25014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 WW—Washington 

■ 2. Section 52.2470 is amended in table 

2 of paragraph (e) by adding an entry ‘‘8- 

Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan’’ at the end of the section with the 

heading ‘‘Attainment and Maintenance 

Planning—Ozone.’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Ozone 

*******

8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.Seattle-Tacoma ...................... 2/5/08 5/2/14 [Insert page number 

where the document begins]. 

* * * * * * * 

[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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

Correction 

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’’; 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25015 

1Because 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. 

2Even 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. 

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 LibertyClairton 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

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. 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 Site name 2013 98th 

percentile 

2013 24 hour 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25017 

3http://climate.psu.edu/, http://climate.psu.edu/

data/ida/index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KPIT. 

4http://climate.psu.edu/data/ida/

index.php?t=3&x=faa_daily&id=KAGC. 

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 

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 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 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 

■ 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 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 

Geographic area Year PM2.5

(tons/year) 

NOX

(tons/year) 

Pittsburgh Area ............................................................................................................................ 2011 961.71 28,973.05 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25019 

1On June 13, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

approval of Virginia’s October 4, 2010 regional haze 

SIP to address the first implementation period for 

regional haze (77 FR 35287). In a separate action, 

published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA 

finalized a limited disapproval of the Virginia 

regional haze SIP because of the Commonwealth’s 

reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

meet certain regional haze requirements, which 

EPA replaced in August 2011 with the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208, August 

8, 2011). In the aforementioned June 7, 2012 action, 

EPA finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

for Virginia to replace the Commonwealth’s reliance 

on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Following these 

EPA actions, the DC Circuit issued a decision in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 

(2013) vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place 

pending the promulgation of a valid replacement 

rule. EPA believes that the EME Homer City 

decision impacts the reasoning that formed the 

basis for EPA’s limited disapproval of Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP based on Virginia’s reliance upon 

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. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10114 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0006; FRL–9910–34– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 

Report State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia through the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ). Virginia’s SIP revision addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules that require states to 

submit periodic reports describing 

progress towards reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) established for regional 

haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is 

approving Virginia’s SIP revision on the 

basis that it addresses the progress 

report and adequacy determination 

requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0006. 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. 

Copies of Virginia’s submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

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 published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, 

EPA proposed approval of Virginia’s 

progress report SIP, a report on progress 

made in the first implementation period 

towards RPGs for 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 and 

accompanying cover letter also included 

a determination that Virginia’s existing 

regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

In addition, the provisions under 40 

CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, 

at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

progress report, a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing regional 

haze SIP. The first progress report SIP 

is due five years after submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP. On October 4, 

2010, Virginia DEQ submitted the 

Commonwealth’s first regional haze SIP 

in accordance with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308.1 The progress report SIP 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES