[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 64 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17374-17380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7471]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[PA209-4301; FRL-7642-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Hazelwood SO2 
Nonattainment and the Monongahela River Valley Unclassifiable Areas to 
Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These SIP 
revisions include a regulation change to the allowable sulfur oxide 
emission limits for fuel burning equipment and a modeled demonstration 
of attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the Hazelwood nonattainment area and 
the Monongahela River Valley unclassifiable area located in the 
Allegheny Air Basin in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In addition, EPA 
is proposing to redesignate these areas to attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2 and to approve a combined maintenance plan for both 
areas as a SIP revision. These SIP revisions were submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf 
of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). This action is being 
taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically. 
Written comments should be mailed to Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality 
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 
Electronic comments should be sent either to [email protected] or 
to http://www.regulations.gov, which is an alternative method for 
submitting

[[Page 17375]]

electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the 
detailed instructions described in Part III of the Supplementary 
Information section. Copies of the documents relevant to this action 
are available 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; the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, PO Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105; and the Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of 
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39thStreet, 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by 
e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 15, 2003, the PADEP, on behalf of 
the ACHD, submitted a SIP revision for SO2 for Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania. The SIP revision consisted of a change to ACHD's 
Article XXI, section 2104.03, pertaining to sulfur oxide emissions for 
fuel burning equipment; a modeled demonstration of attainment of the 
NAAQS for SO2 in the Hazelwood nonattainment area and the 
Monongahela River Valley unclassifiable area of the Allegheny County 
Air Basin; and a request to redesignate these areas to attainment. The 
SIP revision also included a maintenance plan covering both of these 
areas which will ensure that attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 
will be maintained.

I. Background

When Were These Areas Designated Nonattainment and Unclassifiable for 
SO2?

    EPA originally designated all of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania as 
nonattainment for SO2 under section 107 of the CAA on March 
3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). In a subsequent final rulemaking published on 
October 21, 1981 (46 FR 51607), EPA approved a request to redesignate 
portions of Allegheny County for SO2. As a result of this 
action, the area of the Allegheny County Air Basin within a two-mile 
radius of the Hazelwood monitor (the Hazelwood area) was designated 
nonattainment for SO2, and the area of the Allegheny County 
Air Basin within an eight-mile radius of the Duquesne Golf Association 
Club House in West Mifflin, excluding the Hazelwood nonattainment area, 
(the Monongahela River Valley area) was designated unclassifiable for 
SO2. On November 15, 1990, the CAA amendments were enacted. 
Pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C), the Hazelwood area was designated 
nonattainment for SO2 and the Monongahela River Valley area 
was designated unclassifiable for SO2 by operation of law. 
These designations are codified in 40 CFR part 81.339.

What are the Geographical Boundaries of the Hazelwood SO2 
Nonattainment Area and the Monongahela River Valley Unclassifiable 
Area?

    The Hazelwood SO2 nonattainment area of the Allegheny 
County Air Basin is the area within a two-mile radius of the Hazelwood 
monitor. Surrounding this nonattainment area is the Monongahela River 
Valley unclassifiable area. It consists of that portion of Allegheny 
County within an eight-mile radius of the Duquesne Golf Association 
Clubhouse in West Mifflin, excluding the Hazelwood nonattainment area. 
These nonattainment and unclassifiable areas were consolidated into one 
aggregate area for the purposes of performing the modeled attainment 
demonstration and for the maintenance plan.

II. Redesignation Evaluation

What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, as amended, specifies five 
requirements that must be met to redesignate an area to attainment. 
They are as follows:
    (1) The area has attained the applicable NAAQS.
    (2) The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k).
    (3) The air quality improvement is permanent and enforceable.
    (4) The area has met all relevant requirements under section 110 
and part D of the Act.
    (5) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A.

Has the State Met the Criteria for Redesignation?

    The EPA has reviewed the redesignation request submitted by PADEP, 
on behalf of the ACHD, for the Hazelwood nonattainment area and the 
Monongahela River Valley unclassifiable area. EPA finds that the 
request meets the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E).

What Data Shows Attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 in the 
Hazelwood Nonattainment Area and the Monongahela River Valley 
Unclassifiable Area?

    There are two components involved in making a demonstration that an 
area is attaining the applicable NAAQS for SO2. The first 
component relies upon ambient air quality data. The second component 
relies upon supplemental EPA-approved air quality modeling. The ACHD 
and PADEP have quality-assured SO2 ambient air monitoring 
data showing that the Hazelwood nonattainment area and the Monongahela 
River Valley unclassifiable area have attained the NAAQS for 
SO2. The County is currently operating three monitors within 
these areas, the Hazelwood, Liberty, and Glassport monitors. The 
Glassport monitor was previously proposed to be removed from continuous 
operation, and to be operated only during periods of scheduled 
desulfurization equipment outages. However, the ACHD has decided that 
the Glassport monitor will continue to operate on a continual basis. 
All of the monitors meet the requirements of 40 CFR parts 53 and 58, 
and are representative of the highest ambient concentrations.
    The redesignation request for the Hazelwood and Monongahela River 
Valley areas is based upon air quality data for 1994--2000, as this was 
the most recent data at the time this redesignation request was 
initially prepared. The data was collected and quality-assured in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality 
Subsystem (AQS) of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). 
The annual primary NAAQS for SO2 is 0.03 parts per million 
(ppm). The annual value is calculated as the arithmetic means of all 1-
hour values over a calendar year. This standard has not been exceeded 
in Allegheny County since 1984. The daily primary 24-hr NAAQS is 0.14 
ppm, and the 3-hr secondary NAAQS for SO2 is 0.50 ppm. The 
daily value is calculated as the average 1-hour values over the 
consecutive 24-hour period of one day, and the 3-hour value is 
calculated as the average 1-hour value for successive non-overlapping 
3-hour periods. Violations of the 24-hour and 3-hour standards occur 
when they are exceeded more than once in a calendar year. The most 
recent violations of the 24-hour and 3-hour standards occurred in 1993, 
when each standard was exceeded twice at the Hammerfield monitor in the 
Hazelwood area. An area is attaining the NAAQS for SO2 if 
there is no more than one exceedance annually in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 50.4.
    The air quality data for the monitoring sites submitted with this 
redesignation request shows that from 1994 through 2000 (through 1999 
for Hammerfield, which was terminated in 2000), there

[[Page 17376]]

were no violations of the primary or secondary NAAQS for 
SO2. Only one exceedance has been recorded since 1993, a 24-
hour exceedance at the Glassport monitor in 1999. The NAAQS was not 
exceeded again for the year, hence no violation occurred. EPA has also 
confirmed that quality-assured data shows that no violations occurred 
in 2001 through 2003. Therefore, the areas have attained and continue 
to attain the NAAQS for SO2. Air quality measurements used 
in this submittal were performed in accordance with the appropriate 
regulations and guidance documents including adherence to EPA quality 
assurance requirements. Monitoring procedures were determined in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate the SIP 
adequately provides for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for 
SO2. An air quality modeling demonstration of attainment for 
the SO2 NAAQS for the Hazelwood nonattainment area and the 
surrounding Monongahela River Valley unclassifiable area was included 
in this submittal for approval as a SIP revision. The modeling analysis 
was performed according to the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' 
Appendix W to 40 CFR, part 51. The modeling demonstrates that the areas 
have attained and will maintain the standard under the operating 
scenarios allowed for in the SIP. A more detailed discussion of the 
modeling evaluation is included in the technical support document (TSD) 
prepared for this rulemaking. Because the areas have attained the NAAQS 
for SO2 based upon the quality-assured data available during 
preparation of the August 15, 2003 submittal, and continue to attain 
the NAAQS, the first criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) has been 
satisfied. The ACHD and PADEP have committed to continue monitoring in 
these areas in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

Is There a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the Act?

    The SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of 
the Act and must satisfy all requirements that apply. The SIP for 
Southwestern Pennsylvania was fully approved by EPA on October 21, 1981 
(46 FR 51607), and identified existing local control strategies to 
bring the area into compliance. Control strategies included coke oven 
gas desulfurization and source-specific emission requirements. On 
November 15, 1990, the CAA amendments were enacted. Pursuant to section 
107(d)(1)(C), the Hazelwood area in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was 
designated nonattainment and the Monongahela River Valley area in 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was designated unclassifiable by 
operation of law. On August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43012), EPA approved a 
source-specific SIP revision for U.S. Steel Clairton Works in Allegheny 
County, implementing spare desulfurization equipment to be used in the 
event of a breakdown of the coke oven gas desulfurization process. The 
August 15, 2003 submittal which is the subject of this proposed 
rulemaking, includes an additional revision to the areas SO2 
emission limits. This revision to the ACHD Article XXI, Revision 46, 
section 2104.03, pertains to allowable sulfur oxide emission limits for 
fuel burning equipment. Specifically, the revision mandates that 
equipment firing only natural gas or liquified petroleum gas (propane), 
or any combination thereof, will be limited to an SO2 
emission rate which is no greater than the current potential to emit 
(pte). In addition, the SIP revision limits processes and incinerators 
to the lesser of their current pte rate or 500 ppm SO2 at 
any time in the effluent stack gas (volumetric basis). These amendments 
to the SO2 emission limits for fuel burning equipment in 
Allegheny County were submitted to EPA for approval as SIP revisions 
concurrently with the redesignation request to meet the requirements of 
section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA is proposing approval of these further 
restrictions of emissions of SO2 as a SIP revision.

Is the Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Measures?

    In order to redesignate an area, EPA must determine that the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable 
SIP, applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions. Implementation of the SIP has led 
to decreased levels of pollutant emissions. These improvements are 
permanent and enforceable. Limits restricting hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) content have been imposed under Article XXI of ACHD's 
regulations. Shenango, Inc., is required to meet a limit of 34 grains 
of hydrogen sulfide content per dry hundred cubic feet of coke oven 
gas, while U.S. Steel must meet a limit of 40. The coke oven gas 
standard of 50 grains H2S/100 dscf was in effect at the time 
of the nonattainment designation. The current limits of 34 and 40 
grains H2S/100 dscf represent a 32 percent reduction in 
modeled SO2 emissions from coke oven gas usage at Shenango 
and a 20 percent reduction at U.S. Steel, respectively.
    Permanent shutdown of many facilities in the nonattainment and 
unclassifiable areas has occurred. LTV Corporation permanently ceased 
operations of its Hazelwood coke production facility in 1998. LTV's 
South Side facility closed shortly after the time of designation. 
Unlike currently operating facilities which were modeled at their 
allowable emission rates, banked emissions were used in the modeling 
demonstration for the LTV facilities, which represent approximately a 
65 percent reduction from LTV's former allowable emissions. Emissions 
from the Hazelwood coke facility were the primary cause of violations 
in the Hazelwood area, and consequently, the designation of 
nonattainment. Other facilities situated outside the nonattainment area 
but inside the unclassifiable area, such as U.S. Steel Duquesne, 
Homestead, and National Works, have also permanently ceased operations 
since the time of designation, with no banked emissions.
    The decrease of coal and fuel oil usage has led to air quality 
enhancements. Numerous sources have restrictions on coal and oil, and 
their enforceable operating permits reflect that these sources are not 
capable of burning these fuels. Percent reduction in emissions can be 
estimated according to AP-42 emission factors. For example, a boiler 
switching from No. 2 fuel oil (containing 0.1% sulfur by weight) to 
natural gas corresponds to a change in emission factors from 0.1120 to 
0.0006, in pounds of SO2 per million Btu.
    As mentioned previously, the August 15, 2003 submittal also 
includes revisions to the allowable sulfur oxide emission limits for 
fuel burning equipment. New allowable limits are to be implemented for 
boilers firing only natural gas and/or and liquefied petroleum gas 
(propane). These boilers will now have limits no greater than their 
current maximum pte values of SO2. This revision allows for 
more accurately modeled plumes, as it makes a natural gas boiler and a 
coal boiler of the same capacity more distinguishable by emission 
rates. Previously, boilers using only natural gas and propane were 
assigned the same allowable limits as boilers of the same size that 
used coal or fuel oil. Percent reduction due to this change is given by 
the change in emission factors, from 1.0 to 0.006, in pounds of 
SO2 per million Btu.
    Similarly, process and incinerator emission limits are being 
changed to current maximum pte values or, if lesser than pte, the 
previous value of 500 ppm SO2 at any time in the effluent 
stack gas

[[Page 17377]]

(volumetric basis) is the allowable rate. The previous limit of 500 ppm 
SO2 at any time in the effluent stack gas (dry volumetric 
basis) led to excessively high allowable rates for many processes in 
Allegheny County. For some sources, emissions calculated at maximum 
production rates were only a minute fraction of 500 ppm. Imposing the 
lower of maximum pte or 500 ppm translates to more realistic (and 
lower) emissions. Percent reduction due to this change varies greatly 
from process to process at the affected sources, from 0-99 percent, 
depending on the flow rate of the effluent stack gas and the type of 
process.
    Attainment in the Hazelwood area is due to the permanent and 
enforceable measures and improvements listed above. As required by the 
attainment and maintenance plan, model runs have produced theoretical 
results of attainment for sources running at maximum possible 
capacities over five different years of meteorology.

Does the State Meet the Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part 
D?

    The general SIP elements delineated in Section 110(a)(2) of Title 
I, part A, include but are not limited to the following: Submittal of a 
SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable notice and 
public hearing, provisions for establishment and operation of 
appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit program, 
provisions for part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), 
and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs, criteria for 
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting, 
and provisions for public and local agency participation. Upon approval 
of the additional revision to the areas SO2 emission limits 
and the modeled attainment and maintenance demonstration submitted on 
August 15, 2003, EPA concludes that the Commonwealth's SIP for the 
Hazelwood nonattainment area and the Monongahela River Valley 
unclassifiable area will satisfy all of the section 110 and part D 
requirements of the CAA.
1. Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110 of the CAA concerns the general provisions needed in a 
SIP. The applicable requirements of section 110, especially section 
110(a)(2) have been satisfied by Allegheny County's portion of the 
Pennsylvania SIP approved in 1981 and by its subsequent amendments.
2. Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general provisions that apply to all nonattainment 
plans in general, and certain sections that apply to specific 
pollutants. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment 
requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. EPA designated the 
Hazelwood area as nonattainment for SO2 by operation of law 
(codified at 40 CFR part 81.339). For the Hazelwood area to be 
redesignated to attainment, the area must have met the applicable 
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the CAA, specifically sections 
172(c) and 176, and sections 191-192 of subpart 5 of part D.
a. Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Provisions
    Pennsylvania's August 15, 2003 SIP revision submittal for the 
Hazelwood and Monongahela areas fully complies with the part D 
requirements, as set forth in section 172(c) of the CAA. The plan 
complies with the requirements to implement RACM by providing for 
immediate attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 through the 
emission limits and operating restrictions imposed on the contributing 
sources in the Pennsylvania SIP. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) is 
achieved due to the immediate effect of the emission limits required by 
the plan. An inventory of the SO2 emissions in the Hazelwood 
nonattainment area and the unclassifiable Monongahela River Valley area 
was provided in the submittal and found to be acceptable. The Federal 
requirements for NSR in nonattainment areas are contained in section 
172(c)(5). EPA guidance indicates the permitting requirements of the 
part D NSR program for new major sources and major modifications shall 
be replaced by the PSD program's permitting requirements when an area 
has reached attainment and has been redesignated, provided that the PSD 
program will be fully effective immediately upon redesignation. The 
ACHD was originally delegated the authority to implement and enforce 
the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 on behalf of EPA, on December 14, 1983 
(48 FR 55625). The ACHD adopted the PSD requirements promulgated in 40 
CFR 52.21, incorporating them by reference in its regulations as 
provided in Article XXI, section 2102.07. On March 26, 2003, EPA 
renewed the ACHD's existing delegation to implement and enforce the 
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as well as any future revisions to these 
regulations (68 FR 14617). Therefore, the permitting requirements of 
the PSD program are fully effective in the Hazelwood area immediately 
upon its redesignation to attainment. The August 15, 2003 submittal 
provides for immediate attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 
through the emission limitations, operating requirements, and 
compliance schedules that are set forth in the Pennsylvania SIP. As 
stated previously, this submission complies with section 110(a)(2). All 
of the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) are satisfied by the 
August 15, 2003 submittal or they have already been approved by EPA. 
The modeling demonstration for the August 15, 2003 SIP submittal was 
conducted in accordance with EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' 
The use of AERMOD was approved by EPA for use by ACHD in accordance 
with section 172(c)(8) of part D of the CAA.
    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency measures as 
measures in a SIP which are to be implemented if an area fails to make 
RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and 
shall consist of other control measures that are not included in the 
control strategy. However, the General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, (57 FR 13498), states that 
SO2 measures present special considerations because they are 
based upon what is necessary to attain the NAAQS. Because 
SO2 control measures are well established and understood, 
they are far less prone to uncertainty. It would be unlikely for an 
area to implement the necessary emissions controls yet fail to attain 
the NAAQS for SO2. Therefore, for SO2 programs, 
contingency measures mean that the state agency has the ability to 
identify sources of violations of the NAAQS for SO2 and to 
undertake an aggressive followup for compliance and enforcement. 
Allegheny County has the necessary enforcement and compliance programs 
as well as the means to identify violators, thus satisfying the 
contingency measures requirement.
b. Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    It was determined that the significant causes of nonattainment in 
this area were emissions from stationary facilities in the area and not 
from mobile or area sources. Because the SO2 violations had 
been caused by industrial sources and motor vehicles were not an 
important contributor to the nonattainment problem, for conformity 
purposes, no quantitative analysis for transportation related 
SO2 impacts is required. While section 176 provides that a 
State's

[[Page 17378]]

conformity revision must be consistent with Federal Conformity 
regulations promulgated by EPA, given the nature of the area's former 
nonattainment problem, it is reasonable to interpret those conformity 
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request.
c. Subpart 5 of Part D Requirements
    Subpart 5 of part D addresses additional provisions for 
SO2 nonattainment areas. Section 191(b) of the CAA 
Amendments requires any state containing an area designated 
nonattainment for SO2 prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA 
Amendments, but lacking a fully approved SIP, to submit an 
implementation plan by May 15, 1992. EPA published a Notice of Final 
Rulemaking in the October 21, 1981 Federal Register (46 FR 51607), 
fully approving a SIP for the Hazelwood area to provide for attainment 
of the NAAQS in the area. This plan has been revised and supplemented 
by the August 15, 2003 submittal.

Is There a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A?

    Section 175A of the Act sets forth the necessary elements of a 
maintenance plan needed for areas seeking redesignation from 
nonattainment to attainment. The plan must demonstrate continued 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA 
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the 
redesignation, Pennsylvania must submit a revised maintenance plan 
which demonstrates attainment for the 10 years following the initial 
10-year period. To address potential future NAAQS violations, the 
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for 
implementation adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality 
problems. Under section 175A(d), contingency provisions must include a 
requirement that the State will implement all control measures that 
were in the SIP prior to redesignation as an attainment area. EPA is 
proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Hazelwood 
nonattainment area because EPA finds that the submittal meets the 
requirements of section 175A. The details of the maintenance plan 
requirements and how the submittal meets these requirements are 
detailed in the following paragraphs. A maintenance plan must contain 
the following elements: (1) An emissions inventory reflective of SO2 
emissions in the monitored attainment years, (2) a maintenance 
demonstration which is expected to provide adequate assurance of 
maintenance over the initial 10-year period, (3) a commitment to 
continue monitoring in the area, (4) a method for verifying continued 
attainment, and (5) a contingency plan with specific indicators or 
triggers for implementation of the plan.
A. Maintenance Plan Requirements

1. Emissions Inventory

    For this maintenance plan, the emissions inventory is the modeled 
inventory of all sources affecting both the nonattainment and 
unclassifiable areas. The maintenance plan includes the 1999 emission 
inventory used to perform the modeling demonstration of attainment and 
maintenance. Emission rates are based on the maximum allowable amounts 
of SO2 as determined by Article XXI of the SIP that could 
potentially be released into the ambient air. The modeled emission 
rates are appropriate for the demonstrations of attainment and 
maintenance. These values, along with the corresponding stack and 
building downwash parameters for each source, were input into the 
model. Model runs for five years of meteorological data were used to 
identify the maximum level of emissions in the area that will attain 
and maintain the NAAQS. Any future increases in emissions and/or 
significant changes to the stack configurations/parameters from those 
modeled in the attainment demonstration due to new or modifying 
stationary sources would be subject to new source review requirements 
including a demonstration that the NAAQS is protected.

2. Maintenance Demonstration

    Industrial facilities were the main cause of nonattainment in the 
area. The attainment demonstration was based upon maximum allowable 
emission levels for stationary sources impacting the nonattainment and 
unclassifiable area. As discussed previously, the attainment and 
maintenance demonstration was performed using air dispersion modeling 
in order to show that the attainment inventory attains the primary and 
secondary NAAQS for SO2. The American Meteorological 
Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) was the model used for the 
demonstration. EPA approved the use of this model for this analysis 
since this model has only been proposed for inclusion in the 
``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' The attainment inventory reflected 
the new emission limits contained in Article XXI which are discussed in 
section IV. C of this document. Based on the modeling analysis, the 
maximum annual SO2 average concentration predicted was 71.6 
ug/m\3\, the second highest daily average was 344.7 ug/m\3\, and the 
second highest 3-hour average was 1248.8 ug/m\3\. These values are 
below the NAAQS for SO2 standards of 80 ug/m\3\, 365 ug/
m\3\, and 1300 ug/m\3\, respectively. Additional information on the air 
dispersion modeling performed for the maintenance demonstration can be 
found in the TSD prepared for this rulemaking, and the submittal 
itself.
    Population has steadily decreased in the county since 1990 and this 
decline is expected to continue through 2020. Therefore, other sources 
of emissions related to population are expected to decline. Employment 
in manufacturing is expected to decrease significantly between 2002-
2020. As a result of these factors, SO2 emissions are 
expected to remain below the emission levels used to demonstrate 
attainment for the next 10 years and the area is expected to maintain 
the NAAQS for SO2 for the next 10 years. Moreover, as noted 
previously, any future increases in emissions and/or significant 
changes to the stack configurations/parameters from those modeled in 
the attainment demonstration due to new or modifying stationary sources 
would be subject to NSR requirements (minor source NSR and PSD for 
major new sources and modifications) including a demonstration that the 
NAAQS is protected.

3. Commitment To Continue Monitoring Air Quality

    The maintenance plan commits to maintaining the ambient air quality 
monitors located at the areas of greatest concern which are the 
Hazelwood, Glassport, and Liberty Borough locations. These monitors 
will be maintained and operated in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 
Before any monitors could be removed from continuous service, their 
removal would first be evaluated for any potential impairment to the 
SO2 network.

4. Verification of Continued Attainment

    In addition to reviewing ambient air quality data in the Hazelwood 
and Monongahela River Valley areas, ACHD will periodically update their 
emissions inventory and will continue to examine the impact of any new 
major sources or modifications through its PSD program to ensure 
protection of the NAAQS. Furthermore, under the SIP-approved minor 
source NSR program, the air quality impact of new minor sources or 
modifications resulting in any increases in emissions and/or 
significant changes to the stack configurations/parameters from those 
modeled in the maintenance

[[Page 17379]]

demonstration would be evaluated to ensure protection and maintenance 
of the NAAQS in these areas.

5. Contingency Plan

    It is considered unlikely that an area would fail to attain the 
SO2 standards after it has demonstrated, through modeling, 
that attainment is reached after the limits and restrictions are fully 
implemented and enforced. Nonetheless, the ACHD will rely on air 
monitoring data to track future compliance with the NAAQS for 
SO2, and to determine the need to implement contingency 
measures. If an SO2 exceedance occurs anywhere in the 
Hazelwood and Monongahela River Valley areas, the ACHD would first 
determine whether or nor all of the affected sources are in compliance 
with their allowable SIP-approved limits. If any sources are found in 
violation of their allowable SIP-approved limits, the ACHD would take 
the appropriate action to bring any source(s) back into compliance. If 
all sources are found to be in compliance, the ACHD will evaluate the 
nature or cause of the exceedance and determine whether such an 
exceedance triggers the need for additional additional emission 
controls measures. If a violation of the NAAQS does occur, regulatory 
contingency measures to further reduce SO2 will be adopted 
within 12 months of the violation. Those regulatory contingency 
measures will be implemented such that affected sources are in required 
to comply with their requirements within 12 months of their adoption. 
Possible contingency measures include: lowering the hydrogen sulfide 
grain loading for coke oven gas, specific plan limits for types or 
amounts of high sulfur fuel, and lower SO2 emission limits.
B. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    A new maintenance plan must be submitted to EPA, as a SIP revision, 
within eight years of the redesignation of the nonattainment area, as 
required by section 175(A)(b). This subsequent maintenance plan must 
provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS for SO2 for a 
period of 10 years after the expiration of the initial 10-year 
maintenance period. The PADEP must submit an updated maintenance plan 
within eight years of the final redesignation of these areas.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted on August 15, 
2003 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of the ACHD . These 
SIP revisions include a regulation change to the allowable sulfur oxide 
emission limits for fuel burning equipment and a modeled demonstration 
of attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 in the Hazelwood 
nonattainment area and the Monongahela River Valley unclassifiable area 
located in the Allegheny Air Basin in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 
In addition, EPA is proposing to redesignate these areas to attainment 
of the NAAQS for SO2 and to approve a combined maintenance 
plan for both areas as a SIP revision. EPA has prepared a TSD in 
support of this proposed rulemaking. Copies are available, upon 
request, from the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. 
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure 
by submitting either electronic or written comments. To ensure proper 
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification 
number PA209-4301 in the subject line on the first page of your 
comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the 
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the 
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider 
these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket. If EPA cannot 
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you 
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected] attention PA209-4301. EPA's e-mail system is not 
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly 
without going through Regulations.gov , EPA's e-mail system 
automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are 
automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the official public docket.
    ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative 
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to http://www.regulations.gov, then select ``Environmental Protection Agency'' at 
the top of the page and use the ``go'' button. The list of current EPA 
actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. The system is an ``anonymous 
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail 
address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in the ADDRESSES 
section of this document. These electronic submissions will be accepted 
in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Written comments should be addressed to the EPA 
Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. For 
public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that 
public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be 
made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA 
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains 
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA 
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide 
a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is 
placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed 
comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the 
Regional Office for public inspection.

Submittal of CBI Comments

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA 
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in

[[Page 17380]]

accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy 
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the 
disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not 
marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for 
public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about 
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Considerations When Preparing Comments to EPA

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on 
the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you 
provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your 
comments.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). 
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This proposed rule also does not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining 
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
    This proposed rule pertaining to a change to the allowable sulfur 
oxide emission limits for fuel burning equipment and a modeled 
demonstration of attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 in the 
Hazelwood nonattainment area and the Monongahela River Valley 
unclassifiable area located in the Allegheny Air Basin in Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania and the redesignation of these areas to attainment 
of the NAAQS for SO2, does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2004.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 04-7471 Filed 4-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P