Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren County, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 51629-51636 [2018-22174]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations River in New Orleans specifies the location of the regulated area between mile marker 94 and 97 above Head of Passes on the Lower Mississippi River. During the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of the enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts. Dated: October 4, 2018. K.M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans. [FR Doc. 2018–22225 Filed 10–11–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0578; FRL–9985–26– Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren County, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Warren County, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Warren Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The Warren Area is comprised of a portion of Warren County (Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) in Pennsylvania surrounding the United Refining Company (hereafter referred to as ‘‘United Refining’’). The SIP submission is an attainment plan which includes the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 51629 and reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements, enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, contingency measures, and a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program for the Warren Area. As part of approving the attainment plan, EPA is also approving into the Pennsylvania SIP new SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for United Refining. EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s attainment plan and concludes that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the plan meets all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA). subject to certain conditions.1 EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section DATES: This final rule is effective on 107(d)(1)–(2) of the CAA. On August 5, November 13, 2018. 2013, EPA promulgated initial air ADDRESSES: EPA has established a quality designations for 29 areas for the docket for this action under Docket ID 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0578. All became effective on October 4, 2013, documents in the docket are listed on based on violating air quality the https://www.regulations.gov monitoring data for calendar years website. Although listed in the index, 2009–2011, where there were sufficient some information is not publicly data to support a nonattainment available, e.g., confidential business designation.2 information (CBI) or other information Effective on October 4, 2013, the whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Warren Area was designated as Certain other material, such as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS copyrighted material, is not placed on for an area that encompasses the the internet and will be publicly primary SO2 emitting source, United available only in hard copy form. Refining, and the nearby SO2 monitor Publicly available docket materials are (Air Quality Site ID: 42–123–0004). The available through https:// final designation triggered a www.regulations.gov, or please contact requirement for Pennsylvania to submit the person identified in the FOR FURTHER a SIP revision with an attainment plan INFORMATION CONTACT section for for how the Area would attain the 2010 additional availability information. SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2018, in accordance with CAA section Megan Goold, (215) 814–2027, or by 192(a). email at goold.megan@epa.gov. For a number of areas, including the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Warren Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and Table of Contents other pertinent states had failed to I. Background and Purpose submit the required SO2 attainment plan II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 1 EPA’s June 22, 2010, final action revoked the two 1971 primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30 ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520. However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained. Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e). 2 EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2, 2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 13–cv–03953–SI (2015). E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 51630 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania’s submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA’s subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017 to Pennsylvania, finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that time, the State has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply once this SIP approval action is finalized. Attainment plans for SO2 must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA, and in EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the statutory requirements for SO2 attainment plans.3 In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); An attainment demonstration that includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the State will provide for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)). On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12516), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing approval of the Warren area attainment plan. In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the 3 See ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO Nonattainment 2 Area SIP Submissions’’ (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201606/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_ sip.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan’s base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy for the primary SO2 source within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy for the primary SO2 source (United Refining), which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date; requirements for RFP toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures; the assertion that Pennsylvania’s existing SIP-approved NNSR program meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request that emission limitations and compliance parameters for United Refining be incorporated into the SIP. Comments on EPA’s proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 23, 2018. EPA received 28 anonymous comments that were not germane to this rulemaking action and will not be addressed here. EPA received specific comments on this rulemaking action on nine topics. All comments are available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA’s summary of the comments and EPA’s responses are provided below. For a comprehensive discussion of Pennsylvania’s SIP submittal and EPA’s analysis and rationale for approval of the State’s submittal and attainment demonstration for this area, please refer to EPA’s March 22, 2017 NPRM. The remainder of this action contains EPA’s response to public comments and provides EPA’s final approval of Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the Warren Area. II. Response to Comments A summary of the comments received and EPA’s responses are provided in this Section of this rulemaking action. The Sierra Club submitted a comment letter dated April 23, 2018, which contained five substantive comments summarized in comments one through five. Comments labeled six through nine were received from anonymous commenters and a citizen of Warren County, Pennsylvania. Where comments contained similar topics, they were grouped accordingly. To review the full set of comments received, refer to the Docket for this rulemaking action. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the emission limits for United Refining would allow emissions above levels reflected in both the 2018 projected emissions inventory and the 2011 baseline emissions inventory. The commenter states that the Attainment Plan for the Warren Area should not be approved because it fails to provide an air quality modeling analysis that demonstrates that the emission limits in the plan will suffice to provide for timely attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including ‘‘necessary enforceable limits’’ sufficient to ensure that the standard is attained and maintained. The commenter states that the emission limits that EPA proposes to approve would allow emissions higher than those that occurred in 2011 when the monitored design value for Warren County was 112 ppb. Response 1: EPA disagrees that the Warren Area Attainment Plan should not be approved because the emission limits and air quality modeling analysis would not ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is attained and maintained. As described in EPA’s NPRM, the hourly emission limits developed for United Refining have been modeled to show attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As described in appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (hereafter appendix W) and the EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the attainment plan should demonstrate through the use of air quality dispersion modeling, using allowable hourly emissions, that the area will attain the standard by its attainment date. The modeling analysis, which EPA found reasonable and in accordance with EPA guidance as discussed in the NPRM in detail, provides for attainment considering the worst-case scenario of both the meteorology and the maximum allowable emissions. The modeling demonstration provided by Pennsylvania followed the recommendations outlined in appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. In addition, under CAA Section 172(c)(3) and as described in EPA’s NPRM, states are required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current accounting of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. In this case, the base year inventory is representative of actual emissions for 2011, and the 2018 projected inventory is a projection based off 2011 base year emissions and business projections. As the commenter correctly noted, the emission limits for United Refining (which are hourly limits expressed in E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations pounds per hour (lbs/hr)) can be converted to an annual value, which equates to approximately 1,274 tons per year (tpy), assuming 8,760 hours of operation. This value is considered the maximum allowable emissions on an annual time frame. As the commenter correctly asserts, the maximum allowable annual emissions for 2018 are greater than the 2011 base year emissions (992 tpy) and the emissions in the 2018 projected inventory (510 tpy); however, the modeled hourly emission limits at United Refining are more stringent than the hourly emission limits that were in place in the 2011 base year. In 2011, a facility-wide SO2 emissions cap of 902.6 lbs/hr was in place at United Refining, as well as unitspecific hourly SO2 emission limits as specified in the PADEP’s SO2 Plan Approval for United Refining.4 In the Warren Attainment Plan, PADEP has adopted new, more stringent unitspecific hourly emission limits that add up to approximately 291 lbs/hr (approximately one third of the previous hourly facility-wide limit). The hourly emission limit for United Refining is in accordance with EPA’s recommendation that emission limits for attaining the 1hour 2010 SO2 NAAQS should limit emissions for each hour (and not on an annual basis). While the calculated annual maximum 2018 emissions using the hourly limit exceed the 2011 inventory on an annual basis and exceed the projected 2018 emissions inventory, our approval of the Warren Area attainment plan, and the modeling demonstration, is based on modeling using hourly limits (not annual values) in accordance with CAA requirements and EPA guidance. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM and the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA–R03– OAR–2017–0578 and at www.regulations.gov, Pennsylvania’s modeling demonstration was conducted in accordance with CAA requirements and thus, is approvable under CAA Section 172. The attainment modeling demonstrates that the newly adopted hourly emission limit for United Refining provides for protection of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. It is important to note that attainment modeling demonstrations are based on the worst-case emission scenarios, and therefore, demonstrate that if United Refining emitted at their newly established hourly emission limit 8,760 4 See PADEP’s SO Plan Approval for United 2 Refining, 2001. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/united_ refining.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 hours per year, they would still reach attainment. Even though the Warren Area design value in 2011 was 94 ppb,5 and the allowable annual emissions in 2018 are greater than the 2011 base year emissions, that does not mean a violation of the NAAQS will occur in 2018 (as the commenter erroneously asserts). In 2011, United Refining was allowed to emit up to 906.2 lbs/hr, and while they obviously did not do this every hour of the year (since their 2011 annual emissions were 992 tons which is less than the allowable 3,951 tons),6 they could have emitted that much during a short time frame which would have contributed to a design value greater than 75 ppb (as design values are based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations). The commenter asserts that the design value was 112 ppb in 2011 in Warren County, which the commenter also assumes is directly correlated to the annual SO2 emissions; neither the design value nor this assumption is accurate. It is incorrect to assume that there is a direct relationship between whether a total annual allowable emissions inventory is higher than base year and projected year actual emissions inventories and whether an area will attain the 1-hour NAAQS based on modeling of allowable hourly emission limits. In fact, in assessing whether an emission limit will provide for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, the total annual allowable emissions under the limit is not a factor in the modeling analysis, as it is irrelevant to determining whether the 3year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations will meet the NAAQS. Ambient concentrations calculated at hourly intervals are correlated with hourly emissions and not annual emissions; and the hourly emission limits set for United Refining in the Consent Order and Agreement (COA) were modeled to show attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. In addition, as noted in EPA’s NPRM and as required in the COA, United Refining switched from high sulfur content (2.8 percent (%) sulfur) fuel oil to lower sulfur content fuel oil (0.5%) in 11 combustion units and heaters, which decreased SO2 emissions. As 5 EPA data shows the 99th percentile daily maximum in 2011 for the Warren Area was 94 ppb, and the 2011 3-year design value was 105 ppb. EPA does not know how the commenter calculated a 112 ppb design value for 2011 for the Warren Area. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report. 6 Annual allowable emissions for United Refining assuming 906.2 lbs/hr operating 8760 hours per year. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 51631 specified in the COA, United Refining increased its use of a flue gas desulfurization additive (De-Sox) for the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit, which also decreased SO2 emissions. These enforceable control measures and the enforceable emission limits, along with compliance parameters, are specified in the COA with United Refining which Pennsylvania requested us to incorporate into the SIP. The SO2 limits in the COA and in United Refining’s permit support the modeling demonstration which shows the Warren Area attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. That is, regardless of how the annual total allowable emissions under Pennsylvania’s SIP (assuming 8,760 hours per year of operation at that limit) compare to Pennsylvania’s estimate of 2011 and 2018 emissions for this facility, the SIP is requiring control measures that will reduce emissions, and Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the emission limitations that produce these emission reductions will improve air quality sufficiently to attain the standard. Comment 2: The commenter claims that EPA has relied on a modeled attainment analysis that barely attains the standard, and does so with the use of an incorrect background concentration, which was calculated contrary to EPA’s Modeling Guidance. The commenter asserts that relying on the average value from a single month of data is not representative of background. The commenter asserts that even if the monthly data were representative, the 99th percentile daily maximum value should have been used as the background concentration (as opposed to the average value). The commenter states that using the 99th percentile daily maximum value of 6 ppb rather than the average value of 2.19 ppb background used by PADEP, results in a modeled design value of 78.5 ppb. Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s arguments, and has determined that the 2.19 ppb background level used by PADEP appropriately represents background concentrations in the Area. As explained in the NPRM and Modeling TSD, Pennsylvania’s proposed background concentration used in its modeling demonstration is reasonable and reflective of true background concentrations in the Warren Area. EPA found in the NPRM and in the Modeling TSD, that the background concentration used in the air-dispersion modeling analysis for the Warren, Pennsylvania 1hour SO2 nonattainment area was reasonable and was determined in accordance with EPA’s Appendix W— E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 51632 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Guideline on Air Quality Models. EPA believes section 8.3.2 (c) of appendix W provides flexibility in determining the model background concentration and allows for methods other than using a monitor design value as long as the method is fully described and vetted with the reviewing authorities and is judged to provide an appropriate assessment of background concentrations. In this case, the availability of monitored values during a time period of little to no operation of the United Refinery provided a unique opportunity to develop a background concentration. Since the nonattainment area has only one primary SO2 source it was reasonable to assume monitor concentrations within the nonattainment area during this time period would be indicative of the Area’s background concentration. This background concentration was compared to other regional values for areas with similar source distributions and shown to be comparable in magnitude. While this approach is not specifically included in EPA’s list of possible examples in appendix W, it was fully vetted by the proper reviewing authority as required by appendix W. The development of this background concentration is more fully described in section 4.7 of United Refinery’s February 2017 modeling protocol (see Appendix C–3 of Pennsylvania’s SIP documentation) and it has been vetted and approved by EPA in this rulemaking action. In addition, the commenter’s assertion that the 99th percentile value of the monitored daily maximum concentrations during the United Refinery’s turnaround period should be used as background as opposed to the average value is not supported by any data or reasoning. There are no stipulations in appendix W that require background concentrations to be based on the 99th percentile of concentrations. Background concentrations must represent the ambient concentrations without the source in question. As discussed in Appendix C–3 of Pennsylvania’s submittal, during the turnaround period, the United Refinery was mostly off, however, certain maintenance activities occurred which produced SO2 emissions. By taking the average of the daily maximum values, impacts from SO2 emissions generated by the maintenance activities (as detailed in Appendix C–3 of Pennsylvania’s submittal) would have been minimized and values would be more reflective of true background concentrations in the area. As specified in Appendix C–3 of Pennsylvania’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 submittal, use of other statistical calculations such as the 99th percentile would include the discrete periods where turnaround activity SO2 emissions were impacting the WarrenOverlook ambient monitor. EPA continues to find Pennsylvania’s use of average concentrations (instead of the 99th percentile) reasonable because it is within permissible discretion of appendix W, not prohibited by 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance or appendix W, and because the 99th percentile was affected by some minor operations of the United Refinery that occurred during the shutdown. EPA has provided additional information supporting our initial determination that the background value utilized in the Warren attainment demonstration is reasonable in a supplemental TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR– 2017–0578 and at www.regulations.gov. The supporting information provides an updated comparison of the background concentration used in the Warren modeling analysis to regional SO2 monitored values which shows that the background concentration of 2.19 ppb used by Pennsylvania is similar to monitored values in a nearby similar location to the Area which supports the data used by Pennsylvania for background. The TSD also includes a discussion of the overall downward SO2 emission trends across the United States, resulting from declining consumption of coal as a fuel source by electricity generating plants that are the primary sources of background SO2 emissions, lending more support to the assertion that background concentrations are falling and 2.19 ppb is a reasonable background for the Warren Area. In addition to emission trends, the SO2 ambient concentration trend in the Northeast (which includes Pennsylvania and New York) mirrors the national trend showing an 84% reduction in ambient SO2 concentrations from 2000–2017.7 EPA thus continues to find it reasonable for Pennsylvania to use a background concentration that is based on monitored data from a period when the refinery was shut down because the data used does not include emissions from the primary source (as specified in appendix W), the data are similar to data from nearby areas and based on SO2 emission trends we do not expect background concentrations to go up in the future. In addition, 2017 monitored 7 https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxidetrends#soreg. Nationally, a 79% decrease in ambient monitor concentrations of SO2 has been observed from 2000–2017. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 SO2 concentrations do not show the Warren Area to be violating the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Comment 3: The commenter claims that the contingency measures specified in the Warren Attainment Plan are inadequate because they are not specific, do not take effect automatically, and count back-to-back days of exceedances as a single day. Per the commenter, the NAAQS is designed to prevent repeated days of high ambient SO2 concentrations and backto-back days of exceedances would ‘‘potentially allow exceedances of the 99th-percentile evaluative criteria for the NAAQS to be met long before any even theoretical remedial effects of the contingency measure could accrue at all.’’ The commenter states the ‘‘measure’’ is nothing more than requiring United Refining to issue a report including unknown proposed operation changes. The commenter states this lack of specificity is plainly inconsistent with CAA requirements. Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the contingency measures are inadequate. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures are to become effective without further action by the State or EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or, (2) attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These control measures are to consist of other available control measures that are not included in the control strategy for the attainment plan SIP for the affected area. However, EPA has also explained that SO2 presents special considerations.8 First, for some of the other criteria pollutants, the analytical tools for quantifying the relationship between reductions in precursor emissions and resulting air quality improvements remains subject to significant uncertainties, in contrast with procedures for directly-emitted pollutants such as SO2. Second, emission estimates and attainment analyses for other criteria pollutants can be strongly influenced by overly optimistic assumptions about control 8 See SO Guideline Document, U.S. 2 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994. See also EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations efficiency and rates of compliance for many small sources. This is not the case for SO2. In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO2 control measures are well understood and are far less prone to uncertainty. Since SO2 control measures are by definition based on what is directly and quantifiably necessary to attain the SO2 NAAQS, it would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary emission controls yet fail to attain the NAAQS. Therefore, for SO2 programs, EPA has explained that ‘‘contingency measures’’ can mean that the air agency has a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an ‘‘aggressive’’ follow-up for compliance and enforcement, including expedited procedures for establishing enforceable consent agreements pending the adoption of the revised SIP. EPA believes that this approach continues to be valid for the implementation of contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and consequently concludes that Pennsylvania’s comprehensive enforcement program, as discussed below, satisfies the contingency measure requirement. This approach to contingency measures for SO2 does not preclude an air agency from requiring additional measures that are enforceable and appropriate for a particular source category if the State determines such supplementary measures are appropriate. As EPA has stated in our reasonable interpretation of contingency measures for areas coming into attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, in order for EPA to be able to approve the SIP, the supplementary contingency measures would need to be a fully adopted provision in the SIP that becomes effective where the area has failed to meet RFP or fails to attain the standard by the statutory attainment date. The supplementary contingency measures proposed for the Warren Area are in the COA we are incorporating into the Pennsylvania SIP and thus will be fully approved provisions within the SIP. As noted in EPA’s NPRM, EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance describes special features of SO2 planning that influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures including a comprehensive enforcement program. Pennsylvania has a comprehensive enforcement program as specified in Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S. section 4004(27). Under this program, PADEP is authorized to take any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Act. Such actions include the issuance of orders (for example, enforcement orders and orders to take corrective action to address air pollution or the danger of air pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil penalties. Sections 9.1 and 10.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. sections 4009.1 and 4010.1, also expressly authorize PADEP to issue orders to aid in the enforcement of the APCA and to assess civil penalties. Any person in violation of the APCA, rules and regulations, any order of PADEP, or plan approval or operating permit conditions would also be subject to criminal fines upon conviction under Section 9, 35 P.S. section 4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. section 4007.1, prohibits PADEP from issuing plan approvals and operating permits for any applicant, permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary corporation of the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP’s Compliance Docket until the violations are corrected to the satisfaction of PADEP. EPA concludes that Pennsylvania’s enforcement program by itself suffices to satisfy the contingency measure requirements. Therefore, notwithstanding Sierra Club’s concerns about the specificity and triggering of the supplementary measures identified in the United Refining COA, EPA believes that Pennsylvania’s enforcement program, which is enhanced by the supplementary provisions in the United Refining COA, suffice to meet Section 172(c)(9) requirements as interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Comment 4: The commenter asserts that EPA’s proposed rulemaking includes an improper reference to the Indiana Area in Part III. Section A. Response 4: EPA agrees with the commenter that the term Indiana Area was inadvertently included in Part III. Section A. of the NPRM. The language should have read, ‘‘Pennsylvania’s attainment plan appropriately considered SO2 emissions for the Warren Area.’’ Comment 5: The commenter asserts that PADEP erroneously calculated emissions of road and non-road sources of 1.380 and 0.337 tons, respectively. They assert that the National Emissions Inventory suggests those same emissions categories were closer to 4.28 and 0.781 tons, respectively. The commenter states that while the Warren Nonattainment Area does not comprise the entirety of Warren County, it does include the vast majority of the county, including the PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 51633 more developed portions, rendering the extremely large emissions discrepancies to be quite concerning. Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The methodologies used to determine the onroad and nonroad emissions were reviewed and deemed reasonable by EPA. The nonroad emissions are calculated for the nonattainment area (NAA) by using proportional population for the four municipalities that comprise the NAA. Using the 2010 census, approximately 43.18 percent of the population of Warren County lives within the Warren NAA, therefore the total nonroad emissions for the county (0.781 tpy) were multiplied by the percent of the population (43.18%) to get nonroad emissions for the NAA (0.337 tpy). The onroad emissions were calculated using the EPA’s MOVES2014 emissions model. The inputs used in the model account for vehicle activity data within the four municipalities within the NAA. The onroad and nonroad emissions contribute to 0.17% and 0.031%, respectively, of the total emissions in the NAA. As stated in the NPRM, EPA reviewed the methodologies for the development of the base year inventory and found them to be reasonable. Comment 6: The commenter states that EPA’s claim of evaluating SO2 emissions in the Warren nonattainment area is not valid because there are only two SO2 ambient air quality monitors within the four municipalities of the Warren Area. The commenter asserts that the ambient air quality data is not representative of the entire nonattainment area or the most populated municipality, and that additional monitor sites must be established in the populated areas. The commenter states that the Warren Overlook monitor is 2.9 miles from the United Refinery and that neither that monitor nor the Warren East monitor are in the direction of the prevailing wind, 229.6 degrees. Therefore, because of the lack of monitoring sites in all municipalities, the ‘‘dubious’’ siting of existing monitors in locations not in the path of prevailing winds, and the vast area of Warren County not proximate to monitors, the claim by EPA that the attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the area is unprovable. The commenter asserts that the plan is not approvable and fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112(a) which requires plans to demonstrate that the measures are adequate to provide for timely attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. The commenter asserts additional ‘‘emissions monitors’’ must be established in populated areas near the refinery where people are most E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 51634 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations likely exposed to SO2. The commenter urged EPA to reevaluate the number and location of monitors to ensure accurate and timely data regarding SO2 exposure. Response 6: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA used ambient monitoring data to determine that the Warren Area was not attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 47191), and consistent with EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and EPA’s Modeling Guidance, PADEP provided modeling to determine that PADEP’s attainment plan will bring the entire nonattainment area into attainment with the NAAQS. The 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS was established to be protective of public health and the Warren Area attainment plan modeling shows that the SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the nonattainment Area. EPA evaluated PADEP’s modeling and emissions data and determined that it has met all applicable requirements as described in EPA’s NPRM. PADEP operates more monitors in the area (and throughout the State) than are required by the Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) requirement described in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. PADEP established the Warren Overlook monitor in November 1996 and the Warren East monitor was established in January 2012. The monitors have been sited correctly and in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix E. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must reevaluate the number and location of SO2 monitors in the area and disagrees with the commenter that the siting of ambient monitors in the Area impacts our ability to approve the attainment plan for this area. As Pennsylvania has the legally required monitoring for the Area per 40 CFR part 58 and EPA finds the attainment plan otherwise meets requirements in the CAA, EPA is approving the attainment plan for the Warren Area. In addition, EPA approved Pennsylvania’s November 17, 2017 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan on January 11, 2018 because it meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.10, and has not in this SIP approval action re-opened that prior monitoring plan approval action.9 Comment 7: The commenter asserts that the United Refining COA is designed only to ensure a violation at the monitor is not recorded and that it is not protective of the health of citizens in the area since the monitors are not 9 For informational purposes, EPA’s approval letter for the Pennsylvania November 17, 2017 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan is included in the docket for this rulemaking and available at www.regulations.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 properly placed. The commenter asserts that the placement of monitors is such that they will have minimal likelihood of detecting an exceedance. The commenter states that as currently constructed, the Attainment Plan ‘‘lacks sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS, and, more importantly, lacks essential safeguards to trigger protection of public health and welfare across the entire nonattainment area.’’ Response 7: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS was established to be protective of public health and the Warren Area attainment plan modeling shows that the SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the nonattainment area. The COA between PADEP and United Refining was signed on September 29, 2017 and is included in the Docket in Appendix B of Pennsylvania’s submittal. The emissions limitations agreed to in the COA were modeled by Pennsylvania to show that at the worst case (maximum allowable emissions) scenario, emissions from United Refining will not be causing nonattainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS anywhere in the Warren Area. In addition, as discussed in Response 6, PADEP meets the requirements for ambient monitoring as established in 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. Thus, EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the Warren Area. Comment 8: Two commenters addressed the NNSR Program in Pennsylvania, as it relates to the addition of sour tip stripper units that were installed at the United Refining plant in March 2018. The first commenter asserts that while Pennsylvania concluded the modification of the sour tip stripper unit to the Facility did not trigger NNSR, the restart of the refinery after the modification, should have prompted PADEP regulators ‘‘to conduct the NNSR.’’ The commenter asked how EPA could conclude Pennsylvania’s SIP meets requirements of CAA 172(c)(5) for the Area and states that EPA should pause approval of the attainment plan to conduct an audit of PADEP compliance with NNSR regulations. The second commenter asks if the modified sour tip units were taken into account with regard to the proposed attainment plan and if United Refining is subject to the NNSR program for the Warren Area. Response 8: EPA disagrees with the commenters, and notes that several of the points they raise are outside the scope of this attainment SIP approval action. Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a NNSR program for criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining to the preconstruction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania’s NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA’s 2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania’s NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). PADEP’s currently SIP approved NNSR program meets all of the requirements of CAA sections 175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area. EPA does not, as a general matter, evaluate individual permitting actions in the context of a SIP revision. Nor do we ‘‘audit’’ a permitting authority’s implementation of already approved regulations in the course of determining whether an individual SIP revision request meets all applicable requirements of the CAA. If a source improperly avoids NNSR permitting, the source is potentially subject to enforcement action. As noted by the commenter, PADEP evaluated the installation of the sour tips stripper unit and determined that the project did not trigger major NNSR. The commenter has provided no evidence to conclude that PADEP did so incorrectly. Regardless, if the commenter took issue with PADEP’s determination on the sour tips stripper installation, the time to raise such concerns was during the permitting process, not here, as individual permitting actions are not germane to this SIP action which only evaluates whether the SIP includes the program as required by CAA section 172(c)(5). In addition, the Warren Attainment Plan was submitted to EPA on September 29, 2017, which was prior to the installation of the sour tip units, and as such that installation was not included in the attainment plan. However, the project was considered under Pennsylvania’s NNSR regulations; the project was evaluated and determined by PADEP to not trigger major NNSR. Finally, EPA disagrees that the attainment plan submitted to meet CAA section 172 needs to address any modifications at sources in a nonattainment area that occur after the plan is submitted. CAA section 172(c)(5) specifically requires attainment plans to include NNSR permit programs which will ensure future construction or E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES modifications at sources (such as the sour tip units at United Refining) do not interfere with an area attaining the NAAQS. Comment 9: Six commenters provided video and photos of a fire at the United Refining facility in spring 2018, with identical comments. The commenters inquired whether EPA or PADEP have been contacted about the fires at the refinery, or if EPA or PADEP have been actively involved in the restart of the refinery. The commenters inquired about the types of pollutants that are being released during the refinery fire, which they assert have been ongoing for three weeks. Response 9: EPA notes that none of the comments and photos sent by commenters about fires at United Refining are related to the attainment plan EPA has proposed to approve for the Warren Area or to the reasoning EPA provided in the NPRM for our approval of the plan as addressing requirements in CAA sections 110, 172, and 192. The fires do not affect whether the limits that Pennsylvania has adopted suffice to assure attainment or whether the plan more generally satisfies applicable requirements. Thus, these comments are not germane to our proposed rulemaking, and no response is necessary. However, EPA reviewed PADEP’s preliminary (yet to be quality assured or certified) hourly SO2 data collected at the Warren Overlook and Warren East monitors for the month of April, when the fires and related flaring were reported to EPA.10 The ambient air quality monitor data reviewed by EPA during this period do not show monitored SO2 concentrations approaching the NAAQS of 75 ppb. The highest hourly concentration at the monitors during April 2018 was 22 ppb on April 23, 2018, which is well below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The commenters have not provided any other information such as modeling of actual emissions during the fire to suggest that there are NAAQS exceedances that the monitors may have not detected. III. Final Action EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s SIP revision submittal for the Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017 for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA has determined that Pennsylvania’s SO2 attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 10 PADEP’s preliminary ambient air monitoring data is accessible in real-time at this site: http:// www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/aq_apps/aadata/Default.aspx. EPA accessed the data on the morning of Friday, May 18, 2018 and has provided this data in a memo to the file in the docket for this rulemaking. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Jkt 247001 Warren Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA in sections 110 and 172 and comports with EPA’s recommendations discussed in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Specifically, EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Warren Area, and concludes that the Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NNSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving into the Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits, compliance parameters and contingency measures established for United Refining, the SO2 source impacting the Warren Area. Furthermore, approval of this SIP submittal removes EPA’s duty to promulgate and implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c) for the Warren Area. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the portions of the COA entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.11 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 11 62 PO 00000 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 51635 state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 51636 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action of approving a SIP revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania PADEP, to EPA on September 29, 2017, for attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS in the Warren, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: September 28, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. Permit No. County * United Refining Company * None ............... * Warren ........... * * * (e) * * * * * State effective date * 9/29/17 Applicable geographic area * * Attainment Plan for the Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard. * * Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren in Warren County. * * * * [FR Doc. 2018–22174 Filed 10–11–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 2. Amend § 52.2020 by: a. In paragraph (d)(3), adding an entry for ‘‘United Refining Company’’ at the end of the table; and ■ b. In paragraph (e)(1), adding an entry for ‘‘Attainment Plan for the Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ at the end of the table. The additions read as follows: ■ ■ Identification of plan. * * (d) * * * (3) * * * * * EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 52.2063 citation * 10/12/18, [Insert Federal Register citation]. * * Sulfur dioxide emission limits and related parameters in unredacted portions of the Consent Order and Agreement. State submittal date .................... EPA approval date * * 10/12/18, [Insert Federal Register citation]. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 141 Expedited Approval of Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: 16:22 Oct 11, 2018 Subpart NN—Pennsylvania * [EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0558; FRL–9985–19– OW] VerDate Sep<11>2014 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (1) * * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision * 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ § 52.2020 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: Name of source PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Additional explanation * Includes base year emissions inventory. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the Agency’s approval of alternative testing methods for use in measuring the levels of contaminants in drinking water and determining compliance with national primary drinking water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to approve the use of alternative testing methods through publication in the Federal Register. The EPA is using this authority to make 100 additional methods available for analyzing drinking water samples. This expedited approach provides public water systems, laboratories, and primacy SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51629-51636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22174]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578; FRL-9985-26-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren County, Pennsylvania 
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state 
implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of 
demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 
in the Warren County, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area 
(hereafter referred to as the ``Warren Area'' or ``Area''). The Warren 
Area is comprised of a portion of Warren County (Conewango Township, 
Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) in 
Pennsylvania surrounding the United Refining Company (hereafter 
referred to as ``United Refining''). The SIP submission is an 
attainment plan which includes the base year emissions inventory, an 
analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and 
reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements, enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures, a reasonable further 
progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2 
attainment, contingency measures, and a nonattainment new source review 
(NNSR) program for the Warren Area. As part of approving the attainment 
plan, EPA is also approving into the Pennsylvania SIP new 
SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for 
United Refining. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment plan and 
concludes that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the 
plan meets all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold, (215) 814-2027, or by 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule 
establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of 
75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 
99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75 
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also 
revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject 
to certain conditions.\1\ EPA established the NAAQS based on 
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that 
serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to 
SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an 
array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways 
which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and 
increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health 
impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final 
rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the 
United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation 
process is described in section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. On August 5, 
2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which became effective on 
October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for 
calendar years 2009-2011, where there were sufficient data to support a 
nonattainment designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's June 22, 2010, final action revoked the two 1971 
primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30 
ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health 
protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520. 
However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained. 
Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for 
certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \2\ EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2, 
2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the 
rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific 
deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 
13-cv-03953-SI (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Warren Area was designated as 
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that 
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source, United 
Refining, and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 
42-123-0004). The final designation triggered a requirement for 
Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how 
the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA 
section 192(a).
    For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a 
notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states 
had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan

[[Page 51630]]

by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a 
deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new 
source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to 
Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent 
letter dated October 5, 2017 to Pennsylvania, finding the submittal 
complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these 
sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of 
Pennsylvania having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally, 
under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggered a 
requirement that EPA promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) 
within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that 
time, the State has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has 
approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP 
obligation will not apply once this SIP approval action is finalized.
    Attainment plans for SO2 must meet the applicable 
requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191, 
and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are 
listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA, and in EPA's 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. On April 23, 2014, EPA 
issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 
Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the 
statutory requirements for SO2 attainment plans.\3\ In this 
guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment 
plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of 
current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the 
nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); An attainment demonstration that 
includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions 
limitations and other control measures taken by the State will provide 
for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP 
(172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR 
requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the 
affected area (172(c)(9)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area 
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12516), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing 
approval of the Warren area attainment plan. In accordance with section 
172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area 
includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's 
base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment 
demonstration includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify, 
and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy 
for the primary SO2 source within the nonattainment areas 
constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions 
control strategy for the primary SO2 source (United 
Refining), which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in 
the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 
NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date; requirements for RFP 
toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency 
measures; the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NNSR 
program meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the 
request that emission limitations and compliance parameters for United 
Refining be incorporated into the SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed 
rulemaking were due on or before April 23, 2018.
    EPA received 28 anonymous comments that were not germane to this 
rulemaking action and will not be addressed here. EPA received specific 
comments on this rulemaking action on nine topics. All comments are 
available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary 
of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below. For a 
comprehensive discussion of Pennsylvania's SIP submittal and EPA's 
analysis and rationale for approval of the State's submittal and 
attainment demonstration for this area, please refer to EPA's March 22, 
2017 NPRM. The remainder of this action contains EPA's response to 
public comments and provides EPA's final approval of Pennsylvania's 
attainment plan for the Warren Area.

II. Response to Comments

    A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are provided 
in this Section of this rulemaking action. The Sierra Club submitted a 
comment letter dated April 23, 2018, which contained five substantive 
comments summarized in comments one through five. Comments labeled six 
through nine were received from anonymous commenters and a citizen of 
Warren County, Pennsylvania. Where comments contained similar topics, 
they were grouped accordingly. To review the full set of comments 
received, refer to the Docket for this rulemaking action.
    Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the emission limits for 
United Refining would allow emissions above levels reflected in both 
the 2018 projected emissions inventory and the 2011 baseline emissions 
inventory. The commenter states that the Attainment Plan for the Warren 
Area should not be approved because it fails to provide an air quality 
modeling analysis that demonstrates that the emission limits in the 
plan will suffice to provide for timely attainment of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS, including ``necessary enforceable limits'' 
sufficient to ensure that the standard is attained and maintained. The 
commenter states that the emission limits that EPA proposes to approve 
would allow emissions higher than those that occurred in 2011 when the 
monitored design value for Warren County was 112 ppb.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that the Warren Area Attainment Plan 
should not be approved because the emission limits and air quality 
modeling analysis would not ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 
is attained and maintained. As described in EPA's NPRM, the hourly 
emission limits developed for United Refining have been modeled to show 
attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As described in appendix 
W to 40 CFR part 51 (hereafter appendix W) and the EPA's 2014 
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the attainment plan should 
demonstrate through the use of air quality dispersion modeling, using 
allowable hourly emissions, that the area will attain the standard by 
its attainment date. The modeling analysis, which EPA found reasonable 
and in accordance with EPA guidance as discussed in the NPRM in detail, 
provides for attainment considering the worst-case scenario of both the 
meteorology and the maximum allowable emissions. The modeling 
demonstration provided by Pennsylvania followed the recommendations 
outlined in appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment 
Guidance.
    In addition, under CAA Section 172(c)(3) and as described in EPA's 
NPRM, states are required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current 
accounting of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, 
nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the 
nonattainment area. In this case, the base year inventory is 
representative of actual emissions for 2011, and the 2018 projected 
inventory is a projection based off 2011 base year emissions and 
business projections. As the commenter correctly noted, the emission 
limits for United Refining (which are hourly limits expressed in

[[Page 51631]]

pounds per hour (lbs/hr)) can be converted to an annual value, which 
equates to approximately 1,274 tons per year (tpy), assuming 8,760 
hours of operation. This value is considered the maximum allowable 
emissions on an annual time frame. As the commenter correctly asserts, 
the maximum allowable annual emissions for 2018 are greater than the 
2011 base year emissions (992 tpy) and the emissions in the 2018 
projected inventory (510 tpy); however, the modeled hourly emission 
limits at United Refining are more stringent than the hourly emission 
limits that were in place in the 2011 base year. In 2011, a facility-
wide SO2 emissions cap of 902.6 lbs/hr was in place at 
United Refining, as well as unit-specific hourly SO2 
emission limits as specified in the PADEP's SO2 Plan 
Approval for United Refining.\4\ In the Warren Attainment Plan, PADEP 
has adopted new, more stringent unit-specific hourly emission limits 
that add up to approximately 291 lbs/hr (approximately one third of the 
previous hourly facility-wide limit). The hourly emission limit for 
United Refining is in accordance with EPA's recommendation that 
emission limits for attaining the 1-hour 2010 SO2 NAAQS 
should limit emissions for each hour (and not on an annual basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See PADEP's SO2 Plan Approval for United 
Refining, 2001. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/united_refining.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the calculated annual maximum 2018 emissions using the hourly 
limit exceed the 2011 inventory on an annual basis and exceed the 
projected 2018 emissions inventory, our approval of the Warren Area 
attainment plan, and the modeling demonstration, is based on modeling 
using hourly limits (not annual values) in accordance with CAA 
requirements and EPA guidance. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM 
and the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found 
under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at www.regulations.gov, 
Pennsylvania's modeling demonstration was conducted in accordance with 
CAA requirements and thus, is approvable under CAA Section 172. The 
attainment modeling demonstrates that the newly adopted hourly emission 
limit for United Refining provides for protection of the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.
    It is important to note that attainment modeling demonstrations are 
based on the worst-case emission scenarios, and therefore, demonstrate 
that if United Refining emitted at their newly established hourly 
emission limit 8,760 hours per year, they would still reach attainment. 
Even though the Warren Area design value in 2011 was 94 ppb,\5\ and the 
allowable annual emissions in 2018 are greater than the 2011 base year 
emissions, that does not mean a violation of the NAAQS will occur in 
2018 (as the commenter erroneously asserts). In 2011, United Refining 
was allowed to emit up to 906.2 lbs/hr, and while they obviously did 
not do this every hour of the year (since their 2011 annual emissions 
were 992 tons which is less than the allowable 3,951 tons),\6\ they 
could have emitted that much during a short time frame which would have 
contributed to a design value greater than 75 ppb (as design values are 
based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily 
maximum 1-hour average concentrations). The commenter asserts that the 
design value was 112 ppb in 2011 in Warren County, which the commenter 
also assumes is directly correlated to the annual SO2 
emissions; neither the design value nor this assumption is accurate. It 
is incorrect to assume that there is a direct relationship between 
whether a total annual allowable emissions inventory is higher than 
base year and projected year actual emissions inventories and whether 
an area will attain the 1-hour NAAQS based on modeling of allowable 
hourly emission limits. In fact, in assessing whether an emission limit 
will provide for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, the total annual 
allowable emissions under the limit is not a factor in the modeling 
analysis, as it is irrelevant to determining whether the 3-year average 
of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations 
will meet the NAAQS. Ambient concentrations calculated at hourly 
intervals are correlated with hourly emissions and not annual 
emissions; and the hourly emission limits set for United Refining in 
the Consent Order and Agreement (COA) were modeled to show attainment 
of the SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA data shows the 99th percentile daily maximum in 2011 for 
the Warren Area was 94 ppb, and the 2011 3-year design value was 105 
ppb. EPA does not know how the commenter calculated a 112 ppb design 
value for 2011 for the Warren Area. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
    \6\ Annual allowable emissions for United Refining assuming 
906.2 lbs/hr operating 8760 hours per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted in EPA's NPRM and as required in the COA, 
United Refining switched from high sulfur content (2.8 percent (%) 
sulfur) fuel oil to lower sulfur content fuel oil (0.5%) in 11 
combustion units and heaters, which decreased SO2 emissions. 
As specified in the COA, United Refining increased its use of a flue 
gas desulfurization additive (De-Sox) for the fluid catalytic cracking 
(FCC) unit, which also decreased SO2 emissions. These 
enforceable control measures and the enforceable emission limits, along 
with compliance parameters, are specified in the COA with United 
Refining which Pennsylvania requested us to incorporate into the SIP. 
The SO2 limits in the COA and in United Refining's permit 
support the modeling demonstration which shows the Warren Area 
attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. That is, regardless of how the 
annual total allowable emissions under Pennsylvania's SIP (assuming 
8,760 hours per year of operation at that limit) compare to 
Pennsylvania's estimate of 2011 and 2018 emissions for this facility, 
the SIP is requiring control measures that will reduce emissions, and 
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the emission limitations that 
produce these emission reductions will improve air quality sufficiently 
to attain the standard.
    Comment 2: The commenter claims that EPA has relied on a modeled 
attainment analysis that barely attains the standard, and does so with 
the use of an incorrect background concentration, which was calculated 
contrary to EPA's Modeling Guidance. The commenter asserts that relying 
on the average value from a single month of data is not representative 
of background. The commenter asserts that even if the monthly data were 
representative, the 99th percentile daily maximum value should have 
been used as the background concentration (as opposed to the average 
value). The commenter states that using the 99th percentile daily 
maximum value of 6 ppb rather than the average value of 2.19 ppb 
background used by PADEP, results in a modeled design value of 78.5 
ppb.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's arguments, and has 
determined that the 2.19 ppb background level used by PADEP 
appropriately represents background concentrations in the Area. As 
explained in the NPRM and Modeling TSD, Pennsylvania's proposed 
background concentration used in its modeling demonstration is 
reasonable and reflective of true background concentrations in the 
Warren Area. EPA found in the NPRM and in the Modeling TSD, that the 
background concentration used in the air-dispersion modeling analysis 
for the Warren, Pennsylvania 1-hour SO2 nonattainment area 
was reasonable and was determined in accordance with EPA's Appendix W--

[[Page 51632]]

Guideline on Air Quality Models. EPA believes section 8.3.2 (c) of 
appendix W provides flexibility in determining the model background 
concentration and allows for methods other than using a monitor design 
value as long as the method is fully described and vetted with the 
reviewing authorities and is judged to provide an appropriate 
assessment of background concentrations. In this case, the availability 
of monitored values during a time period of little to no operation of 
the United Refinery provided a unique opportunity to develop a 
background concentration. Since the nonattainment area has only one 
primary SO2 source it was reasonable to assume monitor 
concentrations within the nonattainment area during this time period 
would be indicative of the Area's background concentration. This 
background concentration was compared to other regional values for 
areas with similar source distributions and shown to be comparable in 
magnitude. While this approach is not specifically included in EPA's 
list of possible examples in appendix W, it was fully vetted by the 
proper reviewing authority as required by appendix W. The development 
of this background concentration is more fully described in section 4.7 
of United Refinery's February 2017 modeling protocol (see Appendix C-3 
of Pennsylvania's SIP documentation) and it has been vetted and 
approved by EPA in this rulemaking action.
    In addition, the commenter's assertion that the 99th percentile 
value of the monitored daily maximum concentrations during the United 
Refinery's turnaround period should be used as background as opposed to 
the average value is not supported by any data or reasoning. There are 
no stipulations in appendix W that require background concentrations to 
be based on the 99th percentile of concentrations. Background 
concentrations must represent the ambient concentrations without the 
source in question. As discussed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's 
submittal, during the turnaround period, the United Refinery was mostly 
off, however, certain maintenance activities occurred which produced 
SO2 emissions. By taking the average of the daily maximum 
values, impacts from SO2 emissions generated by the 
maintenance activities (as detailed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's 
submittal) would have been minimized and values would be more 
reflective of true background concentrations in the area. As specified 
in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal, use of other statistical 
calculations such as the 99th percentile would include the discrete 
periods where turnaround activity SO2 emissions were 
impacting the Warren-Overlook ambient monitor. EPA continues to find 
Pennsylvania's use of average concentrations (instead of the 99th 
percentile) reasonable because it is within permissible discretion of 
appendix W, not prohibited by 2014 SO2 Nonattainment 
Guidance or appendix W, and because the 99th percentile was affected by 
some minor operations of the United Refinery that occurred during the 
shutdown.
    EPA has provided additional information supporting our initial 
determination that the background value utilized in the Warren 
attainment demonstration is reasonable in a supplemental TSD, which can 
be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at 
www.regulations.gov. The supporting information provides an updated 
comparison of the background concentration used in the Warren modeling 
analysis to regional SO2 monitored values which shows that 
the background concentration of 2.19 ppb used by Pennsylvania is 
similar to monitored values in a nearby similar location to the Area 
which supports the data used by Pennsylvania for background. The TSD 
also includes a discussion of the overall downward SO2 
emission trends across the United States, resulting from declining 
consumption of coal as a fuel source by electricity generating plants 
that are the primary sources of background SO2 emissions, 
lending more support to the assertion that background concentrations 
are falling and 2.19 ppb is a reasonable background for the Warren 
Area. In addition to emission trends, the SO2 ambient 
concentration trend in the Northeast (which includes Pennsylvania and 
New York) mirrors the national trend showing an 84% reduction in 
ambient SO2 concentrations from 2000-2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends#soreg. 
Nationally, a 79% decrease in ambient monitor concentrations of 
SO2 has been observed from 2000-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA thus continues to find it reasonable for Pennsylvania to use a 
background concentration that is based on monitored data from a period 
when the refinery was shut down because the data used does not include 
emissions from the primary source (as specified in appendix W), the 
data are similar to data from nearby areas and based on SO2 
emission trends we do not expect background concentrations to go up in 
the future. In addition, 2017 monitored SO2 concentrations 
do not show the Warren Area to be violating the 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.
    Comment 3: The commenter claims that the contingency measures 
specified in the Warren Attainment Plan are inadequate because they are 
not specific, do not take effect automatically, and count back-to-back 
days of exceedances as a single day. Per the commenter, the NAAQS is 
designed to prevent repeated days of high ambient SO2 
concentrations and back-to-back days of exceedances would ``potentially 
allow exceedances of the 99th-percentile evaluative criteria for the 
NAAQS to be met long before any even theoretical remedial effects of 
the contingency measure could accrue at all.'' The commenter states the 
``measure'' is nothing more than requiring United Refining to issue a 
report including unknown proposed operation changes. The commenter 
states this lack of specificity is plainly inconsistent with CAA 
requirements.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the contingency 
measures are inadequate. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines 
contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be 
implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to 
attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency 
measures are to become effective without further action by the State or 
EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or, (2) attain the 
NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These 
control measures are to consist of other available control measures 
that are not included in the control strategy for the attainment plan 
SIP for the affected area.
    However, EPA has also explained that SO2 presents 
special considerations.\8\ First, for some of the other criteria 
pollutants, the analytical tools for quantifying the relationship 
between reductions in precursor emissions and resulting air quality 
improvements remains subject to significant uncertainties, in contrast 
with procedures for directly-emitted pollutants such as SO2. 
Second, emission estimates and attainment analyses for other criteria 
pollutants can be strongly influenced by overly optimistic assumptions 
about control

[[Page 51633]]

efficiency and rates of compliance for many small sources. This is not 
the case for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994. 
See also EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.
    See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO2 control 
measures are well understood and are far less prone to uncertainty. 
Since SO2 control measures are by definition based on what 
is directly and quantifiably necessary to attain the SO2 
NAAQS, it would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary 
emission controls yet fail to attain the NAAQS. Therefore, for 
SO2 programs, EPA has explained that ``contingency 
measures'' can mean that the air agency has a comprehensive program to 
identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to 
undertake an ``aggressive'' follow-up for compliance and enforcement, 
including expedited procedures for establishing enforceable consent 
agreements pending the adoption of the revised SIP. EPA believes that 
this approach continues to be valid for the implementation of 
contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and 
consequently concludes that Pennsylvania's comprehensive enforcement 
program, as discussed below, satisfies the contingency measure 
requirement. This approach to contingency measures for SO2 
does not preclude an air agency from requiring additional measures that 
are enforceable and appropriate for a particular source category if the 
State determines such supplementary measures are appropriate. As EPA 
has stated in our reasonable interpretation of contingency measures for 
areas coming into attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, in 
order for EPA to be able to approve the SIP, the supplementary 
contingency measures would need to be a fully adopted provision in the 
SIP that becomes effective where the area has failed to meet RFP or 
fails to attain the standard by the statutory attainment date. The 
supplementary contingency measures proposed for the Warren Area are in 
the COA we are incorporating into the Pennsylvania SIP and thus will be 
fully approved provisions within the SIP.
    As noted in EPA's NPRM, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment 
Guidance describes special features of SO2 planning that 
influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the 
requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures including a 
comprehensive enforcement program. Pennsylvania has a comprehensive 
enforcement program as specified in Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania 
Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S. section 4004(27). Under this 
program, PADEP is authorized to take any action it deems necessary or 
proper for the effective enforcement of the Act and the rules and 
regulations promulgated under the Act. Such actions include the 
issuance of orders (for example, enforcement orders and orders to take 
corrective action to address air pollution or the danger of air 
pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil penalties. 
Sections 9.1 and 10.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. sections 4009.1 and 4010.1, 
also expressly authorize PADEP to issue orders to aid in the 
enforcement of the APCA and to assess civil penalties.
    Any person in violation of the APCA, rules and regulations, any 
order of PADEP, or plan approval or operating permit conditions would 
also be subject to criminal fines upon conviction under Section 9, 35 
P.S. section 4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. section 4007.1, 
prohibits PADEP from issuing plan approvals and operating permits for 
any applicant, permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary 
corporation of the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP's 
Compliance Docket until the violations are corrected to the 
satisfaction of PADEP.
    EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program by itself 
suffices to satisfy the contingency measure requirements. Therefore, 
notwithstanding Sierra Club's concerns about the specificity and 
triggering of the supplementary measures identified in the United 
Refining COA, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program, 
which is enhanced by the supplementary provisions in the United 
Refining COA, suffice to meet Section 172(c)(9) requirements as 
interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble and the 2014 SO2 
Nonattainment Guidance.
    Comment 4: The commenter asserts that EPA's proposed rulemaking 
includes an improper reference to the Indiana Area in Part III. Section 
A.
    Response 4: EPA agrees with the commenter that the term Indiana 
Area was inadvertently included in Part III. Section A. of the NPRM. 
The language should have read, ``Pennsylvania's attainment plan 
appropriately considered SO2 emissions for the Warren 
Area.''
    Comment 5: The commenter asserts that PADEP erroneously calculated 
emissions of road and non-road sources of 1.380 and 0.337 tons, 
respectively. They assert that the National Emissions Inventory 
suggests those same emissions categories were closer to 4.28 and 0.781 
tons, respectively. The commenter states that while the Warren 
Nonattainment Area does not comprise the entirety of Warren County, it 
does include the vast majority of the county, including the more 
developed portions, rendering the extremely large emissions 
discrepancies to be quite concerning.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The methodologies 
used to determine the onroad and nonroad emissions were reviewed and 
deemed reasonable by EPA. The nonroad emissions are calculated for the 
nonattainment area (NAA) by using proportional population for the four 
municipalities that comprise the NAA. Using the 2010 census, 
approximately 43.18 percent of the population of Warren County lives 
within the Warren NAA, therefore the total nonroad emissions for the 
county (0.781 tpy) were multiplied by the percent of the population 
(43.18%) to get nonroad emissions for the NAA (0.337 tpy). The onroad 
emissions were calculated using the EPA's MOVES2014 emissions model. 
The inputs used in the model account for vehicle activity data within 
the four municipalities within the NAA. The onroad and nonroad 
emissions contribute to 0.17% and 0.031%, respectively, of the total 
emissions in the NAA. As stated in the NPRM, EPA reviewed the 
methodologies for the development of the base year inventory and found 
them to be reasonable.
    Comment 6: The commenter states that EPA's claim of evaluating 
SO2 emissions in the Warren nonattainment area is not valid 
because there are only two SO2 ambient air quality monitors 
within the four municipalities of the Warren Area. The commenter 
asserts that the ambient air quality data is not representative of the 
entire nonattainment area or the most populated municipality, and that 
additional monitor sites must be established in the populated areas. 
The commenter states that the Warren Overlook monitor is 2.9 miles from 
the United Refinery and that neither that monitor nor the Warren East 
monitor are in the direction of the prevailing wind, 229.6 degrees. 
Therefore, because of the lack of monitoring sites in all 
municipalities, the ``dubious'' siting of existing monitors in 
locations not in the path of prevailing winds, and the vast area of 
Warren County not proximate to monitors, the claim by EPA that the 
attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the area is 
unprovable. The commenter asserts that the plan is not approvable and 
fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112(a) which requires plans 
to demonstrate that the measures are adequate to provide for timely 
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. The commenter asserts additional 
``emissions monitors'' must be established in populated areas near the 
refinery where people are most

[[Page 51634]]

likely exposed to SO2. The commenter urged EPA to reevaluate 
the number and location of monitors to ensure accurate and timely data 
regarding SO2 exposure.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA used ambient 
monitoring data to determine that the Warren Area was not attaining the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 47191), and consistent with 
EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and EPA's Modeling 
Guidance, PADEP provided modeling to determine that PADEP's attainment 
plan will bring the entire nonattainment area into attainment with the 
NAAQS. The 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS was established to be 
protective of public health and the Warren Area attainment plan 
modeling shows that the SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the 
nonattainment Area. EPA evaluated PADEP's modeling and emissions data 
and determined that it has met all applicable requirements as described 
in EPA's NPRM.
    PADEP operates more monitors in the area (and throughout the State) 
than are required by the Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) 
requirement described in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. PADEP 
established the Warren Overlook monitor in November 1996 and the Warren 
East monitor was established in January 2012. The monitors have been 
sited correctly and in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 
58, appendix E. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must 
reevaluate the number and location of SO2 monitors in the 
area and disagrees with the commenter that the siting of ambient 
monitors in the Area impacts our ability to approve the attainment plan 
for this area. As Pennsylvania has the legally required monitoring for 
the Area per 40 CFR part 58 and EPA finds the attainment plan otherwise 
meets requirements in the CAA, EPA is approving the attainment plan for 
the Warren Area.
    In addition, EPA approved Pennsylvania's November 17, 2017 Annual 
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan on January 11, 2018 because it 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.10, and has not in this SIP 
approval action re-opened that prior monitoring plan approval 
action.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For informational purposes, EPA's approval letter for the 
Pennsylvania November 17, 2017 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network 
Plan is included in the docket for this rulemaking and available at 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The commenter asserts that the United Refining COA is 
designed only to ensure a violation at the monitor is not recorded and 
that it is not protective of the health of citizens in the area since 
the monitors are not properly placed. The commenter asserts that the 
placement of monitors is such that they will have minimal likelihood of 
detecting an exceedance. The commenter states that as currently 
constructed, the Attainment Plan ``lacks sufficient measures to 
expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the 
SO2 NAAQS, and, more importantly, lacks essential safeguards 
to trigger protection of public health and welfare across the entire 
nonattainment area.''
    Response 7: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The 2010 primary 
SO2 NAAQS was established to be protective of public health 
and the Warren Area attainment plan modeling shows that the 
SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the nonattainment area.
    The COA between PADEP and United Refining was signed on September 
29, 2017 and is included in the Docket in Appendix B of Pennsylvania's 
submittal. The emissions limitations agreed to in the COA were modeled 
by Pennsylvania to show that at the worst case (maximum allowable 
emissions) scenario, emissions from United Refining will not be causing 
nonattainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS anywhere in the 
Warren Area. In addition, as discussed in Response 6, PADEP meets the 
requirements for ambient monitoring as established in 40 CFR part 58, 
appendices D and E. Thus, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment 
plan for the Warren Area.
    Comment 8: Two commenters addressed the NNSR Program in 
Pennsylvania, as it relates to the addition of sour tip stripper units 
that were installed at the United Refining plant in March 2018. The 
first commenter asserts that while Pennsylvania concluded the 
modification of the sour tip stripper unit to the Facility did not 
trigger NNSR, the restart of the refinery after the modification, 
should have prompted PADEP regulators ``to conduct the NNSR.'' The 
commenter asked how EPA could conclude Pennsylvania's SIP meets 
requirements of CAA 172(c)(5) for the Area and states that EPA should 
pause approval of the attainment plan to conduct an audit of PADEP 
compliance with NNSR regulations. The second commenter asks if the 
modified sour tip units were taken into account with regard to the 
proposed attainment plan and if United Refining is subject to the NNSR 
program for the Warren Area.
    Response 8: EPA disagrees with the commenters, and notes that 
several of the points they raise are outside the scope of this 
attainment SIP approval action. Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires 
that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and 
operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a 
nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a NNSR program for criteria 
pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was 
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). 
On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining 
to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR 
program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform 
regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR 
regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). PADEP's currently SIP 
approved NNSR program meets all of the requirements of CAA sections 
175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources 
undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area. EPA 
does not, as a general matter, evaluate individual permitting actions 
in the context of a SIP revision. Nor do we ``audit'' a permitting 
authority's implementation of already approved regulations in the 
course of determining whether an individual SIP revision request meets 
all applicable requirements of the CAA. If a source improperly avoids 
NNSR permitting, the source is potentially subject to enforcement 
action. As noted by the commenter, PADEP evaluated the installation of 
the sour tips stripper unit and determined that the project did not 
trigger major NNSR. The commenter has provided no evidence to conclude 
that PADEP did so incorrectly. Regardless, if the commenter took issue 
with PADEP's determination on the sour tips stripper installation, the 
time to raise such concerns was during the permitting process, not 
here, as individual permitting actions are not germane to this SIP 
action which only evaluates whether the SIP includes the program as 
required by CAA section 172(c)(5).
    In addition, the Warren Attainment Plan was submitted to EPA on 
September 29, 2017, which was prior to the installation of the sour tip 
units, and as such that installation was not included in the attainment 
plan. However, the project was considered under Pennsylvania's NNSR 
regulations; the project was evaluated and determined by PADEP to not 
trigger major NNSR. Finally, EPA disagrees that the attainment plan 
submitted to meet CAA section 172 needs to address any modifications at 
sources in a nonattainment area that occur after the plan is submitted. 
CAA section 172(c)(5) specifically requires attainment plans to include 
NNSR permit programs which will ensure future construction or

[[Page 51635]]

modifications at sources (such as the sour tip units at United 
Refining) do not interfere with an area attaining the NAAQS.
    Comment 9: Six commenters provided video and photos of a fire at 
the United Refining facility in spring 2018, with identical comments. 
The commenters inquired whether EPA or PADEP have been contacted about 
the fires at the refinery, or if EPA or PADEP have been actively 
involved in the restart of the refinery. The commenters inquired about 
the types of pollutants that are being released during the refinery 
fire, which they assert have been ongoing for three weeks.
    Response 9: EPA notes that none of the comments and photos sent by 
commenters about fires at United Refining are related to the attainment 
plan EPA has proposed to approve for the Warren Area or to the 
reasoning EPA provided in the NPRM for our approval of the plan as 
addressing requirements in CAA sections 110, 172, and 192. The fires do 
not affect whether the limits that Pennsylvania has adopted suffice to 
assure attainment or whether the plan more generally satisfies 
applicable requirements. Thus, these comments are not germane to our 
proposed rulemaking, and no response is necessary. However, EPA 
reviewed PADEP's preliminary (yet to be quality assured or certified) 
hourly SO2 data collected at the Warren Overlook and Warren 
East monitors for the month of April, when the fires and related 
flaring were reported to EPA.\10\ The ambient air quality monitor data 
reviewed by EPA during this period do not show monitored SO2 
concentrations approaching the NAAQS of 75 ppb. The highest hourly 
concentration at the monitors during April 2018 was 22 ppb on April 23, 
2018, which is well below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The commenters 
have not provided any other information such as modeling of actual 
emissions during the fire to suggest that there are NAAQS exceedances 
that the monitors may have not detected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ PADEP's preliminary ambient air monitoring data is 
accessible in real-time at this site: http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/aq_apps/aadata/Default.aspx. EPA accessed the data on the morning of 
Friday, May 18, 2018 and has provided this data in a memo to the 
file in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal for the 
Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017 
for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's 
SO2 attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
for the Warren Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA in 
sections 110 and 172 and comports with EPA's recommendations discussed 
in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Specifically, EPA is 
approving the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration 
of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and 
contingency measures for the Warren Area, and concludes that the 
Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NNSR for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving into the 
Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits, compliance 
parameters and contingency measures established for United Refining, 
the SO2 source impacting the Warren Area. Furthermore, 
approval of this SIP submittal removes EPA's duty to promulgate and 
implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c) for the Warren Area.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the portions 
of the COA entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on 
September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits 
and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and 
contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov/ or 
at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for 
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into 
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's 
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the 
Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation 
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a

[[Page 51636]]

rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a 
rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 
submit a report containing this action and other required information 
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the 
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2018. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action of approving a SIP revision, 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania 
PADEP, to EPA on September 29, 2017, for attainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 primary NAAQS in the Warren, Pennsylvania SO2 
nonattainment area may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 28, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2020 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(3), adding an entry for ``United Refining Company'' 
at the end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e)(1), adding an entry for ``Attainment Plan for the 
Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the 
table.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Additional
                                                                      State       EPA approval     explanation/
        Name of source            Permit No.          County        effective         date           52.2063
                                                                       date                          citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
United Refining Company......  None............  Warren..........      9/29/17  10/12/18,        Sulfur dioxide
                                                                                 [Insert          emission
                                                                                 Federal          limits and
                                                                                 Register         related
                                                                                 citation].       parameters in
                                                                                                  unredacted
                                                                                                  portions of
                                                                                                  the Consent
                                                                                                  Order and
                                                                                                  Agreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Attainment Plan for the Warren,    Conewango Township,   ...........  10/12/18, [Insert     Includes base year
 Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area    Glade Township,                    Federal Register      emissions
 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide        Pleasant Township,                 citation].            inventory.
 Primary National Ambient Air       and the City of
 Quality Standard.                  Warren in Warren
                                    County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2018-22174 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P