Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio and West Virginia; Attainment Plans for the Steubenville, Ohio-West Virginia 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, 56385-56389 [2019-22909]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Postal Service amends 39
CFR chapter I as follows:
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 265
Procedures for Disclosure of Records
Under the Freedom of Information Act
PART 265—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
■
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Postal ServiceTM.
Final rule.
In August 2019, the Postal
Service proposed to amend its Freedom
of Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) regulations
regarding fee waivers. These changes
would improve clarity and more closely
align the regulations with both the
relevant guidance from the Department
of Justice’s Office of Information Policy
and the relevant statute. The Postal
Service did not receive any comments.
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective as of
November 21, 2019.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua J. Hofer, Attorney, Federal
Compliance, joshua.hofer@usps.gov,
202–268–6704.
In August
2019, the Postal Service proposed to
amend 39 CFR part 265 (84 FR 44565).
The purpose of the changes is to
improve clarity and to more closely
align the regulations with both the
relevant guidance from the Department
of Justice’s Office of Information Policy
and the relevant statute, 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The portion of the
regulations being amended concerns fee
waivers. Generally speaking, fees for a
FOIA request will be waived ‘‘if
disclosure of the information is in the
public interest because it is likely to
contribute significantly to public
understanding of the operations or
activities of the government and is not
primarily in the commercial interest of
the requester.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
The guidance from the Department of
Justice elucidates a six-factor test from
this rule—two of which of which relate
to the commercial interest of the
requester. The amendment to 39 CFR
265.9(j)(3)(i) clarifies that the first
commercial interest factor is to
determine whether a commercial
interest exists. The amendment to 39
CFR 265.9(j)(3)(ii) incorporates the
balancing test from the statute as the
second part of the commercial interest
factor, along with adding a presumption
concerning news media requesters. No
comments were received in response to
the proposed changes.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 265
Administrative practice and
procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Government employees.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 21, 2019
Jkt 250001
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3;
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 410, 1001, 2601; Pub. L.
114–185.
2. Amend § 265.9 by revising
paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) to read as
follows:
■
§ 265.9
Fees.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Whether there is a commercial
interest, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, that would be furthered
by the requested disclosure. If so, then
the requester will be given an
opportunity to provide explanatory
information regarding this
consideration.
(ii) Whether any identified
commercial interest of the requester in
disclosure outweighs the public interest,
as defined in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this
section, in disclosure. If so, then the
disclosure is primarily in the
commercial interest of the requester.
The component ordinarily shall
presume that if a news media requester
has satisfied the public interest
standard, the public interest is the
primary interest served by the requested
disclosure. Disclosure to data brokers or
others who merely compile and market
government information for direct
economic return shall not be presumed
to primarily serve the public interest.
*
*
*
*
*
Joshua Hofer,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–22971 Filed 10–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0044; EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0699; FRL–10001–26–Region 5]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Ohio and West Virginia;
Attainment Plans for the Steubenville,
Ohio-West Virginia 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56385
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving, under the
Clean Air Act (CAA), two State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submittals, submitted by Ohio and West
Virginia, respectively. The Ohio and
West Virginia submittals include each
State’s attainment demonstration for the
Steubenville Ohio-West Virginia sulfur
dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area
(hereinafter ‘‘Steubenville Area’’ or
‘‘Area’’). Each SIP contains an
attainment demonstration, enforceable
emission limits, control measures and
other elements required under the CAA
to address the nonattainment area
requirements for the Steubenville Area.
EPA concludes that the Ohio and West
Virginia attainment plan submittals
demonstrate that the provisions in the
respective SIPs provide for attainment
of the 2010 primary SO2 national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the entire Steubenville Area and meet
the requirements of the CAA. EPA is
also approving into the West Virginia
SIP new emissions limits, operational
restrictions, and associated compliance
requirements for Mountain State
Carbon, and approving into the Ohio
SIP the limits on emissions from Mingo
Junction Energy Center, JSW Steel, and
the Cardinal Power Plant.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets
for this action under Docket ID Nos.
EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0044 and EPA–
R05–OAR–2015–0699. All documents in
the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the applicable Region III or Region V
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marilyn Powers at EPA Region III,
Planning & Implementation Branch
(3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (215)
814–2308, powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
John Summerhays at EPA Region V,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22OCR1.SGM
22OCR1
56386
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067,
summerhays.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of EPA’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
II. Comments and EPA’s Responses
III. EPA’s Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of EPA’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
Following the promulgation in 2010
of a 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS, EPA
designated a two-State Steubenville,
Ohio-West Virginia area (among other
areas) as nonattainment for this
NAAQS. Ohio and West Virginia
submitted SIP revision requests to
address the attainment planning
requirements that then applied for this
area. Ohio’s requested SIP revision was
submitted to EPA through the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) on April 1, 2015 with
supplemental submissions on October
13, 2015, March 25, 2019, and June 25,
2019. West Virginia’s requested SIP
revision was submitted to EPA through
the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on
April 25, 2016, with a supplemental
submission from WVDEP on November
27, 2017 and a clarification letter on
May 1, 2019.
On June 24, 2019, at 84 FR 29456,
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on Ohio’s and West
Virginia’s plans for assuring that the
Steubenville Area attains the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Because the Area includes
portions in both Ohio and West
Virginia, each State was required to
submit plans that in combination
provided for attainment throughout the
two-State area. EPA published a
combined NPRM on the two States’
submittals addressing whether these
submittals satisfied applicable
requirements throughout the Area.
Ohio’s submittal included proposed
rules with a proposed emission limit for
the Cardinal Power Plant. EPA’s NPRM
proposed to approve the two States’
submittals contingent upon Ohio
adopting and submitting these rules in
final form.
The NPRM provided extensive
discussion of EPA’s rationale for
proposing to approve the two States’
submittals as meeting these
requirements. The NPRM described the
requirements that nonattainment plans
are designed to meet. Notably, Ohio’s
plan included a 30-day average SO2
emission limit for the Cardinal Power
Plant (Cardinal), and the West Virginia
plan included 24-hour average SO2
emission limits for the Mountain State
Carbon facility. The NPRM included an
extensive discussion of EPA’s guidance
on the use of such longer term average
emission limits, including a full
discussion of EPA’s rationale for
concluding that properly set longer term
average SO2 emission limits (in
particular, longer term emission limits
that are comparably stringent to the 1hour limits that would otherwise be
established) can be effective in
providing for attainment. The NPRM
then described EPA’s review of the
modeling that the States submitted to
demonstrate that the limits they adopted
would provide for attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS and described EPA’s
review of whether the submittals met
other applicable requirements such as
the requirements for an emissions
inventory and for reasonably available
control measures.
On this basis, EPA proposed to
conclude that, in combination with the
other limits in Ohio’s and West
Virginia’s plans, these longer term
average SO2 emission limits assure
attainment in the Steubenville Area.
More generally, EPA proposed to
approve Ohio’s and West Virginia’s SIP
submittals as addressing the
nonattainment planning requirements,
provided Ohio adopted and submitted
in final form its proposed rules limiting
emissions from the Cardinal power
plant.
II. Comments and EPA’s Responses
EPA received two comment letters on
the NPRM, from owners of two of the
facilities affected by these plans. JSW
Steel provided brief comments
supporting EPA’s proposed action.
Mountain State Carbon also expressed
support for EPA’s proposed action but
identified various alleged factual errors
in the NPRM that it sought to correct for
the record. The following paragraph
describes Mountain State Carbon’s
requested corrections and EPA’s
responses.
Mountain State Carbon identified
several emission rates listed in the
NPRM as inconsistent with the
emissions reflected in Ohio’s and West
Virginia’s plans. These claims are
summarized in Table 1. For
convenience, EPA’s response is also
listed in the table. In each case, EPA
agrees with Mountain State Carbon’s
requested correction.
TABLE 1—EMISSION RATES IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN ERROR
[Abbreviations shown below]
Source
Unit(s)
NPRM value
Recommended value
MJEC ......
MSC ........
4 units ......................................
Battery #8 pushing, outage operation.
Battery #1 combustion .............
At issue * ..................................
20.34 lb/hr each .......................
15.72 lb/hr ................................
0.5 lb/hr each (total of 2 lb/hr)
9.8 lb/hr ....................................
Yes.
Yes.
241.5lb#/hr ...............................
Limit (1.32 g/s or 10.48 lb/hr)
applies to power boilers.
76.8 lb/hr ..................................
Emission limit (correct value)
applies to Battery 1/2/3
pushing baghouse.
Yes.
Yes.
MSC ........
MSC ........
Does EPA agree with MSC?
* The commenter states that the NPRM (the footnote to Table 4) assigns a limit incorrectly, that the limit of 1.32 g/s (10.32 lb/hr) applies not to
the power boilers but instead to the Battery 1/2/3 pushing baghouse. EPA agrees.
Abbreviations: MJEC—Mingo Junction Energy Center; MSC—Mountain State Carbon; NPRM Value—Value cited in NPRM; Recommended
Value—Value that MSC cites as the correct value; lb/hr—pounds per hour; g/s—grams per second.
EPA is correcting the record
accordingly. Mountain State Carbon
states that it does not believe that its
comments are material to the proposed
approval of the SIP, and that it supports
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 21, 2019
Jkt 250001
EPA’s action. Moreover, Mountain State
Carbon explains that the corrected
values are provided in West Virginia’s
submission. EPA agrees, and concludes
that making these corrections, which
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
more accurately characterizes the
emission rates in Ohio’s and West
Virginia’s modeled attainment plans,
and which in the aggregate reflect lower
allowable emission rates than EPA had
E:\FR\FM\22OCR1.SGM
22OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
presented in the NPRM, does not
necessitate reconsidering the validity of
the attainment demonstration.
III. EPA’s Final Action
EPA is approving two SIP revision
submittals, one submitted by the State
of Ohio on April 1, 2015, which Ohio
supplemented on October 13, 2015,
March 25, 2019, and June 25, 2019, and
the other submitted by the State of West
Virginia on April 25, 2016, which West
Virginia supplemented on November 27,
2017, with a clarification letter
submitted on May 1, 2019. The
proposed approval was contingent on
Ohio adopting and submitting in final
form the limit for Cardinal that it
submitted in proposed form on March
25, 2019. Ohio has adopted the limit it
had proposed, effective July 5, 2019,
and submitted this limit to EPA on June
25, 2019.1
Ohio’s and West Virginia’s submittals
represent their plans for attaining the
2010 SO2 NAAQS and how they are
meeting other nonattainment area
planning requirements. EPA is
approving the attainment
demonstrations, emissions limitations
and control measures, the base year
emissions inventory, nonattainment
new source review program, reasonable
further progress, and reasonably
available control technology/reasonably
available control measures, and
contingency measures submitted by
Ohio and West Virginia for the
Steubenville Area. In the West Virginia
SIP, EPA is approving the consent order
between West Virginia and Mountain
State Carbon identified as CO–SIP–C–
2017–9, effective September 29, 2017,
containing emission limits and other
measures for Mountain State Carbon,
including operational restrictions and
sulfur content limits during the periods
in which the desulfurization unit for
Mountain State Carbon is shut down for
maintenance purposes, and their
associated compliance requirements. In
the Ohio SIP, EPA is approving OAC
Rule 3745–18–03, the pertinent sections
of 3745–18–04,2 and 3745–18–47.
1 In conjunction with the newly adopted limit for
Cardinal and resubmitted limits for other Ohio
sources, in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–
18–47, Ohio also adopted and submitted associated
compliance deadlines and compliance
determination procedures, in OAC 3745–18–03 and
3745–18–04, respectively.
2 EPA has historically not taken action on several
paragraphs of OAC 3745–18–04. Ohio requested
that EPA approve ‘‘the revisions to . . . 3745–18–
04 . . ., with the exception of [several listed
portions of OAC 3745–18–04 that mostly have not
previously been approved].’’ Although Ohio’s
rulemaking for this submittal only revised
paragraph (D)(11) of this rule, for administrative
convenience EPA is reapproving all of OAC 3745–
18–04 except for the listed paragraphs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:56 Oct 21, 2019
Jkt 250001
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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 Ohio and West
Virginia Regulations described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov,
and at the EPA Region III and Region V
Offices (please contact the applicable
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 in the next
update to the SIP compilation.3
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA 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 CAA. 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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
3 62
PO 00000
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56387
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by December 23, 2019. 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
E:\FR\FM\22OCR1.SGM
22OCR1
56388
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action.
This action to approve the
Steubenville Area attainment plans for
Ohio and West Virginia may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
Dated: September 23, 2019
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Dated: October 7, 2019
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region V.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1870
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
■
a. In the table in paragraph (c), under
‘‘Chapter 3745–18 Sulfur Dioxide
Regulations,’’ by revising the entries for
‘‘3745–18–03’’, ‘‘3745–18–04’’ (with a
State effective date of 2/16/2017), and
‘‘3745–18–47’’; and
■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), under
the heading ‘‘Summary of Criteria
Pollutant Attainment Plans,’’ by adding
a second entry for ‘‘SO2 (2010)’’ after the
entry for ‘‘SO2 (2010)’’ (with a State date
of 2/16/2017).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
*
2. Section 52.1870 is amended:
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED OHIO REGULATIONS
Ohio citation
Ohio effective
date
Title/subject
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Notes
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 3745–18 Sulfur Dioxide Regulations
*
3745–18–03 ............
*
Compliance Time
Schedules.
*
*
3745–18–04 ............
*
Measurement Methods
and Procedures.
*
*
3745–18–47 ............
*
Jefferson County Emission Limits.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7/5/2019
*
*
10/22/2019, [insert Federal Register citation].
7/5/2019
*
*
*
*
10/22/2019, [insert FedExcept (D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), (D)(9)(c),
eral Register citation].
(E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4).
7/5/2019
*
*
10/22/2019, [insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED OHIO NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable
geographical or
non-attainment
area
Title
*
State date
*
EPA approval
*
*
Comments
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans
*
SO2 (2010) .............
*
Steubenville ...........
*
*
*
*
6/25/19
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.2520 is amended:
■ a. In the table in paragraph (d) by
adding an entry at the end of the table
for ‘‘Mountain State Carbon’’; and
15:56 Oct 21, 2019
*
*
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by
adding an entry at the end of the table
for ‘‘2010 Sulfur Dioxide Attainment
Plan’’.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
10/22/2019, [insert Federal Register citation].
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 52.2520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\22OCR1.SGM
22OCR1
*
*
56389
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Source name
Permit/order or
registration number
*
Mountain State Carbon.
*
Consent Order CO–
SIP–C–2017–9.
State effective
date
*
9/29/17
Additional explanation/citation at 40
CFR 52.2565
EPA approval date
*
*
10/22/2019, [insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
(e) * * *
Name of non-regulatory SIP
revision
Applicable geographical area
*
*
2010 Sulfur Dioxide Attainment
Plan.
*
Steubenville Area (Brooke County).
4. Section 52.2525 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2525
*
*
Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
15:56 Oct 21, 2019
Jkt 250001
State submittal
date
*
4/25/16
EPA approval date
*
*
10/22/2019, [insert Federal Register citation].
(c) EPA approves the attainment plan
for Brooke County, West Virginia,
submitted by the Department of
Environmental Protection on April 25,
2016, supplemented on November 27,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
Additional explanation
*
52.2525(c).
2017, and with a clarification letter
submitted on May 1, 2019.
[FR Doc. 2019–22909 Filed 10–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\22OCR1.SGM
22OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56385-56389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22909]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0044; EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0699; FRL-10001-26-Region 5]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio and West
Virginia; Attainment Plans for the Steubenville, Ohio-West Virginia
2010 Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submittals, submitted by Ohio and West Virginia, respectively. The Ohio
and West Virginia submittals include each State's attainment
demonstration for the Steubenville Ohio-West Virginia sulfur dioxide
(SO2) nonattainment area (hereinafter ``Steubenville Area''
or ``Area''). Each SIP contains an attainment demonstration,
enforceable emission limits, control measures and other elements
required under the CAA to address the nonattainment area requirements
for the Steubenville Area. EPA concludes that the Ohio and West
Virginia attainment plan submittals demonstrate that the provisions in
the respective SIPs provide for attainment of the 2010 primary
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the
entire Steubenville Area and meet the requirements of the CAA. EPA is
also approving into the West Virginia SIP new emissions limits,
operational restrictions, and associated compliance requirements for
Mountain State Carbon, and approving into the Ohio SIP the limits on
emissions from Mingo Junction Energy Center, JSW Steel, and the
Cardinal Power Plant.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID
Nos. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0044 and EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0699. All documents in
the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the applicable Region III or Region V person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers at EPA Region III,
Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (215) 814-2308,
[email protected]. John Summerhays at EPA Region V, Attainment
Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 56386]]
Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-6067, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Comments and EPA's Responses
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Following the promulgation in 2010 of a 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS, EPA designated a two-State Steubenville, Ohio-
West Virginia area (among other areas) as nonattainment for this NAAQS.
Ohio and West Virginia submitted SIP revision requests to address the
attainment planning requirements that then applied for this area.
Ohio's requested SIP revision was submitted to EPA through the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) on April 1, 2015 with
supplemental submissions on October 13, 2015, March 25, 2019, and June
25, 2019. West Virginia's requested SIP revision was submitted to EPA
through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) on April 25, 2016, with a supplemental submission from WVDEP on
November 27, 2017 and a clarification letter on May 1, 2019.
On June 24, 2019, at 84 FR 29456, EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on Ohio's and West Virginia's plans for
assuring that the Steubenville Area attains the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Because the Area includes portions in both Ohio and West
Virginia, each State was required to submit plans that in combination
provided for attainment throughout the two-State area. EPA published a
combined NPRM on the two States' submittals addressing whether these
submittals satisfied applicable requirements throughout the Area.
Ohio's submittal included proposed rules with a proposed emission limit
for the Cardinal Power Plant. EPA's NPRM proposed to approve the two
States' submittals contingent upon Ohio adopting and submitting these
rules in final form.
The NPRM provided extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for
proposing to approve the two States' submittals as meeting these
requirements. The NPRM described the requirements that nonattainment
plans are designed to meet. Notably, Ohio's plan included a 30-day
average SO2 emission limit for the Cardinal Power Plant
(Cardinal), and the West Virginia plan included 24-hour average
SO2 emission limits for the Mountain State Carbon facility.
The NPRM included an extensive discussion of EPA's guidance on the use
of such longer term average emission limits, including a full
discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that properly set longer
term average SO2 emission limits (in particular, longer term
emission limits that are comparably stringent to the 1-hour limits that
would otherwise be established) can be effective in providing for
attainment. The NPRM then described EPA's review of the modeling that
the States submitted to demonstrate that the limits they adopted would
provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and described
EPA's review of whether the submittals met other applicable
requirements such as the requirements for an emissions inventory and
for reasonably available control measures.
On this basis, EPA proposed to conclude that, in combination with
the other limits in Ohio's and West Virginia's plans, these longer term
average SO2 emission limits assure attainment in the
Steubenville Area. More generally, EPA proposed to approve Ohio's and
West Virginia's SIP submittals as addressing the nonattainment planning
requirements, provided Ohio adopted and submitted in final form its
proposed rules limiting emissions from the Cardinal power plant.
II. Comments and EPA's Responses
EPA received two comment letters on the NPRM, from owners of two of
the facilities affected by these plans. JSW Steel provided brief
comments supporting EPA's proposed action. Mountain State Carbon also
expressed support for EPA's proposed action but identified various
alleged factual errors in the NPRM that it sought to correct for the
record. The following paragraph describes Mountain State Carbon's
requested corrections and EPA's responses.
Mountain State Carbon identified several emission rates listed in
the NPRM as inconsistent with the emissions reflected in Ohio's and
West Virginia's plans. These claims are summarized in Table 1. For
convenience, EPA's response is also listed in the table. In each case,
EPA agrees with Mountain State Carbon's requested correction.
Table 1--Emission Rates Identified as Being in Error
[Abbreviations shown below]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does EPA agree with
Source Unit(s) NPRM value Recommended value MSC?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MJEC............... 4 units............... 20.34 lb/hr each..... 0.5 lb/hr each (total Yes.
of 2 lb/hr).
MSC................ Battery #8 pushing, 15.72 lb/hr.......... 9.8 lb/hr............ Yes.
outage operation.
MSC................ Battery #1 combustion. 241.5lb#/hr.......... 76.8 lb/hr........... Yes.
MSC................ At issue *............ Limit (1.32 g/s or Emission limit Yes.
10.48 lb/hr) applies (correct value)
to power boilers. applies to Battery 1/
2/3 pushing baghouse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The commenter states that the NPRM (the footnote to Table 4) assigns a limit incorrectly, that the limit of
1.32 g/s (10.32 lb/hr) applies not to the power boilers but instead to the Battery 1/2/3 pushing baghouse. EPA
agrees.
Abbreviations: MJEC--Mingo Junction Energy Center; MSC--Mountain State Carbon; NPRM Value--Value cited in NPRM;
Recommended Value--Value that MSC cites as the correct value; lb/hr--pounds per hour; g/s--grams per second.
EPA is correcting the record accordingly. Mountain State Carbon
states that it does not believe that its comments are material to the
proposed approval of the SIP, and that it supports EPA's action.
Moreover, Mountain State Carbon explains that the corrected values are
provided in West Virginia's submission. EPA agrees, and concludes that
making these corrections, which more accurately characterizes the
emission rates in Ohio's and West Virginia's modeled attainment plans,
and which in the aggregate reflect lower allowable emission rates than
EPA had
[[Page 56387]]
presented in the NPRM, does not necessitate reconsidering the validity
of the attainment demonstration.
III. EPA's Final Action
EPA is approving two SIP revision submittals, one submitted by the
State of Ohio on April 1, 2015, which Ohio supplemented on October 13,
2015, March 25, 2019, and June 25, 2019, and the other submitted by the
State of West Virginia on April 25, 2016, which West Virginia
supplemented on November 27, 2017, with a clarification letter
submitted on May 1, 2019. The proposed approval was contingent on Ohio
adopting and submitting in final form the limit for Cardinal that it
submitted in proposed form on March 25, 2019. Ohio has adopted the
limit it had proposed, effective July 5, 2019, and submitted this limit
to EPA on June 25, 2019.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In conjunction with the newly adopted limit for Cardinal and
resubmitted limits for other Ohio sources, in Ohio Administrative
Code (OAC) 3745-18-47, Ohio also adopted and submitted associated
compliance deadlines and compliance determination procedures, in OAC
3745-18-03 and 3745-18-04, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio's and West Virginia's submittals represent their plans for
attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and how they are meeting other
nonattainment area planning requirements. EPA is approving the
attainment demonstrations, emissions limitations and control measures,
the base year emissions inventory, nonattainment new source review
program, reasonable further progress, and reasonably available control
technology/reasonably available control measures, and contingency
measures submitted by Ohio and West Virginia for the Steubenville Area.
In the West Virginia SIP, EPA is approving the consent order between
West Virginia and Mountain State Carbon identified as CO-SIP-C-2017-9,
effective September 29, 2017, containing emission limits and other
measures for Mountain State Carbon, including operational restrictions
and sulfur content limits during the periods in which the
desulfurization unit for Mountain State Carbon is shut down for
maintenance purposes, and their associated compliance requirements. In
the Ohio SIP, EPA is approving OAC Rule 3745-18-03, the pertinent
sections of 3745-18-04,\2\ and 3745-18-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA has historically not taken action on several paragraphs
of OAC 3745-18-04. Ohio requested that EPA approve ``the revisions
to . . . 3745-18-04 . . ., with the exception of [several listed
portions of OAC 3745-18-04 that mostly have not previously been
approved].'' Although Ohio's rulemaking for this submittal only
revised paragraph (D)(11) of this rule, for administrative
convenience EPA is reapproving all of OAC 3745-18-04 except for the
listed paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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 Ohio and
West Virginia Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the
EPA Region III and Region V Offices (please contact the applicable
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 in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 23, 2019. 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
[[Page 56388]]
shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action to approve the Steubenville Area attainment plans for
Ohio and West Virginia may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 23, 2019
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Dated: October 7, 2019
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region V.
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.
0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c), under ``Chapter 3745-18 Sulfur
Dioxide Regulations,'' by revising the entries for ``3745-18-03'',
``3745-18-04'' (with a State effective date of 2/16/2017), and ``3745-
18-47''; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), under the heading ``Summary of
Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans,'' by adding a second entry for
``SO2 (2010)'' after the entry for ``SO2 (2010)''
(with a State date of 2/16/2017).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Ohio Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio effective
Ohio citation Title/subject date EPA approval date Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 3745-18 Sulfur Dioxide Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
3745-18-03.................. Compliance Time 7/5/2019 10/22/2019, [insert ........................
Schedules. Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
3745-18-04.................. Measurement Methods 7/5/2019 10/22/2019, [insert Except (D)(2), (D)(3),
and Procedures. Federal Register (D)(5), (D)(6),
citation]. (D)(9)(c), (E)(2),
(E)(3), and (E)(4).
* * * * * * *
3745-18-47.................. Jefferson County 7/5/2019 10/22/2019, [insert ........................
Emission Limits. Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
geographical or
Title non-attainment State date EPA approval Comments
area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SO2 (2010).................... Steubenville..... 6/25/19 10/22/2019, [insert .....................
Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.2520 is amended:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d) by adding an entry at the end of the
table for ``Mountain State Carbon''; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry at the end of the
table for ``2010 Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Plan''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 56389]]
EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit/order or Additional
Source name registration State EPA approval date explanation/citation
number effective date at 40 CFR 52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Mountain State Carbon......... Consent Order CO- 9/29/17 10/22/2019, [insert .....................
SIP-C-2017-9. Federal Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographical area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2010 Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Steubenville Area 4/25/16 10/22/2019, [insert 52.2525(c).
Plan. (Brooke County). Federal Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. Section 52.2525 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2525 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
* * * * *
(c) EPA approves the attainment plan for Brooke County, West
Virginia, submitted by the Department of Environmental Protection on
April 25, 2016, supplemented on November 27, 2017, and with a
clarification letter submitted on May 1, 2019.
[FR Doc. 2019-22909 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
