17054 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0248; FRL–9908–48– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Carbon Monoxide 

Second Limited Maintenance Plan for 

the Pittsburgh Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. The revision consists of a 

second limited maintenance plan for the 

carbon monoxide (CO) Pittsburgh Area 

(‘‘the Pittsburgh Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) in 

Allegheny County, formerly designated 

as a CO nonattainment area. The 

maintenance plan ensures maintenance 

of the CO national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) in the Pittsburgh 

Area for a second 10-year period after 

redesignation of the Area from 

nonattainment to attainment, through 

year 2022. EPA is approving these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 27, 

2014 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

April 28, 2014. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0248 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0248, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0248. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 

and at the Allegheny County Health 

Department, Bureau of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 

39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

15201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

18, 2011, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted, on behalf of Allegheny 

County Health Department (ACHD), a 

revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, which 

was supplemented on November 26, 

2013. The SIP revision ensures 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

Pittsburgh Area for a second ten-year 

period after redesignation, through year 

2022. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

III. Summary of SIP Revision 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Limited Maintenance Plan Eligibility 

B. Attainment Inventory 

C. Maintenance Demonstration 

D. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

E. Contingency Plan 

F. Transportation and General Conformity 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Designations 

CO is a colorless, odorless gas emitted 

from combustion processes. Nationally 

and, particularly in urban areas, the 

majority of CO emissions to ambient air 

come from mobile sources. CO can 

cause harmful health effects by reducing 

oxygen delivery to the body’s organs 

(like the heart and brain) and tissues. At 

extremely high levels, CO can cause 

death. 

EPA initially established the CO 

NAAQS on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186). 

The primary standards, protective of 

public health, were set at 9 parts per 

million (ppm) as an 8-hour average, and 

35 ppm, as a 1-hour average, neither to 

be exceeded more than once per year. 

Later in 1971, EPA set the secondary 

standards identical to the primary 

standards for protection of the public 

welfare. See 40 CFR 50.8. In a review of 

the standards completed in 1985 (50 FR 

37484, September 13, 1985), EPA 

retained the primary standard, but 

revoked the secondary standard due to 

lack of evidence of direct adverse effect 

on public welfare at or near ambient 

concentrations. Although the air quality 

criteria have changed over the past two 

decades, the CO primary standard has 

been retained without revision. 

On September 12, 1978 (43 FR 40513), 

EPA designated for the first time 

portions of Allegheny County as a CO 

nonattainment area, referred to as the 

Pittsburgh Area. The Pittsburgh Area 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17055 

was defined to include the high traffic 

density areas within the Central 

Business District of Allegheny County 

and certain other high traffic density 

areas. The Central Business District is 

defined as the area enclosed by the 

Allegheny River, the Monongahela 

River, and 579 interstate highway, while 

‘‘the other high traffic density areas’’ are 

defined as the Oakland neighborhood of 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

As part of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, a provision was added 

under section 186(a) which authorized 

EPA to classify nonattainment areas 

according to the degree of severity of the 

nonattainment problem. Specifically, 

CAA section 186(a)(1) provides that 

each area designated nonattainment for 

CO should be classified at the time of 

such designation as ‘‘Moderate’’ (9.1– 

16.4 ppm) or ‘‘Serious’’ (16.5 ppm and 

above) based on the design value of the 

area. Additionally, under section 

107(d)(a)(C), at the date of enactment of 

the 1990 CAA Amendments, all areas of 

the country were designated with 

respect to ozone and CO in accordance 

with the pre-enactment designations by 

operation of the law. 

On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), 

EPA made final designations and 

classifications for all areas in the 

country for all the six criteria pollutants. 

The designations and classifications for 

CO (post-enactment of 1990 CAA 

Amendments) were based on quality 

assured air monitoring data for years 

1988–1989. The Pittsburgh Area 

maintained its pre-enactment 

designation as a CO nonattainment area 

by operation of law. In this designation 

process, EPA determined that the 

Pittsburgh Area was a ‘‘nonclassifiable’’ 

area with respect CO NAAQS, based on 

the fact that the 1988–1989 air quality 

design values for the Area were below 

the lowest CO nonattainment 

classification of ‘‘Moderate’’ (below 9.1 

ppm). 

B. Compliance With the CO NAAQS 

A monitor is meeting the CO NAAQS 

if over a 2-year period the secondhighest 1-hour value is less than or 

equal to 35 ppm, and the secondhighest, non-overlapping 8-hour value is 

less than or equal to 9 ppm. These 

calculated values are referred as the 1- 

hour and the 8-hour design value, 

respectively. A design value is 

calculated to compare to the NAAQS 

and determine compliance. The CO 

design values are usually discussed in 

terms of the 8-hour CO NAAQS, rather 

than the 1-hour NAAQS, because the 8- 

hour NAAQS is typically the standard 

of concern. The design value of an area 

is the highest site-specific design value 

of the monitors located within the area. 

A CO nonattainment area is considered 

for redesignation if the design value of 

the Area is below the standards, that is, 

if there are no violations of the CO 

NAAQS for two consecutive years. The 

method for calculating CO design values 

is presented in detail in EPA’s June 18, 

1990 memorandum, ‘‘Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Design Value Calculations.’’ 

C. Redesignation to Attainment and 

Maintenance Plan 

EPA may redesignate areas to 

attainment if sufficient monitoring data 

are available to warrant such change 

and the area meets the criteria contained 

in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

These criteria include, among others, a 

full approval of a maintenance plan that 

covers at least 10 years after 

redesignation, and meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. In addition, section 175A of the 

CAA require states to submit a revision 

to the maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation to provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years 

following the end of the first 10-year 

maintenance period. To address 

potential future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation adequate to assure 

prompt correction of any air quality 

problems. 

On August 17, 2001, the 

Commonwealth submitted to EPA a 

redesignation request and a 

maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh 

Area for the CO NAAQS. EPA allowed 

the Commonwealth to develop a 

‘‘limited maintenance plan’’ (LMP) for 

the Pittsburgh Area in addressing the 

maintenance plan requirements, and 

thus meeting the applicable 

requirements for redesignation. 

According to EPA’s October 6, 1995 

guidance ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ the LMP option 

is only available to nonclassifiable CO 

nonattainment areas with design values 

at or below the 85 percent (%) of the 

level of the 8-hour CO NAAQS, or 7.65 

ppm. The LMP option allows the areas 

meeting this requirement to submit a 

less rigorous maintenance plan than 

generally required for the CO NAAQS. 

Since the Pittsburgh Area was 

designated as a ‘‘nonclassifiable’’ 

nonattainment area and the Area’s 8- 

hour design value at the time of 

redesignation was 3.9 ppm, based on 

1998–1999 quality assured air 

monitoring data, EPA concurred with 

the Commonwealth’s determination of 

submitting an LMP for the Area. On 

November 12, 2002 (67 FR 68521), EPA 

granted the Commonwealth’s 

redesignation request and approved as a 

SIP revision the maintenance plan for 

the Pittsburgh Area. The SIP revision 

ensured maintenance of the standard 

until January 2013. 

On July 18, 2011, the Commonwealth 

submitted as a SIP revision a second 10- 

year CO maintenance plan for the 

Pittsburgh Area. In recognition of the 

continuing record of monitoring data 

showing ambient CO 8-hour 

concentrations in the Pittsburgh Area 

well below 7.65 ppm, ACHD once more 

chose the LMP option for the 

development of this second 

maintenance plan. Further discussion of 

the maintenance plan requirements and 

the LMP option is provided in section 

II of this rulemaking action. 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

Section 175A defines the general 

framework of a maintenance plan. The 

maintenance plan will constitute a SIP 

revision and must provide for 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after redesignation. 

Section 175A further states that the plan 

shall contain such additional measures, 

if any, as may be necessary to ensure 

such maintenance. In addition, the 

maintenance plan should contain such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure prompt correction 

or any violation of the NAAQS. 

For nonclassifiable CO areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment whose 

design value at the time of redesignation 

is 85 percent or less than the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm, a state may 

choose to submit a less rigorous 

maintenance plan than generally 

required. This option is termed a LMP. 

EPA believes that the full maintenance 

plan requirements do not need to be 

applied to these areas because they have 

achieved air quality levels well below 

the standard without application of 

control measures required by the CAA 

for moderate and serious nonattainment 

areas. Also, these areas do not have 

either a recent history of monitored 

violations of the CO NAAQS or a long 

prior history of monitored air quality 

problems for CO. Therefore, EPA 

believes that for a limited maintenance 

area, the air quality along with the 

continued applicability of the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting requirements, any 

control measures already in the SIP, and 

Federal measures, should provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the10-year maintenance period. The 

same applies for areas submitting their 

second maintenance plans. 

To qualify for the LMP option, the CO 

design value for the area, based on the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17056 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

eight consecutive quarters (two years of 

data) used to demonstrate attainment 

must be at or below 7.65 ppm for the 8- 

hour CO NAAQS. Additionally, the 

design value for the area must continue 

to be at or below the 7.65 ppm for the 

8-hour CO NAAQS until the time of 

EPA’s final action. According to EPA’s 

October 6, 1995 guidance ‘‘Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ a 

LMP submittal must include: An 

attainment emissions inventory, a 

maintenance demonstration, a 

verification of continued attainment, 

contingency measures, and 

transportation conformity 

determination. 

As for any maintenance plan, the state 

should develop an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in the area which is sufficient 

to attain the NAAQS. This inventory 

should be consistent with EPA’s most 

recent guidance on emissions 

inventories for nonattainment areas 

available at the time and should include 

the emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. Emissions of CO 

are generally expected to be the highest 

during the winter season. Thus, for CO 

nonattainment areas, the inventory 

should be based on actual ‘‘typical 

winter day’’ emissions for the time 

period associated with the monitoring 

data showing attainment of the 

standard. For more information on 

developing seasonal CO emissions 

inventories, refer to EPA’s guidance 

documents ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Requirements for Carbon Monoxide 

State Implementation Plans’’ (EPA–450/ 

4–91–011, March 1991) and 

‘‘Procedures for the Preparation of 

Emissions Inventories for Carbon 

Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone; 

Volume I’’ (EPA–450/4–91–016, May 

1991). 

In LMP, the maintenance 

demonstration requirement is 

considered to be satisfied if the 

monitoring data show that the area is 

meeting the air quality criteria for a 

limited maintenance area, 7.65 ppm. 

The design value requirement is 

expected to provide adequate assurance 

of maintenance over the 10-year period. 

The maintenance demonstration does 

not require the state to project emissions 

over the maintenance period. In LMP, to 

verify the attainment status of the area 

over the maintenance period, the state 

must show continuous operation of an 

appropriate EPA-approved air quality 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

As for any maintenance plan, the state 

is required to adopt contingency 

provisions, as necessary, to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of the area. In 

order for the maintenance plan to be 

approved, a state is not required to have 

full adopted contingency measures that 

will take effect without further action by 

the state; however, the contingency plan 

is considered to be an enforceable part 

of the SIP and should ensure that the 

contingency measures are adopted 

expediently once they are triggered. The 

plan should clearly identify the 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the state. As 

necessary, the state should also identify 

specific indicators, or triggers, which 

will be used to determine when the 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented. 

Transportation conformity is required 

under section 176(c) of the CAA to 

ensure that Federally supported 

highway, transit projects, and other 

activities are consistent with (conform 

to) the purpose of the SIP. The CAA 

requires Federal actions in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

‘‘conform to’’ the goals of the SIP. This 

means that such actions will not cause 

or contribute to violations of a NAAQS; 

worsen the severity of an existing 

violation; or delay timely attainment of 

any NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

EPA has established criteria and 

procedures for Federal agencies to 

follow in determining conformity of 

their actions. EPA’s rule governing 

transportation plans and Federally 

supported highway, transit projects, and 

other activities is referred to as the 

Transportation Conformity Rule (See 40 

CFR part 93, subpart A), and EPA’s rule 

governing all other types of Federal 

agency actions is referred to as the 

General Conformity Rule (See 40 CFR 

part 93, subpart B). 

Under the Transportation Conformity 

Rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state air quality and transportation 

agencies, EPA, Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), and Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) to 

demonstrate that their metropolitan 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement plans conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained 

in a SIP. While EPA’s LMP option does 

not exempt an area from the need to 

affirm conformity, the area may 

demonstrate conformity without 

submitting an emissions budget. Under 

the LMP option, the emissions budgets 

are essentially not constraining for the 

length of the maintenance period, 

because it is unreasonable to expect that 

the qualifying area will experience so 

much growth in that period that a 

violation of the CO NAAQS would 

result. For this reason, any Federal 

actions requiring conformity 

determinations under the 

Transportation Conformity Rule could 

be considered to satisfy the ‘‘budget 

test,’’ required in 40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), 93.118, 93.119, and 

93.120. While not subject to the budget 

test, the limited maintenance areas 

remain subject to other transportation 

conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 

93, subpart A. 

III. Summary of SIP Revision 

On July 18, 2011, PADEP submitted, 

on behalf of ACHD, a SIP revision 

which was then supplemented on 

November 26, 2013. The SIP revision 

consists of the second 10-year update to 

the CO NAAQS maintenance plan for 

the Pittsburgh Area, as required by CAA 

section 175A(b). The July 18, 2011 

submission included a maintenance 

demonstration, a verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The November 26, 

2013 supplemental SIP revision 

included the attainment emissions 

inventory. The submittals also include 

appendices that explain the 

methodology used for developing 

emissions inventories, a technical 

support document, and evidence of 

public notice, public hearing, response 

to comments, and adoption of the plan. 

The maintenance plan also carries 

forward essentially the same 

contingency plan as contained in the 

initial maintenance plan. A more 

detailed summary of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

submittal may be found in EPA’s 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

this rulemaking action, which is 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0248. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Limited Maintenance Plan Eligibility 

Monitoring data shows that the 

Pittsburgh Area continues to attain the 

CO NAAQS. Table 1 presents the 

historic CO 8-hour design values (i.e., 

the second highest 8-hour average CO 

levels) for the CO monitoring sites in the 

Area over the 1988–2013 period, as 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) and included in the submittal. As 

shown, the second highest 8-hour CO 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17057 

average concentrations recorded at all 

monitoring stations in the Pittsburgh 

Area have remained below 7.65 ppm 

since 1994. In addition, ACHD reported 

that the 1-hour CO NAAQS has not been 

violated in the Pittsburgh Area since 

1980, and has been below 15 ppm since 

1988. Thus, monitoring data show that 

the Pittsburgh Area continues to be 

eligible for the LMP option. 

TABLE 1—PITTSBURGH AREA’S CO SECOND HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS DURING 1988–2013, IN PPM

Year Oakland a

(42–003–0026) 

Forbes Avenue 

at Grant Street 

(Courthouse) 

(42–003–0038) 

Gateway Center 

Subway 

Entrance 

(Point) b

(42–003–0052) 

Flag Plaza 

(Bedford 

Avenue) b

(42–003–0031) 

1988 ................................................................................................. 8.4 6.6 6.5 ............................

1989 ................................................................................................. 6.5 7.8 6.7 ............................

1990 ................................................................................................. 6.9 8.1 6.5 ............................

1991 ................................................................................................. 5.0 6.2 6.6 ............................

1992 ................................................................................................. 7.7 7.8 6.7 ............................

1993 ................................................................................................. 4.8 6.2 5.2 ............................

1994 ................................................................................................. 5.6 7.5 6.8 ............................

1995 ................................................................................................. 4.3 5.9 3.8 ............................

1996 ................................................................................................. 5.0 4.8 3.9 ............................

1997 ................................................................................................. 2.5 3.9 2.9 ............................

1998 ................................................................................................. ............................ 4.9 3.1 ............................

1999 ................................................................................................. ............................ 4.0 3.1 ............................

2000 ................................................................................................. ............................ 3.5 2.6 ............................

2001 ................................................................................................. ............................ 3.4 ............................ ............................

2002 ................................................................................................. ............................ 2.9 ............................ ............................

2003 ................................................................................................. ............................ 3.5 ............................ 2.2 

2004 ................................................................................................. ............................ 2.5 ............................ 1.9 

2005 ................................................................................................. ............................ 2.3 ............................ 1.8 

2006 ................................................................................................. ............................ 2.1 ............................ 1.8 

2007 ................................................................................................. ............................ 3.5 ............................ 1.3 

2008 ................................................................................................. ............................ 1.6 ............................ 1.3 

2009 ................................................................................................. ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.3 

2010 ................................................................................................. ............................ 1.7 ............................ 1.2 

2011 ................................................................................................. ............................ 1.6 ............................ 1.4 

2012 ................................................................................................. ............................ 1.7 ............................ 1.5 

2013c ................................................................................................ ............................ 1.5 ............................ 1.4 

Source: Pennsylvania’s July 18, 2011 SIP submittal and EPA’s January 9, 2014 AQS Reports AMP450. 

aThe CO monitor at the Oakland site (AQS ID: 42–003–0026) was terminated in October 1997, as approved by EPA. 

bEPA approved the removal of the CO monitor at the Gateway Center Subway Entrance (Point) (AQS ID: 42–003–0052) in May 2000 and its 

relocation to the Flag Plaza (AQS ID: 42–003–0031) near the Civic Arena, which started operating in 2003. cAir quality monitoring data for 2013 is preliminary. 

B. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

For the CO maintenance plan, ACHD 

developed a 2008 attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of actual 

emissions in the Pittsburgh Area that is 

sufficient for the Area to continue to 

attain the CO NAAQS. The Pittsburgh 

Area’s CO attainment inventory is based 

on the latest available planning 

assumptions for 2008, reflecting typical 

winter day CO emissions for the Area. 

ACHD selected the 2008 year for its 

attainment emissions inventory because 

it contained at the time of submittal the 

most current and comprehensive 

emissions estimates that were 

representative of actual emissions in 

Allegheny County, and because during 

this time the air quality was showing 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

Area. The 2008 emissions inventory is 

based on EPA’s 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) (Version 2, 

April 10, 2012) for the months of 

January, February and December, and 

seasonal adjustment factors were 

applied as necessary. 

The 2008 attainment inventory 

contains CO typical winter day 

emissions estimates of point, area, 

mobile onroad and mobile nonroad 

sources in the Area. The primary source 

of CO emissions in the Pittsburgh Area 

is the onroad (highway) sources, 

contributing to 54% of total CO 

emissions of the Area. Table 2 provides 

a summary of the 2008 attainment 

inventory submitted with the 

maintenance plan. For a more detailed 

evaluation of the 2008 emissions 

inventory, see EPA’s TSD dated 

February 4, 2014 for this rulemaking 

action, which is available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0248. 

TABLE 2—PITTSBURGH AREA’S CO 

2008 ATTAINMENT EMISSIONS INVENTORY, IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Source category CO typical winter 

day emissions 

Point .................................. 22.76 

Area .................................. 57.65 

Onroad .............................. 396.38 

Nonroad ............................ 96.99 

Total ........................... 573.78 

C. Maintenance Demonstration 

Under the LMP option, there is no 

requirement to project emissions over 

the 10-year maintenance period for the 

Pittsburgh Area, as long as the Area 

continues to have CO air quality at or 

below 7.65 ppm. The monitoring data 

presented in Table 1 show that the 

Pittsburgh Area has historically 

measured and continues to measure 

concentrations below 7.65 ppm. The 

continuous downward trend in CO 

monitoring data in the Area has 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17058 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1MOVES2010 is a computer model designed by 

EPA to estimate air pollution emissions and 

emissions inventories of various pollutants and 

precursors from on-road mobile sources for SIP and 

transportation conformity purposes. MOVES2010 

was designed to replace the previous emissions 

model, MOBILE6.2, which was released in 2004 (69 

FR 28830). MOVES2010 was released on March 2, 

2010 (75 FR 9411), while MOVES2010a, a minor 

revision to enhance model performance, was 

released subsequently on September 8, 2010. ACHD 

used MOVES2010a in developing the projected 

emissions inventories. 

demonstrated that air quality 

improvements can be attributed to 

permanent, enforceable reductions of 

CO emissions. In addition, EPA 

acknowledges that Allegheny County 

has a SIP-approved PSD permitting 

program (78 FR 13493, February 18, 

2013), which prevents increase of CO 

emissions from construction or 

modification of major stationary 

sources. EPA believes that the LMP 

eligibility together with the 

continuation of existing CO emissions 

control programs, sufficiently and 

adequately demonstrate that the 

Pittsburgh Area will maintain the CO 

NAAQS through the second 10-year 

maintenance period and beyond. 

Although not required, ACHD 

included a maintenance demonstration 

as part of its second maintenance plan 

to show maintenance of the CO NAAQS 

during the second 10-year period for the 

Pittsburgh Area. ACHD used projected 

inventories to show that the Pittsburgh 

Area continues to remain in attainment 

and developed projected inventories for 

an interim year of 2013 and a 

maintenance end year of 2022. The 

projected 2013 and 2022 emissions 

inventories include typical winter day 

CO emissions estimates only for the 

onroad sources in the Pittsburgh Area. 

As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking 

action, this sector constitutes the 

primary emissions source category in 

the Pittsburgh Area, thus emissions 

reductions from this source category 

should be sufficient to demonstrate 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS for the 

Area. The projected 2013 and 2022 

onroad emissions inventories were 

developed with EPA’s latest highway 

emissions model at the time of 

submittal, MOVES2010a,1 in accordance 

with EPA’s ‘‘Technical Guidance on the 

Use of MOVES2010a for Emission 

Inventory Preparation in State 

Implementation Plans and 

Transportation Conformity.’’ 

ACHD used growth rates based on 

2008 local traffic data and 

socioeconomic forecasts to project 

traffic parameters to 2013 and 2022 

data. Daily and monthly seasonal factors 

were used to adjust traffic data to a 

typical winter day. The projected 

inventories take into account control 

measures which were in place in 2008 

and are expected to be in place 

throughout 2022 for Allegheny County, 

which include: The National Low 

Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) and 

Federal Tier II Low Sulfur Program, 

emissions standards for medium and 

heavy duty vehicles in 2002, 2004, 

2007, and 2011, Stage II and Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR), and 

the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles (PCV) 

Program (PaCode, Title 25, Chapter 126) 

that incorporates the California Low 

Emission Vehicle Program (CA LEVII). 

After thorough review of the 

methodology and data assumptions 

used by ACHD, EPA finds that the 2013 

and 2022 emissions inventories were 

developed in conformance with EPA’s 

guidance, and therefore, are approvable 

as part of the maintenance 

demonstration. A summary of the 

projected onroad CO emissions 

inventories for the Pittsburgh Area is 

provided in Table 3. A more detailed 

evaluation and EPA’s rationale for 

approving the 2013 and 2022 

inventories may be found in EPA’s TSD 

for this rulemaking action, which is 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0248. 

TABLE 3—PITTSBURGH AREA’S CO PROJECTED 2013 AND 2022 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) AND TYPICAL WINTER

DAY EMISSIONS FOR ONROAD SOURCES, IN TPD

2013 2022 

VMT CO typical winter day emissions VMT CO typical winter day emissions 

25,727,530 394.53 28,377,731 336.27 

The purpose of the maintenance 

demonstration is to show that future CO 

emissions will remain at or below the 

2008 attainment emissions levels for the 

Pittsburgh Area through the 2022 

maintenance plan end year. Table 4 

provides a comparison of the CO 

emissions inventories for the Pittsburgh 

Area for the 2008 attainment year, the 

2013 interim year, and the 2022 

maintenance plan end year. Despite the 

projected increase in VMT (see Table 3) 

in the Area, the inventories show that 

the CO emissions between 2008 and 

2022 for the Area are projected to be 

reduced by 15 percent, due to the 

implementation of the vehicle control 

measures in Allegheny County. EPA 

finds that the maintenance 

demonstration shows that the Pittsburgh 

Area will continue to maintain the CO 

NAAQS during the second maintenance 

period, throughout 2022. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF THE 2008, 2013, AND 2022 CO TYPICAL WINTER DAY EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR ONROAD

SOURCES IN THE PITTSBURGH AREA, IN TPD

Emissions of onroad sources Emissions reductions 

2008 2013 2022 2008–2013 2008–2022 

396.38 394.53 336.27 1.85 60.11 

D. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 58, 

ACHD operates and maintains an EPAapproved CO monitoring network in the 

Pittsburgh Area, in order to verify 

attainment of the CO NAAQS and 

ensure the need to trigger contingency 

measures. Currently, the monitoring 

network consists of two monitoring 

sites: The Forbes Avenue and Grant 

Street site (AQS ID: 42–003–0038) and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17059 

the Flag Plaza site (AQS ID: 42–003– 

0031), whose data is eligible for 

comparison to the CO NAAQS. 

EPA believes ACHD’s current CO 

monitoring network is adequate to 

verify continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area. ACHD 

has committed to continue maintaining 

a CO monitoring network in accordance 

with EPA’s requirements. 

E. Contingency Plan 

The Pittsburgh Area’s second CO 

maintenance plan carries forward the 

same contingency provisions that were 

included in the first maintenance plan 

and previously approved by EPA. As a 

triggering event for implementation of 

the contingency measures of this plan, 

a verified ambient CO concentration for 

an 8-hour period over the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS, or 9.00 ppm, must be recorded 

at least twice at one monitor station 

from November to February. In the 

event of a violation of the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS, a ‘‘vehicle idling restriction’’ 

will be implemented as a contingency 

measure. The vehicle idling restriction 

is applicable from November to 

February throughout Allegheny County 

and consists of limiting to five minutes 

the amount of time that a gasoline 

engine vehicle is permitted to idle. This 

restriction will have the following 

exceptions: The need for heating and 

powering of refrigeration systems on 

trucks, operation of emergency vehicles 

and vehicles that are motionless due to 

traffic conditions beyond operator’s 

control. Three (3) months after ACHD 

records a violation or once EPA notifies 

ACHD that this contingency measure 

must be implemented, ACHD will adopt 

within 12 months the vehicle idling 

restriction as a regulation. The 

regulation will be implemented within 

8 months after adoption. In the future, 

ACHD may request EPA to consider the 

approval of alternative contingency 

measures by providing a demonstration 

that the alternative measures will 

provide an air quality and public health 

benefit equal to or greater than that 

resulting from the implementation of 

the idling restriction. EPA finds this 

contingency measure approvable for 

purposes of satisfying CAA section 

175A. 

F. Transportation Conformity 

ACHD did not submit any MVEBs 

with the Pittsburgh Area’s CO second 

maintenance plan. However, EPA 

believes that the second maintenance 

plan demonstrates that it is 

unreasonable to expect that the Area 

would experience enough growth in 

motor vehicle (onroad) emissions for a 

violation of the CO NAAQS to occur, 

and on that basis, EPA is proposing to 

approve this plan for transportation 

conformity purposes. In accordance 

with the Transportation Conformity 

Rule, after EPA’s approval of this 

limited maintenance plan, there will be 

no requirement for ACHD to satisfy the 

regional emissions analysis with respect 

to CO under 40 CFR 93.118 and/or 40 

CFR 93.119 in determining the 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs and projects in the Pittsburgh 

Area. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). 

V. Final Action 

EPA finds that the Pittsburgh Area 

second CO maintenance plan concurs 

with EPA’s guidance for limited 

maintenance plans and thus, satisfies 

the requirements of CAA section 175A. 

EPA is approving as an update to the 

Pennsylvania SIP the Pittsburgh Area 

CO second maintenance plan, which 

was submitted as a SIP revision by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on July 

18, 2011 and supplemented on 

November 26, 2013. The plan 

demonstrates maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS in the Pittsburgh Area for a 

second 10-year period after 

redesignation, through year 2022. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because EPA views this 

as a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on May 

27, 2014 without further notice unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by April 

28, 2014. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17060 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 May 27, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. This 

action, approving the Pittsburgh Area’s 

CO second maintenance plan, 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 7, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION 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. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

for Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

for the City of Pittsburgh. The revised 

text reads as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan.City of Pittsburgh—Central 

Business District & Oakland.

8/17/01 11/12/02 67 FR 68521 ...... 52.2063(c)(189). 

7/18/12; 11/26/13 3/27/14 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Limited maintenance plan covering the 10-year period 

through 2022. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–06697 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL 9908– 

64–Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Coleman-Evans Wood 

Preserving Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Superfund Site (Site), located in 

Whitehouse, Florida, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Florida, through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 

because EPA has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 28, 

2014. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: kestle.rusty@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 404–562–8896. 

• Mail: Rusty Kestle, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303–8909. 

• Hand Delivery: Rusty Kestle, 61 

Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta GA 30303– 

8909. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES