Response) of
this final rulemaking action.1
II. Summary of Rulemaking Actions
I. Background
On November 13, 2009, EPA
published designations for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688),
which included the Pittsburgh Area as
a nonattainment area. Designations
became effective on December 14, 2009.
The Pittsburgh Area consists of Beaver,
Butler, and Westmoreland Counties, and
portions of Allegheny (not including the
townships which are part of the LibertyClairton nonattainment area),
Armstrong, Green, and Lawrence
Counties. This final determination of
attainment only addresses the 2006 24-
EPA is making a final determination
that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This
‘‘clean data’’ determination is based
upon quality assured and certified
ambient air monitoring data that show
the area has monitored attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
2010–2012 monitoring period. Qualityassured data for 2013 indicates that the
Area continues to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 is a
summary of publicly available
information, which is available at
https://www.epa.gov/airdata/.
TABLE 1—PITTSBURGH AREA’S 2013 24-HOUR PM2.5 AIR QUALITY DATA IN MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
[μg/m3]
County
AQS Site ID
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Allegheny .................................................
Allegheny .................................................
Allegheny .................................................
Allegheny .................................................
Allegheny .................................................
Allegheny .................................................
Armstrong .................................................
Beaver ......................................................
Washington ..............................................
Washington ..............................................
Washington ..............................................
Westmorland ............................................
420030002
420030008
420030067
420030093
420031008
420031301
420050001
420070014
421250005
421250200
421255001
421290008
2013 98th
percentile
Site name
AVALON ................................................................
LAWRENCEVILLE ................................................
SOUTH FAYETTE ................................................
NORTH PARK .......................................................
HARRISON ...........................................................
NORTH BRADDOCK ............................................
KITTANNING .........................................................
BEAVER FALLS ....................................................
CHARLEROI .........................................................
WASHINGTON ......................................................
FLORENCE ...........................................................
GREENSBURG .....................................................
As a result of this determination, the
requirement for the Pittsburgh Area to
submit an attainment demonstration
and associated RACM, RFP, contingency
measures, and other planning SIP
revisions related to the attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS shall be
suspended for so long as the Area
1 Because the attainment date has not passed, this
action is limited to a clean data determination and
is not a determination of attainment pursuant to
section 179(c)(1) of the CAA.
2 Even though the requirements are suspended,
EPA is not precluded from acting upon these
elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review
and approval.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2013 24 hour
design value
23
21
24
16
24
26
23
24
22
21
21
23
25
23
24
19
25
29
24
26
25
23
16
26
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.2 This determination of
attainment does not constitute a
redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
25016
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3).
This rulemaking action does not involve
approving a maintenance plan for the
Pittsburgh Area, nor determines that the
Pittsburgh Area has met all the
requirements for redesignation under
the CAA, including that the attainment
be due to permanent and enforceable
measures. Therefore, the designation
status of the Pittsburgh Area will remain
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA
takes final rulemaking action to
determine that the Pittsburgh Area
meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment.
EPA is also approving the 2011
MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes for the Pittsburgh Area. The
rationale for EPA’s proposed action is
explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. Relevant support
documents for this action are available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753.
III. Summary of Public Comment and
EPA Response
Comment: The commenter endorsed
EPA’s proposed approval and stated that
the determination to attainment is
appropriate. The commenter stated that
although the monitoring sites do not
demonstrate a decrease in PM2.5 levels,
all monitoring sites have achieved the
appropriate attainment levels for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Further, the
commenter supported approval of the
MVEBs. The commenter references a
monitoring study that he undertook
which found that on-road mobile
sources were the greatest contributor to
nitrogen oxides (NOX). The commenter
believes that the NOX MVEBs are
appropriate and ‘‘should not result in
PM2.5 nonattainment.’’
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenter’s conclusion that the
determination of attainment is
appropriate based upon quality-assured
and certified ambient air monitoring
data for 2010–2012, and subsequent
data that shows the Area continues to
attain the standard. Moreover, EPA
agrees that the established MVEBs will
not cause or contribute to violations of
any NAAQS or delay timely attainment
of any NAAQS.
Comment: By letter dated September
13, 2013, Mr Joseph Minott, on behalf of
the Clean Air Council (the Council),
submitted comments which focused
upon EPA’s use of the ‘‘maximum
quarterly substitution test’’ for certain
incomplete sampling periods at several
monitors. The Council commented that
EPA’s guidelines allow for maximum
quarter substitutions as long as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
emissions and meteorology of the
quarter(s) in question are typical. The
Council requested that EPA explain in
more detail how the substituted quarters
were found to have typical, comparable,
and/or consistent meteorology. In
making this request, the Council
expressed concern that EPA’s guidelines
had not laid out criteria or set of
conditions that must be met in order for
substituted samples to be considered as
having occurred during comparable
meteorology/emissions periods. Further,
the Council voiced a concern about how
this method could be applied to ensure
consistent results.
Response: As explained in the NPR,
for EPA to determine that the Pittsburgh
Area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 24-hour design value
of the Pittsburgh Area must be less than
the standard, 35 mg/m3. EPA has
promulgated regulations which set forth
the procedures for determining when
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS has been met.
See 40 CFR 50, appendix N (appendix
N). The 24-hour design value
determined for an area is the highest
three-year average of the annual 98th
percentile measured at all the monitors.
Only valid and complete air quality data
can be used for comparison to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in
40 CFR 50, appendix N, section 4.2
(appendix N, section 4.2), a year meets
data completeness requirements when
at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter have
valid data. As explained in the NPR,
several monitors in the Pittsburgh Area
did not meet the completeness
requirement during one or more
quarters in 2010–2012. EPA addressed
such missing data by applying the
maximum quarterly substitution test
which is described in the NPR. The
NPR’s discussion of the use of the
maximum quarterly substitution test
refers to EPA’s April 1999 guidance
document ‘‘Guideline on Data Handling
Conventions for the PM NAAQS’’ (1999
p.m. NAAQS Data Handling
Guidelines). The Council in its
comment seeks additional information
relating to EPA’s application of these
guidelines in the context of reviewing
the monitoring data for the Pittsburgh
Area.
EPA’s reference in the NPR to the PM
NAAQS Data Handling Guidelines in
the NPR was outdated, since the
guidance has been superseded by a
regulatory provision in 40 CFR 50
appendix N. On January 15, 2013,
appendix N was revised to add two
additional tests which assess data
completeness issues for PM2.5 NAAQS,
including a revised version of the
maximum quarterly substitution test
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
described in the NPR. See National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter, 78 FR 3086, 3228–
3232 and 3277–3281 (January 15, 2013).
Thus, rather than referencing the 1999
p.m. NAAQS Data Handling Guidelines,
the NPR should have referred to
appendix N, section 4.2. As explained
in the January 15, 2013 final rule: ‘‘With
regard to assessments of data
completeness, the EPA proposal
included two additional data
substitution tests . . . into appendix N
for validating annual and 24-hour PM2.5
design values otherwise deemed
incomplete . . . The EPA proposed to
add these tests in order to codify
existing practices currently included in
guidance documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)
and implemented as EPA standard
operating procedures, and further to
make the data handling procedures for
PM2.5 more consistent with the
procedures used for other NAAQS.’’ See
id. at 3230. Therefore, the guidance
document cited in the NPR has been
superseded by the revision and
codification of such guidelines in
appendix N.
As revised, appendix N, section 4.2
provides that: ‘‘where the explicit 75
percent quarterly data capture
requirement is not met, the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS shall still be considered
valid if it passes the maximum quarterly
value data substitution test (maximum
quarterly substitution test).’’ See
Appendix N, section 4.2(b). The
maximum quarterly substitution test is
defined at appendix N, section 4.2(c)(i)
and the procedures for applying this test
are set forth there as well: ‘‘Identify for
each deficient quarter (i.e., those with
less than 75 percent but at least 50
percent data capture) the highest
reported daily PM2.5 value for that
quarter, excluding state-flagged data
affected by exceptional events which
have been approved for exclusion by the
Regional Administrator, looking across
those three quarters of all three years
under consideration.’’ In reviewing the
monitoring data for the Pittsburgh Area
in preparation of the NPR, EPA applied
and followed the procedures set forth in
appendix N, section 4.2. In the NPR,
EPA erroneously referenced the PM
NAAQS Data Handling Guidelines,
rather than appendix N, section 4.2.
Although the 1999 guidelines included
procedures for comparing meteorology
or emissions of the quarters in question,
the regulatory successor to the
guidelines, codified in appendix N, do
not require EPA to determine whether
the meteorology or emissions of the
quarters in question are comparable.
Notwithstanding the fact that the
current regulations no longer require the
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
analysis requested by the Council,
because EPA’s proposal erroneously
referred to the guidelines, EPA is
providing herein a detailed discussion
of the comparison of the meteorology for
the one of the monitors at issue (the
North Park monitor) as would have been
appropriate prior to January 2013, when
the referenced guidelines were relevant
and applicable. EPA is also providing a
summary of the meteorological data
comparison for the remaining monitors.
As discussed in the NPR, the
following four monitors in the
Pittsburgh Area did not meet the
completeness requirement for one or
more quarters during 2010–2012
monitoring period and EPA addressed
the missing data from these monitors by
applying the maximum quarter
substitution test: (1) North Park monitor;
(2) Harrison monitor; (3) North
Braddock monitor; and, (4) Charleroi
monitor. For each quarter where there
was missing data at each of these four
monitors, EPA determined the highest
reported daily PM2.5 value for that
quarter across the three years under
consideration (2010–2012) and
substituted that value for the missing
data for such quarter. For example, the
North Park monitor, in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania had missing data
for the first quarters of 2010, 2011, and
2012. EPA determined that, during the
first quarter of these years, the
maximum quarterly 24-hour monitoring
concentration of 26.5 mg/m3 occurred on
March 9, 2010. Using this value (26.5
mg/m3) as a substitute value, EPA
recalculated the design value for the
first quarters of 2010, 2011, and 2012 at
this monitor to determine if, using the
substituted data, the re-calculated
design value would be below the PM2.5
NAAQS. In accordance with appendix
N, section 4.2, this process was repeated
for each monitor for each quarter where
there was missing data.
In response to the Council’s request
for additional meteorological
comparative data, for the North Park
monitor meteorological similarity
analysis, meteorological data from the
Pittsburgh International Airport was
reviewed to determine meteorological
similarity between the first quarter of
2010 (i.e. the substitute quarter) and the
first quarters of 2011 and 2012 during
which there was missing monitoring
data at the North Park monitor.
Quarterly averages and standard
deviations of meteorological variables,
such as average temperature, average
precipitation, and average maximum
and minimum temperature, were
calculated from meteorological data
downloaded from the Pennsylvania
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
State Climatologist Web site.3
Meteorological variables included daily
averaged temperatures, wind speeds and
humidity levels, daily maximum and
minimum temperatures, and monthly
precipitation. First quarter
meteorological variables for 2010, 2011,
and 2012 were similar as all of the
variables fell within a common standard
deviation. This observation indicates
that no large differences in meteorology
occurred at the North Park monitor
between the dates of missing data in the
first quarters of 2011 and 2012 and the
first quarter of 2010, the quarter during
which the highest reported daily PM2.5
value for such quarters was recorded
across the first quarter of the three years
under consideration (2010–2012).
Because there were also data
deficiencies during the second quarter
of this time period at the North Park
monitor, an identical meteorological
similarity analysis was done for the
North Park monitor for the second
quarter of 2010 through 2012. The
results of the meteorological similarity
analysis for the 2010–12 second quarters
were similar to the results for the first
quarter results and indicated that there
were no large meteorological differences
at the North Park monitor, during the
time period subject to analysis.
With the exception of the Charleroi
monitor, for each quarter during which
there was missing data at each of the
remaining monitors, EPA conducted
similar analyses of meteorological data.
The meteorological similarity analysis
for the Harrison and North Braddock
monitors used meteorological data from
the Allegheny County Airport,4 which is
the closest National Weather Service
station to the monitors. The Harrison
monitor used substituted PM2.5
concentrations for missing data in the
second quarters of 2010, 2011, and
2012. The North Braddock monitor used
substituted PM2.5 concentrations for
missing data in the second and fourth
quarters of 2010, 2011, and 2012. After
reviewing the meteorological data for
the Harrison and North Braddock
monitors, EPA determined that the data
was similar. In the case of the Charleroi
monitor, the highest reported daily
PM2.5 value (the substitute data value)
occurred during the same time frame
(same quarter and year) as the data
deficiencies. Since, the date where there
was missing data and the date on which
the substitute value was recorded fell
during the same quarter of the same
year, a meteorological similarity
3 https://climate.psu.edu/, https://climate.psu.edu/
data/ida/index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KPIT.
4 https://climate.psu.edu/data/ida/
index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KAGC.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25017
analysis would not have been required
under the 1999 guidelines, even if they
were applicable.
In response to the Council’s comment,
EPA reviewed the relevant meteorology
data for the Pittsburgh Area as
referenced in the guidelines which were
erroneously referenced in the NPR and
which have been superseded by revised
appendix N. With respect to the
applicable regulatory requirements,
EPA’s data analysis, including the
application of the maximum quarterly
substitution test, to determine whether
the monitoring data demonstrates that
the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS during 2010 through
2012, was completed in accordance
with the applicable regulatory
requirements set forth at 40 CFR 50,
appendix N. Although the 1999
guidelines no longer apply to the
maximum quarterly substitution test
that EPA used here, because the revised
regulatory provision of appendix N
superseded such guidelines, EPA’s
analysis, as set forth here in response to
the commenter’s request, satisfies the
provisions of both the prior guidelines
and the currently applicable regulation
in revised appendix N. Therefore, EPA’s
conclusion, that the maximum quarterly
substitution test used for the data
analysis is valid, is fully supported by
both the prior and current provisions
that apply. EPA’s analysis of the
meteorological comparison and other
elements no longer required under the
current regulation, is set forth solely to
address the concerns raised by the
commenter.
IV. Final Action
EPA is making a determination that
the Pittsburgh Area is attaining the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on
quality-assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2010–2012
monitoring period. Quality-assured data
for 2013 summarized in Table 1 show
that the Area continues to attain the
standard. This final determination
suspends the requirements for the
Pittsburgh Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM,
RFP plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIP revisions related to
the attainment of the standard, for so
long as the Area continues to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination does not constitute a
redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment. The Pittsburgh Area will
remain designated nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that the
Pittsburgh Area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to
attainment, including an approved
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
25018
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
maintenance plan. EPA is also
approving the MVEBs for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The new MVEBs
must be used for future transportation
conformity determinations. The 2011
MVEBs will be effective on the date of
publication of this final rulemaking
action in the Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
This action, which makes a
determination of attainment based on
air quality, will result in the suspension
of certain Federal requirements and/or
will not impose any additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rulemaking action does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the
determination is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by July 1, 2014. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action 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, approving the
determination of attainment of the
Pittsburgh Area with respect to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the MVEBs,
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, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 18, 2014.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATON OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. Section 52.2059 is amended by
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2059
matter.
Control strategy: Particulate
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Determination of Clean Data. EPA
has determined, as of May 2, 2014, that
based on 2010–2012 ambient air quality
data, the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area has attained
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) and
approves the motor vehicle emission
budgets used for transportation
conformity purposes. This
determination suspends the
requirements for the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley, Pennsylvania PM2.5
nonattainment area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area
continues to meet the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking, that
this area no longer meets the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the corresponding
determination of attainment for that area
shall be withdrawn.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
PITTSBURGH-BEAVER VALLEY’S MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR THE 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Geographic area
Year
PM2.5
(tons/year)
NOX
(tons/year)
Pittsburgh Area ............................................................................................................................
2011
961.71
28,973.05
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:11 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2014–10114 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by
email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10451),
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0006; FRL–9910–34–
EPA published a notice of proposed
Region 3]
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR,
Approval and Promulgation of
EPA proposed approval of Virginia’s
Implementation Plans; Virginia;
progress report SIP, a report on progress
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
made in the first implementation period
Report State Implementation Plan
towards RPGs for Class I areas in the
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Commonwealth and Class I areas
Agency (EPA).
outside the Commonwealth that are
ACTION: Final rule.
affected by emissions from Virginia’s
sources. This progress report SIP and
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
accompanying cover letter also included
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
a determination that Virginia’s existing
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
regional haze SIP requires no
submitted by the Commonwealth of
substantive revision to achieve the
Virginia through the Virginia
established regional haze visibility
Department of Environmental Quality
improvement and emissions reduction
(DEQ). Virginia’s SIP revision addresses goals for 2018.
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
States are required to submit a
and EPA’s rules that require states to
progress report in the form of a SIP
submit periodic reports describing
revision every five years that evaluates
progress towards reasonable progress
progress towards the RPGs for each
goals (RPGs) established for regional
mandatory Class I Federal area within
haze and a determination of the
the state and in each mandatory Class I
adequacy of the state’s existing
Federal area outside the state which
implementation plan addressing
may be affected by emissions from
regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g).
approving Virginia’s SIP revision on the In addition, the provisions under 40
basis that it addresses the progress
CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit,
report and adequacy determination
at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g)
requirements for the first
progress report, a determination of the
implementation period for regional
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze.
haze SIP. The first progress report SIP
is due five years after submittal of the
DATES: This final rule is effective on
initial regional haze SIP. On October 4,
June 2, 2014.
2010, Virginia DEQ submitted the
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
Commonwealth’s first regional haze SIP
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0006. All in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308.1 The progress report SIP
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
1 On June 13, 2012,
Although listed in the electronic docket, approval of Virginia’s EPA finalized a limited haze
October 4, 2010 regional
some information is not publicly
SIP to address the first implementation period for
regional haze (77 FR 35287). In a separate action,
available, i.e., confidential business
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA
information (CBI) or other information
a limited disapproval of the Virginia
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. finalizedhaze SIP because of the Commonwealth’s
regional
Certain other material, such as
reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to
meet certain regional haze requirements, which
copyrighted material, is not placed on
EPA replaced in August 2011 with the Cross-State
the Internet and will be publicly
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208, August
available only in hard copy form.
8, 2011). In the aforementioned June 7, 2012 action,
Publicly available docket materials are
EPA finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
for Virginia to replace the Commonwealth’s reliance
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Following these
EPA actions, the DC Circuit issued a decision in
public inspection during normal
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d
business hours at the Air Protection
7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection (2013) vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place
pending the promulgation of a valid replacement
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
rule. EPA believes that the EME Homer City
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
decision impacts the reasoning that formed the
Copies of Virginia’s submittal are
basis for EPA’s limited disapproval of Virginia’s
regional haze SIP based on Virginia’s reliance upon
available at the Virginia Department of
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
40 CFR Part 52
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 May 01, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25019
revision was submitted by Virginia on
November 8, 2013 and EPA finds that it
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and 308(h).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On November 8, 2013, Virginia
submitted a SIP revision to address
progress made towards RPGs of Class I
areas in the Commonwealth and Class I
areas outside the Commonwealth that
are affected by emissions from Virginia’s
sources. This progress report SIP also
includes a determination of the
adequacy of the Commonwealth’s
existing regional haze SIP.
Virginia has two Class I areas within
its borders: James River Face Wilderness
Area (James River) and Shenandoah
National Park (Shenandoah). Virginia
mentions in the progress report SIP that
Virginia sources were also identified,
through an area of influence modeling
analysis based on back trajectories, as
potentially impacting nine Class I areas
in five neighboring states: Dolly Sods
Wilderness Area in West Virginia; Great
Smoky Mountains National Park and
Joyce Kilmer—Slickrock Wilderness
Area in North Carolina and Tennessee;
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock and
Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North
Carolina; Cohutta and Wolf Island
Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Cape
Romaine Wilderness Area in South
Carolina.
The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)
require a progress report SIP to address
seven elements. EPA finds that
Virginia’s progress report SIP addressed
each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g).
The seven elements and EPA’s
conclusion are briefly summarized
below; however, the detailed rationale
for EPA’s action is explained in the NPR
and will not be restated here. No
adverse public comments were received
on the NPR.
The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)
require progress report SIPs to include
a description of the status of measures
in the approved regional haze SIP; a
summary of emissions reductions
achieved; an assessment of visibility
conditions for each Class I area in the
state; an analysis of changes in
emissions from sources and activities
within the state; an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state
that have limited or impeded progress
in Class I areas impacted by the state’s
sources; an assessment of the
sufficiency of the approved regional
CAIR and expects to propose an appropriate action
regarding the limited approval and limited
disapproval of the regional haze SIP upon final
resolution of EME Homer City.
E:\FR\FM\02MYR1.SGM
02MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25014-25019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0753; FRL-9910-32-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a
determination of attainment regarding the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as ``the Pittsburgh Area'' or ``the
Area''). EPA
[[Page 25015]]
has determined that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), based
upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for
2010-2012. Preliminary data for 2013 show that the area continues to
attain the standard. This determination of attainment suspends the
requirements for the Pittsburgh Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures,
and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to
the attainment of the standard for so long as the Area continues to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This action does not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The designation status of the Pittsburgh Area will
remain nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that the Pittsburgh Area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved
maintenance plan. EPA is also approving the 2011 motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) used for transportation conformity purposes for the
Pittsburgh Area. This action is being taken under the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0753. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 13, 2009, EPA published designations for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688), which included the
Pittsburgh Area as a nonattainment area. Designations became effective
on December 14, 2009. The Pittsburgh Area consists of Beaver, Butler,
and Westmoreland Counties, and portions of Allegheny (not including the
townships which are part of the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area),
Armstrong, Green, and Lawrence Counties. This final determination of
attainment only addresses the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
the Pittsburgh Area.
On August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49403), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) seeking comment on EPA's proposed
determination that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the quality-controlled, quality-
assured, and certified data from 2010-2012, and EPA's proposed approval
of the 2011 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the
Pittsburgh Area. In response to the NPR, EPA received two comments, one
dated September 10, 2013 from Mr. Harold Peterson and the other dated
September 13, 2013 from Mr. Joseph Minott representing the Clean Air
Council. A summary of the comments and EPA's response is provided in
Section III (Summary of Public Comment and EPA Response) of this final
rulemaking action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because the attainment date has not passed, this action is
limited to a clean data determination and is not a determination of
attainment pursuant to section 179(c)(1) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Rulemaking Actions
EPA is making a final determination that the Pittsburgh Area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This ``clean data''
determination is based upon quality assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2010-2012 monitoring period.
Quality-assured data for 2013 indicates that the Area continues to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 is a summary of
publicly available information, which is available at https://www.epa.gov/airdata/.
Table 1--Pittsburgh Area's 2013 24-Hour PM2.5 Air Quality Data in Micrograms per Cubic Meter
[[mu]g/m\3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 98th 2013 24 hour
County AQS Site ID Site name percentile design value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny............................. 420030002 AVALON.................. 23 25
Allegheny............................. 420030008 LAWRENCEVILLE........... 21 23
Allegheny............................. 420030067 SOUTH FAYETTE........... 24 24
Allegheny............................. 420030093 NORTH PARK.............. 16 19
Allegheny............................. 420031008 HARRISON................ 24 25
Allegheny............................. 420031301 NORTH BRADDOCK.......... 26 29
Armstrong............................. 420050001 KITTANNING.............. 23 24
Beaver................................ 420070014 BEAVER FALLS............ 24 26
Washington............................ 421250005 CHARLEROI............... 22 25
Washington............................ 421250200 WASHINGTON.............. 21 23
Washington............................ 421255001 FLORENCE................ 21 16
Westmorland........................... 421290008 GREENSBURG.............. 23 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of this determination, the requirement for the
Pittsburgh Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions
related to the attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
shall be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ This determination of attainment
does not constitute a redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to
[[Page 25016]]
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA
section 107(d)(3). This rulemaking action does not involve approving a
maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area, nor determines that the
Pittsburgh Area has met all the requirements for redesignation under
the CAA, including that the attainment be due to permanent and
enforceable measures. Therefore, the designation status of the
Pittsburgh Area will remain nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final rulemaking
action to determine that the Pittsburgh Area meets the CAA requirements
for redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Even though the requirements are suspended, EPA is not
precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted
to EPA for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also approving the 2011 MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes for the Pittsburgh Area. The rationale for EPA's proposed
action is explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. Relevant
support documents for this action are available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0753.
III. Summary of Public Comment and EPA Response
Comment: The commenter endorsed EPA's proposed approval and stated
that the determination to attainment is appropriate. The commenter
stated that although the monitoring sites do not demonstrate a decrease
in PM2.5 levels, all monitoring sites have achieved the
appropriate attainment levels for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Further, the commenter supported approval of the MVEBs. The commenter
references a monitoring study that he undertook which found that on-
road mobile sources were the greatest contributor to nitrogen oxides
(NOX). The commenter believes that the NOX MVEBs
are appropriate and ``should not result in PM2.5
nonattainment.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's conclusion that the
determination of attainment is appropriate based upon quality-assured
and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2010-2012, and subsequent
data that shows the Area continues to attain the standard. Moreover,
EPA agrees that the established MVEBs will not cause or contribute to
violations of any NAAQS or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS.
Comment: By letter dated September 13, 2013, Mr Joseph Minott, on
behalf of the Clean Air Council (the Council), submitted comments which
focused upon EPA's use of the ``maximum quarterly substitution test''
for certain incomplete sampling periods at several monitors. The
Council commented that EPA's guidelines allow for maximum quarter
substitutions as long as emissions and meteorology of the quarter(s) in
question are typical. The Council requested that EPA explain in more
detail how the substituted quarters were found to have typical,
comparable, and/or consistent meteorology. In making this request, the
Council expressed concern that EPA's guidelines had not laid out
criteria or set of conditions that must be met in order for substituted
samples to be considered as having occurred during comparable
meteorology/emissions periods. Further, the Council voiced a concern
about how this method could be applied to ensure consistent results.
Response: As explained in the NPR, for EPA to determine that the
Pittsburgh Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
the 24-hour design value of the Pittsburgh Area must be less than the
standard, 35 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA has promulgated regulations which set
forth the procedures for determining when the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS has been met. See 40 CFR 50, appendix N (appendix N). The 24-hour
design value determined for an area is the highest three-year average
of the annual 98th percentile measured at all the monitors. Only valid
and complete air quality data can be used for comparison to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR 50, appendix N,
section 4.2 (appendix N, section 4.2), a year meets data completeness
requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days
for each quarter have valid data. As explained in the NPR, several
monitors in the Pittsburgh Area did not meet the completeness
requirement during one or more quarters in 2010-2012. EPA addressed
such missing data by applying the maximum quarterly substitution test
which is described in the NPR. The NPR's discussion of the use of the
maximum quarterly substitution test refers to EPA's April 1999 guidance
document ``Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS''
(1999 p.m. NAAQS Data Handling Guidelines). The Council in its comment
seeks additional information relating to EPA's application of these
guidelines in the context of reviewing the monitoring data for the
Pittsburgh Area.
EPA's reference in the NPR to the PM NAAQS Data Handling Guidelines
in the NPR was outdated, since the guidance has been superseded by a
regulatory provision in 40 CFR 50 appendix N. On January 15, 2013,
appendix N was revised to add two additional tests which assess data
completeness issues for PM2.5 NAAQS, including a revised
version of the maximum quarterly substitution test described in the
NPR. See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,
78 FR 3086, 3228-3232 and 3277-3281 (January 15, 2013). Thus, rather
than referencing the 1999 p.m. NAAQS Data Handling Guidelines, the NPR
should have referred to appendix N, section 4.2. As explained in the
January 15, 2013 final rule: ``With regard to assessments of data
completeness, the EPA proposal included two additional data
substitution tests . . . into appendix N for validating annual and 24-
hour PM2.5 design values otherwise deemed incomplete . . .
The EPA proposed to add these tests in order to codify existing
practices currently included in guidance documents (U.S. EPA, 1999) and
implemented as EPA standard operating procedures, and further to make
the data handling procedures for PM2.5 more consistent with
the procedures used for other NAAQS.'' See id. at 3230. Therefore, the
guidance document cited in the NPR has been superseded by the revision
and codification of such guidelines in appendix N.
As revised, appendix N, section 4.2 provides that: ``where the
explicit 75 percent quarterly data capture requirement is not met, the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS shall still be considered valid if it
passes the maximum quarterly value data substitution test (maximum
quarterly substitution test).'' See Appendix N, section 4.2(b). The
maximum quarterly substitution test is defined at appendix N, section
4.2(c)(i) and the procedures for applying this test are set forth there
as well: ``Identify for each deficient quarter (i.e., those with less
than 75 percent but at least 50 percent data capture) the highest
reported daily PM2.5 value for that quarter, excluding
state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the Regional Administrator, looking across
those three quarters of all three years under consideration.'' In
reviewing the monitoring data for the Pittsburgh Area in preparation of
the NPR, EPA applied and followed the procedures set forth in appendix
N, section 4.2. In the NPR, EPA erroneously referenced the PM NAAQS
Data Handling Guidelines, rather than appendix N, section 4.2. Although
the 1999 guidelines included procedures for comparing meteorology or
emissions of the quarters in question, the regulatory successor to the
guidelines, codified in appendix N, do not require EPA to determine
whether the meteorology or emissions of the quarters in question are
comparable.
Notwithstanding the fact that the current regulations no longer
require the
[[Page 25017]]
analysis requested by the Council, because EPA's proposal erroneously
referred to the guidelines, EPA is providing herein a detailed
discussion of the comparison of the meteorology for the one of the
monitors at issue (the North Park monitor) as would have been
appropriate prior to January 2013, when the referenced guidelines were
relevant and applicable. EPA is also providing a summary of the
meteorological data comparison for the remaining monitors.
As discussed in the NPR, the following four monitors in the
Pittsburgh Area did not meet the completeness requirement for one or
more quarters during 2010-2012 monitoring period and EPA addressed the
missing data from these monitors by applying the maximum quarter
substitution test: (1) North Park monitor; (2) Harrison monitor; (3)
North Braddock monitor; and, (4) Charleroi monitor. For each quarter
where there was missing data at each of these four monitors, EPA
determined the highest reported daily PM2.5 value for that
quarter across the three years under consideration (2010-2012) and
substituted that value for the missing data for such quarter. For
example, the North Park monitor, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania had
missing data for the first quarters of 2010, 2011, and 2012. EPA
determined that, during the first quarter of these years, the maximum
quarterly 24-hour monitoring concentration of 26.5 [mu]g/m\3\ occurred
on March 9, 2010. Using this value (26.5 [mu]g/m\3\) as a substitute
value, EPA recalculated the design value for the first quarters of
2010, 2011, and 2012 at this monitor to determine if, using the
substituted data, the re-calculated design value would be below the
PM2.5 NAAQS. In accordance with appendix N, section 4.2,
this process was repeated for each monitor for each quarter where there
was missing data.
In response to the Council's request for additional meteorological
comparative data, for the North Park monitor meteorological similarity
analysis, meteorological data from the Pittsburgh International Airport
was reviewed to determine meteorological similarity between the first
quarter of 2010 (i.e. the substitute quarter) and the first quarters of
2011 and 2012 during which there was missing monitoring data at the
North Park monitor. Quarterly averages and standard deviations of
meteorological variables, such as average temperature, average
precipitation, and average maximum and minimum temperature, were
calculated from meteorological data downloaded from the Pennsylvania
State Climatologist Web site.\3\ Meteorological variables included
daily averaged temperatures, wind speeds and humidity levels, daily
maximum and minimum temperatures, and monthly precipitation. First
quarter meteorological variables for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were similar
as all of the variables fell within a common standard deviation. This
observation indicates that no large differences in meteorology occurred
at the North Park monitor between the dates of missing data in the
first quarters of 2011 and 2012 and the first quarter of 2010, the
quarter during which the highest reported daily PM2.5 value
for such quarters was recorded across the first quarter of the three
years under consideration (2010-2012). Because there were also data
deficiencies during the second quarter of this time period at the North
Park monitor, an identical meteorological similarity analysis was done
for the North Park monitor for the second quarter of 2010 through 2012.
The results of the meteorological similarity analysis for the 2010-12
second quarters were similar to the results for the first quarter
results and indicated that there were no large meteorological
differences at the North Park monitor, during the time period subject
to analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://climate.psu.edu/, https://climate.psu.edu/data/ida/index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KPIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of the Charleroi monitor, for each quarter
during which there was missing data at each of the remaining monitors,
EPA conducted similar analyses of meteorological data. The
meteorological similarity analysis for the Harrison and North Braddock
monitors used meteorological data from the Allegheny County Airport,\4\
which is the closest National Weather Service station to the monitors.
The Harrison monitor used substituted PM2.5 concentrations
for missing data in the second quarters of 2010, 2011, and 2012. The
North Braddock monitor used substituted PM2.5 concentrations
for missing data in the second and fourth quarters of 2010, 2011, and
2012. After reviewing the meteorological data for the Harrison and
North Braddock monitors, EPA determined that the data was similar. In
the case of the Charleroi monitor, the highest reported daily
PM2.5 value (the substitute data value) occurred during the
same time frame (same quarter and year) as the data deficiencies.
Since, the date where there was missing data and the date on which the
substitute value was recorded fell during the same quarter of the same
year, a meteorological similarity analysis would not have been required
under the 1999 guidelines, even if they were applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://climate.psu.edu/data/ida/index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KAGC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Council's comment, EPA reviewed the relevant
meteorology data for the Pittsburgh Area as referenced in the
guidelines which were erroneously referenced in the NPR and which have
been superseded by revised appendix N. With respect to the applicable
regulatory requirements, EPA's data analysis, including the application
of the maximum quarterly substitution test, to determine whether the
monitoring data demonstrates that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS during 2010 through 2012, was completed in
accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements set forth at 40
CFR 50, appendix N. Although the 1999 guidelines no longer apply to the
maximum quarterly substitution test that EPA used here, because the
revised regulatory provision of appendix N superseded such guidelines,
EPA's analysis, as set forth here in response to the commenter's
request, satisfies the provisions of both the prior guidelines and the
currently applicable regulation in revised appendix N. Therefore, EPA's
conclusion, that the maximum quarterly substitution test used for the
data analysis is valid, is fully supported by both the prior and
current provisions that apply. EPA's analysis of the meteorological
comparison and other elements no longer required under the current
regulation, is set forth solely to address the concerns raised by the
commenter.
IV. Final Action
EPA is making a determination that the Pittsburgh Area is attaining
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on quality-assured and
certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2010-2012 monitoring
period. Quality-assured data for 2013 summarized in Table 1 show that
the Area continues to attain the standard. This final determination
suspends the requirements for the Pittsburgh Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of
the standard, for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination does not constitute a
redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to attainment. The Pittsburgh Area
will remain designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the
Pittsburgh Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment, including an approved
[[Page 25018]]
maintenance plan. EPA is also approving the MVEBs for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The new MVEBs must be used for future
transportation conformity determinations. The 2011 MVEBs will be
effective on the date of publication of this final rulemaking action in
the Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
This action, which makes a determination of attainment based on air
quality, will result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements
and/or will not impose any additional requirements beyond those imposed
by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rulemaking action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the determination is not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 1, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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, approving the determination of attainment of the
Pittsburgh Area with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and the MVEBs, 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, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 18, 2014.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATON OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2059 Control strategy: Particulate matter.
* * * * *
(j) Determination of Clean Data. EPA has determined, as of May 2,
2014, that based on 2010-2012 ambient air quality data, the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and approves the motor
vehicle emission budgets used for transportation conformity purposes.
This determination suspends the requirements for the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long
as this area continues to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
If EPA determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that this area
no longer meets the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
corresponding determination of attainment for that area shall be
withdrawn.
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tons/
Geographic area Year year) NOX (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Area.............................................. 2011 961.71 28,973.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25019]]
[FR Doc. 2014-10114 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P