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 http://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 http://climate.psu.edu/, http://climate.psu.edu/ data/ida/index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KPIT. 4 http://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 http://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\ http://climate.psu.edu/, http://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\ http://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