[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18385-18390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8883]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 20-1-6517, PA 31-1-6009, PA 39-1-6518, AD-FRL-5187-6]
Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Pennsylvania: Approval of PM-10 Implementation Plan for the
Liberty Borough Area of Allegheny County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve three State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the
purpose of attaining and maintaining the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) in Allegheny
County. These implementation plans were submitted by the State to:
fulfill the County's Group III requirements; strengthen the Allegheny
County SIP; and satisfy certain federal requirements for an approvable
nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for the Liberty Borough area of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. This action is being taken under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate
Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; and Allegheny County Health Department of Air Quality, 301 39th
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan J. Cimorelli, (215) 597-6563.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for PM-10 (52 FR 24634). These standards replaced
those promulgated for total suspended particulate (TSP) in 1971. On
that day, EPA also promulgated, in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, policies and
regulations by which it would implement the PM-10 NAAQS.
Although there was a lack of extensive PM-10 ambient monitoring
data at the time, EPA evaluated existing particulate matter data and
concluded that there were some areas where the PM-10 NAAQS were likely
to be violated, other areas where it could be presumed that a state's
existing total suspended particulate regulations were adequate to
provide for attainment, and other areas in which the attainment status
was uncertain. Recognizing that it would be unreasonable to require
full attainment demonstrations in all areas, EPA classified areas of
the country as groups based on the probability that each area would
maintain the PM-10 standard. Group I areas had a greater than 95
percent probability of nonattainment, Group II areas had a 20-95
percent probability of nonattainment and Group III areas had a less
than 20 percent probability of nonattainment. Through this process, EPA
identified all [[Page 18386]] of Allegheny County as a Group II area on
August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383). On January 20, 1988, EPA approved
Allegheny County's request to limit the Group II area to an area near
Allegheny County's Braddock monitor.\1\
\1\Letter from Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air Management
Division, EPA Region III to Ronald J. Chleboski, Deputy Director,
Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of Air Pollution Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State planning requirements were different for each Group
classification. All states were required to fulfill the Group III
requirements which included: the adoption of NAAQS for PM-10; the
adoption of the definition for PM-10 emissions; the adoption of the
reference method for the measurement of PM-10 in ambient air; the
inclusion of PM-10 values in the episode plan; and the addition of PM-
10 to the definitions of major source or facility, major modification,
and significant air quality impact. States containing Group II areas
were to submit committal SIPs that pledged to gather ambient air
quality data and evaluate emissions inventories and control strategies
in these areas. States containing Group I areas were required to submit
full SIP revisions, including attainment demonstrations, within nine
months.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 affected PM-10 classifications
and requirements in a number of ways. The Act, as amended, eliminates
the ``Group'' classifications. Former Group I areas, and Group II and
Group III areas that had monitored violations of the PM-10 NAAQS before
January 1, 1989, were designated as moderate nonattainment areas by
operation of law. The Liberty Borough monitor recorded sixteen
exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10 standard in 1988. As a result, the
Liberty Borough area (consisting of the City of Clairton and the
Boroughs of Liberty, Lincoln, Glassport, and Port Vue) was designated
as a moderate nonattainment area.
States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by
November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act.
Some provisions were due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)).
These states were also to submit contingency measures by November 15,
1993, which become effective without further action by the State or
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve
RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline.
See section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544.
The amended Act eliminated the requirement for states to seek
approval of ``committal'' SIP revisions for Group II areas as
prescribed in the July 1, 1987 Federal Register. The Group II areas are
being addressed using the authorities established in section 107 of the
Act concerning the designation of areas as attainment or nonattainment
with regard to the NAAQS.2
\2\EPA has determined that sufficient evidence does not exist to
redesignate the Braddock area as nonattainment for PM-10 at this
time. No PM-10 exceedances have been monitored at Braddock since the
promulgation of the PM-10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act did not affect the requirements established for Group III
areas. The July 1, 1987 regulations require states, among other things,
to seek approval of SIP revisions as required under the preconstruction
review program and to codify other regulatory changes as needed.
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I, Part D
of the Act. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the Act, including those state submittals
containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more
detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title I advanced in this
notice.
Evaluation of State Submittal
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). EPA is granting
approval of the PM-10-related plan revisions submitted to EPA on
November 14, 1988, January 12, 1993, and January 13, 1994 because they
meet all of the applicable requirements of the Act. The following
sections provide an analysis of the State's submittals and a discussion
of their approvability. More detail is provided in the technical
support document (TSD) to this rulemaking (memo from Thomas A. Casey to
the SIP Docket File dated June 6, 1994).
Analysis of November 14, 1988 ``Group III'' Submittal
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state under the
Act must be adopted by such state after reasonable notice and public
hearing.4
\3\Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
\4\This submittal pre-dates the 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V
requirement for a completeness determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County held a public hearing on April 21, 1988 to solicit
public comment on the implementation plan for the Liberty Borough area.
Following the public hearing, the plan was adopted by the County on
August 11, 1988. The package was signed by the Secretary of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) on November
8, 1988, and submitted to EPA as a proposed revision to the SIP.
Provisions for a minor-source, abrasive blasting permit program
(Article XX Sec. 533) and an asbestos-related provision (Article XX
Sec. 1001.02), originally included in that submittal, were withdrawn on
March 14, 1994. [[Page 18387]]
2. Technical Evaluation
Allegheny County's Group III SIP submittal consists of: a
definition of PM-10 (Article XX Sec. 101.90); ambient air quality
standards for PM-10 (Article XX Sec. 109); a definition of areas where
certain additional control measures are required (Article XX Sec. 527,
superseded by the 1993 submittal); a reference ambient monitoring
method for PM-10 (Article XX Sec. 613); the inclusion of PM-10 in air
quality episode criteria (Article XX Sec. 704); and the revision of
several definitions (such as ``significant impact'' and ``major
modification'') to include PM-10 in new source review activities
(Article XX Sec. 801). The submittal also deletes Article XX Appendix
1, a listing of the attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable
areas.
EPA has reviewed these provisions and determined that they are
sufficient to satisfy all of the Group III requirements.
Analysis of January 12, 1993 ``SIP Strengthening'' Submittal
1. Procedural Background
Allegheny County held a public hearing on August 27, 1992 to
solicit public comment on the implementation plan for the Liberty
Borough area. Following the public hearing, the plan was adopted by the
County on October 8, 1992. The package was signed by the Secretary for
the PADER on December 31, 1992, and submitted to EPA as a proposed
revision to the SIP.
The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness in
accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The
submittal was found to be complete, and a letter dated April 8, 1993
was forwarded to the State indicating the completeness of the submittal
and the next steps to be taken in the review process.
2. Technical Evaluation
This submittal strengthens the County's portion of the Pennsylvania
SIP with respect to the non-point source RACM guidance issued by EPA as
Appendices C1, C2 and C3 of the General Preamble (Article XX Sec. 521,
523, and 524); expands the area in which certain area-source provisions
apply; and adopts EPA test methods 201, 201A, and 202 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix M). (The submittal also included new emission limits for
industrial combustion units (Article XX Sec. 402) which were replaced
in their entirety by new provisions in the ``Attainment SIP''
submittal.) The submittal also contains several non-PM-10-related
provisions that are the subject of separate rulemakings.
The section 521, 523, and 524 rules provide visible emission (VE)
limits for fugitive dust from wind erosion, transport of materials, and
land clearing, respectively. Compliance is determined by previously-
approved procedures (Article XX Sec. 606).
This submittal also provides for new enforceable emission limits,
expands the geographic scope of some existing provisions, and
establishes improved test methods that strengthen the SIP. For this
reason, and because the rules were adopted and submitted in a manner
consistent with 40 CFR part 51, EPA is fully approving Allegheny
County's ``SIP strengthening'' submittal. A discussion of the County's
RACM/RACT analysis is provided in section II.C.3 of this notice and in
the TSD.
Analysis of ``Attainment SIP'' Submittal
1. Procedural Background
Allegheny County held a public hearing on December 3, 1993 to
solicit public comment on the attainment plan for the Liberty Borough
area. Following the public hearing, the plan was adopted by the County
on December 16, 1993. The package was signed by the Secretary for PADER
on January 6, 1994, and submitted to EPA as a proposed revision to the
SIP.
The SIP submittal was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57
FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be complete on
January 10, 1994, and a letter dated January 19, 1994 was forwarded to
the State indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next
steps to be taken in the review process.
The submittal contains source-specific limits for ten industrial
boilers, including some alternate limits (Article XXI Sec. 2104.6.a);
new source-specific limits for 21 other processes (Article XXI
Sec. 2104.6.d et seq. and 2105.49); a reduction of the leaking coke
oven door limit from 10% (plus two) to 8% (plus two) on USX-Clairton
Batteries #1, #2, #3, #7, #8, #9, and #19 (Article XXI Sec. 2105.21.b);
a reduction in the coke pushing limit from 0.02 to 0.01 grains per dry
standard cubic foot from USX-Clairton Batteries #1, #2, #3, #7, #8, #9,
and #19 (Article XXI Sec. 2105.21.e); new limits for material storage
and handling at the Glassport Transportation Center (Article XXI
Sec. 2105.29.e); new definitions related to coke oven gas emissions
(Article XXI Sec. 2101.20); and new test methods (Article XXI
Sec. 2107.1 and 2107.2).
Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. Pursuant to EPA regulations, the emissions
inventory should also include a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of allowable emissions in the area. Because the submission of
such inventories are necessary to an area's attainment demonstration
(or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the
emissions inventories must be received with the submission (see 57 FR
13539).
Pennsylvania submitted an inventory of actual emissions for base
year 1992. The base year inventory is dominated by emissions from coke
production activities at the USX-Clairton Coke Works, which accounts
for 72% of the inventory. Additional sources included public roads
(26%) and other industrial sources (1%).
EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it
appears to be generally accurate and comprehensive, and provides a
sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment
demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of
sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Clean Air Act.5 For
further details see section 2.3.2.1 of the Technical Support Document
(TSD).
\5\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the Act and EPA's guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
a. PM-10 RACT
USX-Clairton is the only point source complex in the Liberty
Borough nonattainment area subject to the RACT requirement. The large
emission points [[Page 18388]] and their emission limits are listed in
Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1.--RACT for USX Clairton Works Coke Oven Battery Emissions
[Allowable Emission Limits]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batteries 1-3, 7-9 and Batteries 13-15, 20
Source 19 and ``B''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging............... VE (visible emissions) VE for 55 seconds
for 75 seconds during during any five
any four consecutive consecutive charges.
charges.
Door Leaks............. VE from 8% of doors VE from 5% of doors
excluding the last two excluding the last
charged. two charged.
Charging Ports......... VE from 2% of charging VE from 1% of charging
ports or seals. ports or seals.
Offtake Piping......... VE from 5% of offtake VE from 4% of offtake
pipe. pipes.
Pushing................ 0.01 gdscf 20% opacity At any time 0.04 lb/
of VE from PEC outlet ton coke. At any
or pushing fugitives. time, 20% opacity of
VE from PEC outlet or
pushing fugitives.
Combustion Stacks...... 0.030 grains per dscf.. 0.015 grains per dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Ract for USX Clairton Works Other Emissions
[Allowable Emission Limits]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Post-revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traveling Hot Car.................. 10% opacity in open atmosphere.
Quench Towers...................... Water quality
Monongahela River (750 mg/liter
total dissolved solids); baffles.
Cooling Towers..................... Water quality
Monongahela.
Boilers............................ 387 TPY.
Pulverizers........................ 11.86 grain PM-10 per ton.
Continuous Unloaders............... No VE.
Storage Piles...................... VE 20% opacity for 3 min/60 min.
Private Industrial Roads........... VE 20% opacity for 3 min/60 min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 1994, Allegheny County provided EPA with documentation
substantiating its claim that the revised SIP would provide for RACT
(Letter from Cari J. Weaver, Section Head of Planning, Division of Air
Quality to Marcia L. Spink, Chief, Air & Radiation Programs Branch, EPA
Region III). The County compared its emission limits to those found in
the appropriate guidance6 and found their emission limits to be at
least as restrictive as those in the 1980 Steel RACT document or those
in neighboring jurisdictions. The County also found its emission limits
to be generally equivalent to the most restrictive applicable limits
found in Procedures for Identifying Reasonably Available Control
Technology for Stationary Sources of PM-10 (EPA-452/R-93-001). In some
cases, the County's emission limits may be more restrictive than RACT
because further reductions were required to demonstrate attainment. The
demonstration that Allegheny County's emission limits are comparable to
the most stringent state or local limits in the nation obviates the
County's need to also undertake a review of the technical, economic,
and environmental considerations that are generally involved in RACT
analyses.
\6\ August 7, 1980 memorandum from Edward E. Reich, Director,
Stationary Source Enforcement Division to the Regional air
enforcement directors entitled ``Steel Technical Support Options and
Documents,'' (with the attached table entitled ``Particulate
Emission Limitations Generally Achievable on a Retrofit Basis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Other RACM
As noted above, EPA issued non-point source RACM guidance in
Appendices C1, C2, and C3 to the General Preamble. Appendix C1 lists
fifteen available fugitive dust control measures. In its ``RACM''
submittal, Allegheny County satisfactorily described that sections 521
through 526 of Article XX include the applicable available control
measures (57 FR 18070). Sections 521 and 522 regulate visible emissions
from roadways, haul roads, parking lots, and source premises,
generally; Sec. 523 prohibits visible emissions from the transport of
solids or liquids; and Secs. 524, 525, and 526 regulate visible
emissions from construction, mining, and demolition, respectively.
Appendices C2 and C3 provide guidance on the requirements for RACM
for residential wood combustion (RWC) and prescribed burning. RWC is
not a significant source of PM-10 in the Liberty Borough nonattainment
area (comprising less than one-half of one percent of the emissions
inventory); therefore the County determined, pursuant to EPA's guidance
that to require control of this de minimis source would be unreasonable
and not constitute RACM. Prescribed burning on a large scale is not a
common practice in Allegheny County and such burning that does occur is
adequately regulated by Article XX Sec. 516.
The total of all the control measures contained in this submittal
result in a reduction in federally-allowable emissions of 5700 tons per
year of PM-10 and a reduction in actual emissions of at least 600 tons
per year in the nonattainment area and environs from 1992 levels. A
more detailed discussion of the individual source contributions and
their associated control measures can be found in the TSD. EPA has
reviewed the State's submittal and concluded that it provides for RACM
(including RACT). The implementation of Allegheny County's PM-10
control strategy will promote attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as of
December 31, 1994. By this action EPA is approving the control strategy
as RACM, including RACT.
3. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 1994 (See
section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively, the State must show
that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. The 24-hour PM-
10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is
equal to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is
50 g/m3, and the standard is attained when the expected
annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50
g/m3 (id.).
Allegheny County produced an attainment demonstration for the
Liberty Borough area using dispersion modeling. The demonstration
indicated that the NAAQS for PM-10 would be attained by December 31,
1994 in the Liberty Borough area and maintained in future years.
Allegheny County's analysis shows that, even if all sources
[[Page 18389]] emit at their newly adopted maximum allowable emission
rates, the 24-hour PM-10 concentration will not exceed 150 g/
m3 more than once per year. Similarly, the demonstration shows
that, in the attainment year, the annual PM-10 concentration will not
exceed the annual PM-10 NAAQS of 50 g/m3. The analysis
was performed in a manner that is consistent with the Guideline on Air
Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W). The control strategy used
to achieve these design concentrations is summarized in the section
titled ``RACM (including RACT)''. For a more detailed description of
the attainment demonstration and the control strategy used, see the
Technical Support Document.
4. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements that are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The PM-10 precursors explicitly identified
in the Act are sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the Liberty
Borough nonattainment area indicates that while exceedances of the
NAAQS are chiefly attributable to direct particulate matter emissions
from industrial sources within the nonattainment area, locally-formed,
secondary PM-10 makes a significant contribution. According to the
County's analyses, emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coke
ovens, coke oven battery underfiring, and industrial boilers can
contribute up to 45 g/m3 in sulfates to the total 24-hour
PM-10 concentrations (though the contribution is usually substantially
less). Similarly, the County found that organic carbon could contribute
up to 28 g/m3, but this contribution is most likely
dominated by condensed VOC, which are controlled as PM-10 as described
in the RACM/RACT section of this notice. Nitrate loading was rarely in
excess of 5 g/m3. Consequently, EPA finds, pursuant to
section 189(e) of the Act, that SO2 emissions do contribute
significantly to PM-10 exceedances in the Liberty Borough nonattainment
area, while VOC and NOX emissions do not. Therefore, under sec.
189(e) the requirement to control SO2 emissions applies to the
area, while the requirement for VOC and NOX controls do not apply.
This finding does not affect any other control technology requirements
of the Act. It should be noted that while EPA is making a general
finding for this area, today's finding is based on the current
character of the area including, for example, the existing mix of
sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth
could change the significance of precursors in the area.
Pursuant to section 189(e) Allegheny County's current SIP provides
for the control SO2 emissions. In a May 19, 1994 letter, Allegheny
County found that its SO2 limits for battery combustion (40 grains
per 100 dry standard cubic foot of COG) and boilers (lb SO2/
MMBTU=1.7E-0.14, where E is the actual heat input in MMBTU/hr)
were more stringent than those of neighboring jurisdictions. For more
detail, see the TSD.
5. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and
which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (see
section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable further progress is defined in
section 171(1) as such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by Part D or as may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.
In evaluating whether the requirement to implement RFP for this
initial moderate area has been met, EPA has reviewed the attainment
demonstration and control strategy for the area in order to determine
whether annual incremental reductions in addition to those provided in
the SIP should be required in order to ensure attainment of the PM-10
NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). All of Allegheny
County's new PM-10 requirements affecting the nonattainment area became
effective during 1994, and the County's air quality analysis
demonstrates that these controls would be sufficient to cause
attainment of the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Therefore, no additional
incremental reductions are needed and quantitative milestones
demonstrating RFP by 1994, as required by the Act, are being met in the
area. The County's rules satisfy the requirements for quantitative
milestones and RFP.
6. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section
110(a)(2)(C)).
The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that
discussion, including coke production, fuel combustion, and material
handling and processing. Some of the provisions are County-wide, some
apply only in the nonattainment area, and others are source-specific.
The geographic applicability and compliance date of each provision are
clearly stated. In addition, this SIP revision incorporates several
federal test methods into the Allegheny County SIP. EPA believes that
these procedures, along with previously-approved test methods, serve as
acceptable methods for determining compliance with the rules provided
in this SIP revision.
The TSD contains further information on enforceability requirements
including: enforceable emission limitations; a description of the rules
contained in the SIP and the source types subject to them; test methods
and compliance schedules, as appropriate; malfunction provisions;
excess emission provisions; averaging times for compliance test
methods; correctly cited references of incorporated methods/rules; and
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Allegheny County has adopted a program that will ensure that the
measures contained in the SIP are adequately enforced. The effective
date of each new or revised rule is provided for in each provision. The
existing test methods and recordkeeping requirements, along with those
included in this SIP revision, are sufficient to determine compliance
with each emission limit.
7. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544.
These measures must be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the
initial moderate nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should
consist of other available measures that are not [[Page 18390]] part of
the area's control strategy. The SIP must provide that these measures
take effect without further action by the State or EPA, upon a
determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP or attain the
PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline.
Allegheny County's SIP submittal does not contain contingency
measures. On January 18, 1994, EPA formally found that the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania had not submitted contingency measures to EPA for the
Liberty Borough area as required by the Act.7 This finding started
the eighteen-month and 24-month sanctions clocks pursuant to section
179(a) of the Act. Also, section 110(c) requires that EPA promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than two years after making
a finding under section 179(a). Today's rulemaking has no effect on the
January 18 finding or the associated sanctions and FIP clocks. The
sanction clock will continue to run until EPA receives a complete SIP
submittal of the contingency measures, and the FIP clock will continue
to run until EPA approves those contingency measures.
\7\January 18, 1994 letter from Stanley L. Laskowski, Acting
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III to Governor Robert P. Casey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the PM-10-related revisions to the
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP submitted to EPA on
November 14, 1988,8 January 12, 1993, and January 13, 1994.
\8\EPA has determined that this submittal conforms with the
requirements of the Act, irrespective of the fact that the submittal
preceded the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federally-approved state implementation plan must be in conformance
with the provisions of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15,
1990. The Agency has determined that Pennsylvania's November 14, 1988
submittal conforms with those requirements irrespective of the fact
that the submittal preceded the date of enactment.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 3427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
This action to propose approval of the PM-10 SIP for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania has been classified as a Table 2 action for
signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published
in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as
revised by an October 4, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The OMB has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP
revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2) (A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA
regulations in 40 CFR part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: March 21, 1995.
Stanley Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 95-8883 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P