[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