Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Area Attainment Plan for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 35852-35874 [2020-12499]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35852
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(g) Notification to the manufacturer by
examiner. Within a 7-day period
following the receipt by the examiner of
the allegations and other pertinent
material, the examiner will transmit a
registered letter of notification to the
manufacturer informing him or her of
the—
(1) Specific allegations.
(2) Directive of the Director requiring
the holding of a public hearing on the
allegations.
(3) Examiner’s decision to hold the
public hearing at a specific time, date,
and place that will be not earlier than
30 days from the date of the letter of
notification.
(4) Ultimate authority of the Director
to suspend or revoke the certificate of
authority if the record developed at the
hearing so warrants.
(5) Right to—
(i) A full and fair public hearing.
(ii) Be represented by counsel at the
hearing.
(iii) Request a change in the date,
time, or place of the hearing, for
purposes of having reasonable time in
which to prepare the case.
(iv) Submit evidence and present
witnesses in his or her own behalf.
(v) Obtain at no cost a verbatim
transcript of the proceedings, upon
written request filed before the
commencement of the hearing.
(h) Public hearing by examiner.
(1) At the time, date, and place
designated in accordance with g(3) of
this section, the examiner will conduct
the public hearing.
(i) A verbatim record of the
proceedings will be maintained.
(ii) All previous material received by
the examiner will be introduced into
evidence and made part of the record.
(iii) The Government may be
represented by counsel at the hearing.
(2) Subsequent to the conclusion of
the hearing, the examiner will make
specific findings on the record before
him or her concerning each allegation.
(3) The complete record of the case
will be forwarded to the Director.
(i) Action by the Director.
(1) The Director will review the
record of the hearing and either approve
or disapprove the findings.
(2) Upon arrival of a finding of breach
of quality control policies, the
manufacturer will be so advised.
(3) After review of the findings, the
certificate of authority may be revoked
or suspended. If the certificate of
authority is revoked or suspended, the
Director will—
(i) Notify the manufacturer of the
revocation or suspension.
(ii) Remove the manufacturer from the
list of certified manufacturers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
(iii) Inform the AAFES and the
Defense Logistics Agency-Troop
Support of the action.
(j) Reinstatement of certificate of
authority. Upon receipt of adequate
assurance that the manufacturer will
comply with quality control policies,
the Director may reinstate a certificate of
authority that has been suspended or
revoked.
Subpart D—License and Manufacture
of the Service Flag and Service Lapel
Button
§ 507.17
Authority to manufacture.
(a) The Secretary of Defense has
designated the Secretary of the Army to
grant certificates of authority for the
manufacture and commercial sale of
Service flags and Service lapel buttons.
(b) Any person, firm, or corporation
that wishes to manufacture the Service
flag or lapel button must apply for a
certificate of authority to manufacture
from TIOH.
§ 507.18
Application for licensing.
(a) Applicants who want to
manufacture and sell Service flags or
Service lapel buttons should contact the
Director, The Institute of Heraldry, 9325
Gunston Road, Suite 113, Fort Belvoir,
VA 22060–5576 to obtain an agreement
to manufacture, drawings, and
instructions for manufacturing the
Service flag and Service lapel button.
(b) Certificates of authority to
manufacture Service flags and Service
lapel buttons will be valid for 5 years
from the date of issuance, at which time
applicants must reapply for a new
certificate of authority.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–12176 Filed 6–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5061–AP–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0157; FRL–10010–
42–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania;
Allegheny County Area Attainment
Plan for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of a state implementation plan
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(SIP) revision submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on
behalf of the Allegheny County Health
Department (ACHD) to address Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’)
requirements for the 2012 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ‘‘standards’’) in the Allegheny County
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
(‘‘Allegheny County area’’). The SIP
revision contains the ‘‘Attainment
Demonstration for the Allegheny
County, PA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,
2012 NAAQS,’’ submitted on September
30, 2019 (also referred to as ‘‘the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan’’ or simply
‘‘the plan’’). EPA is proposing to fully
approve the following elements of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan: The base
year emissions inventory, the
particulate matter precursor
contribution demonstration, the
reasonably available control measures/
reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT) demonstration, the
attainment demonstration, the air
quality modeling demonstration
supporting attainment by the attainment
deadline, the reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstration, and the a
demonstration of interim quantitative
milestones to ensure timely attainment.
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the following elements of this
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan SIP
revision: The contingency measures and
the motor vehicle emission budget
(MVEB) elements of the plan. PADEP
commits, on behalf of ACHD, to submit
a supplemental SIP revision to remedy
those portions of the plan for which
EPA is proposing conditional approval
within twelve months of EPA’s final
conditional approval action. This action
is being taken under the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 13, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0157 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814–2176.
Mr. Rehn can also be reached via
electronic mail at rehn.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Clean Air Act Plan Requirements for Areas
Designated Moderate Nonattainment for
the PM2.5 NAAQS
III. Review of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan
A. Emissions Inventories for the Base Year
and Attainment Year
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
2. Emissions Inventories in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on the Emission Inventories
B. Particulate Matter Precursor
Demonstration
1. PM2.5 Precursor Requirements
2. Precursor Demonstration in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on the Precursor Demonstration
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM)/Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
2. RACM Analysis in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan
a. RACM Measures Evaluation
3. RACT Analysis in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan
a. RACT Measures Evaluation
4. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on RACM and RACT
D. Air Quality Modeling
1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
2. Air Quality Modeling in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on Modeling
E. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for an Attainment
Demonstration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
2. Attainment Demonstration in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation of ACHD’s PM2.5
Attainment Demonstration
4. EPA’s Proposed Action on the PM2.5
Attainment Demonstration
F. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
1. Requirements for Ensuring Reasonable
Further Progress
2. RFP Demonstration in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation of and Proposed
Action on RFP
G. Quantitative Milestone (QM)
Demonstration
1. Requirements for a QM Demonstration
2. QM Demonstration in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan and 2019 QM Report
a. Allegheny County Area QM
Demonstration
b. Allegheny County PM2.5 Area 2019 QM
Report
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on the QM Demonstration
H. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
2. Contingency Measures in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on Contingency Measures
I. Transportation Conformity and MVEBs
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
2. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Attainment Plan
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action
on the Intended MVEB
IV. Summary of Proposed Action and
Request for Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA
has established NAAQS for certain
pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts
periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be
revised or whether new NAAQS should
be established. EPA sets the NAAQS for
criteria pollutants at levels required to
protect public health and welfare.
‘‘Primary’’ NAAQS are those
determined by EPA as requisite to
protect human health, while
‘‘secondary’’ NAAQS are those
determined by EPA as requisite to
protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of
the NAAQS pollutant.1 Particulate
matter is one of the criteria pollutants
for which EPA has established healthbased standards. The CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control
particulate matter emissions.
Particulate matter includes particles
with diameters that are generally 2.5
microns or smaller (referred to as PM2.5)
and particles with diameters that are
generally 10 microns or smaller (or
PM10). Particulate matter has deleterious
1 See
PO 00000
CAA section 109(b).
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35853
effects on the environment, both to
human health and to plants and
wildlife. The effects on human health
include premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, and decreased
lung function. Some individuals, such
as older adults and people with lung or
heart disease, are particularly sensitive
to PM2.5 exposure. Impacts on the
environment include impairment of
visibility, as well as damage to
vegetation and ecosystems.2 Sources can
directly emit PM2.5 into the atmosphere,
in the form of a solid or a liquid particle
(i.e., ‘‘direct PM2.5’’ or ‘‘primary PM2.5’’).
PM2.5 can also form as a result of
chemical reactions in the atmosphere of
precursor pollutants emitted from
sources (i.e. ‘‘secondary PM2.5’’). Such
secondary PM2.5 precursor pollutants
include nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia.3
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the
particulate matter NAAQS to establish
new primary and secondary annual and
24-hour standards for PM2.5.4 The
annual standard was set at 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3),
based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. The 24-hour
(daily) standard was set at 65 mg/m3
based on the 3-year average of the
annual 98th percentile values of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each
population-oriented monitor within an
area.5
On October 17, 2006,6 EPA revisited
the particulate matter NAAQS, retaining
the annual average PM2.5 NAAQS at 15
mg/m3, but revising the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS to 35 mg/m3 (based on a 3-year
average of the annual 98th percentile
values of 24-hour concentrations).7 On
January 15, 2013, EPA finalized the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the
annual standard to 12.0 mg/m3 based on
a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, but retained the current
24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3 based on
a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations.8
2 See
78 FR 3086, 3088 (January 15, 2013).
EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter, No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–
99/002bF, October 2004.
4 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).
5 In this action, EPA set primary and secondary
standards at the same level for both the 24-hour and
the annual PM2.5 standards.
6 See 71 FR 61144.
7 Under 40 CFR part 50, the primary and
secondary 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are attained
when the annual arithmetic mean concentration (as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N) is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3 at all
relevant monitoring sites in the subject area,
averaged over a 3-year period.
8 See 78 FR 3086.
3 See
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35854
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by
CAA section 107(d) to designate areas
throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. EPA designated
and classified the Allegheny County
area as ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 standards based
on ambient monitoring data that showed
the area was above 12.0 mg/m3 for the
2011–2013 monitoring period.9 Based
on monitoring data for the 2011–2013
period, the PM2.5 annual design values
for the Liberty monitor [AIRS ID 42–
00300064] were 13.4 mg/m3.
The Allegheny County 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment area lies in southwestern
Pennsylvania and in 2018 had a
population of 1,218,452 persons.
Pittsburgh is the largest city in
Allegheny County, which also contains
the Cities of Clairton, Duquesne, and
McKeesport. In total, the County has
130 self-governing municipalities.
Allegheny County has complex,
mountainous terrain cut by numerous
river valleys, which can work to trap
locally generated air pollutants. Within
the County, some river valleys lie at less
than 720 feet in elevation above mean
sea level (MSL), while adjacent hilltops
can be greater than 1250 feet—with
frequently large temperature differences
between the hilltop and valley floor (e.g.
2 to 7 °F) during clear, light-wind,
nighttime conditions. The combination
of higher elevation mountainous terrain
and river valleys, in conjunction with
cool weather, traps locally generated
pollution and makes the area prone to
atmospheric inversions that impair
PM2.5 dispersion, sometimes for
multiple days, particularly during
winter. The Liberty monitor sits above
the east bank of the Monongahela River
at an elevation of 1,100 feet,
immediately downwind of the highest
emitting PM2.5 stationary source in the
area, the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke
Works, which lies in the river valley at
an elevation 300 feet below the monitor.
As a result, the monitored PM2.5 values
at the Liberty monitor are sometimes far
higher than those of other monitors in
the surrounding region.
ACHD has the primary responsibility
for developing a plan to attain the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area,
working in conjunction with the PADEP
in preparing the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan. Under Pennsylvania law,
authority for regulating sources in the
area is split between the County and
Pennsylvania, with ACHD having
primary responsibility for regulating
stationary sources in the area.
9 See 80
FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
II. Clean Air Act Plan Requirements for
Areas Designated Moderate
Nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS
A January 4, 2013, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit decision 10 stated that EPA must
implement PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to
title I, part D, subpart 4 of the CAA,
which contains provisions specifically
concerning PM10 nonattainment areas.
With respect to the statutory
requirements for attainment plans for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, general
CAA nonattainment area planning
requirements are found in part D,
subpart 1, and planning requirements
specific to areas designated Moderate
for particulate matter are found in
subpart 4 of part D.
EPA has a longstanding general
guidance document interpreting the
1990 amendments to the CAA, referred
to as the General Preamble for the
Implementation of title I of the Clean
Air Act of 1990 (or the ‘‘General
Preamble’’).11 The General Preamble
addresses the relationship between the
requirements of CAA part D, subpart 1
and subpart 4, and provides
recommendations to states for meeting
certain statutory requirements for
particulate matter attainment plans. As
explained in the General Preamble,
requirements specific to Moderate area
attainment plan SIP submissions for
particulate matter NAAQS are set forth
in subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA.
However, such SIP submissions must
also meet the general attainment
planning provisions in subpart 1 of part
D, title I of the CAA, to the extent these
provisions ‘‘are not otherwise subsumed
by, or integrally related to,’’ the more
specific subpart 4 requirements.12
To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
also promulgated the ‘‘Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: State Implementation Plan
Requirements; Final Rule’’ (or the
‘‘PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule’’).13 The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule provides
additional regulatory requirements and
guidance applicable to attainment plan
submissions for the PM2.5 NAAQS,
including the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS that is the subject of this action.
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule also
clarifies how states should meet the
statutory SIP requirements that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for any
10 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F. 3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
11 See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992).
12 See 57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992.
13 See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5 NAAQS under both subparts 1
and 4.
The CAA subpart 1 statutory
requirements for attainment plans
include: (i) The section 172(c)(1)
requirements for RACM/RACT and
attainment demonstrations; (ii) the
section 172(c)(2) requirement to
demonstrate RFP; (iii) the section
172(c)(3) requirement for preparation of
emissions inventories; (iv) the section
172(c)(5) requirements for adoption of a
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting program; and (v) the
section 172(c)(9) requirement to adopt
contingency measures.
Requirements specific to Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas under CAA
subpart 4 include: (i) The section
189(a)(1)(A) and 189(e) NNSR permit
program requirements; (ii) the section
189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment
demonstrations; (iii) the section
189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM;
and (iv) the section 189(c) requirements
for RFP and QMs. Under CAA subpart
4, states with Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas must provide for
attainment in the area as expeditiously
as practicable (but no later than
December 31, 2021) for the 2012 PM2.5
annual NAAQS. In addition, under CAA
subpart 4, direct PM2.5 (and all
precursors to the formation of PM2.5) are
subject to control unless EPA approves
a demonstration from the state
establishing that a given precursor does
not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in
the area.14
III. Review of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan
A. Emissions Inventories for the Base
Year and Attainment Year
1. Requirements for Emissions
Inventories
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that
each SIP include a ‘‘comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the]
area . . .’’ By requiring an accounting of
actual emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutants in the area, this
section provides for the base year
inventory to include all emissions that
contribute to the formation of a
particular NAAQS pollutant. For the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this includes
emissions of direct PM2.5 as well as the
main chemical precursors to the
formation of secondary PM2.5, including
NOX, SO2, VOCs, and ammonia (NH3).
Primary PM2.5 is comprised of both
14 See
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
40 CFR 51.1006 and 51.1009.
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
condensable and filterable particulate
matter components.
EPA PM2.5 requirements rule
establishes that ‘‘the base year inventory
for the nonattainment area: (a) Be
required to represent one of the 3 years
used for designations or another
technically appropriate year; (b) include
actual emissions of all sources within
the nonattainment area; (c) be annual
total or average-season-day emissions in
accordance with the NAAQS violation;
(d) include direct PM2.5 (filterable and
condensable) as well as all scientific
PM2.5 precursors . . .’’ 15
A state must include in its SIP
submission documentation explaining
how the emissions data were calculated.
In estimating mobile source emissions,
a state should use the latest emissions
models and planning assumptions
available at the time it develops the SIP
submission.16 States are also required to
use EPA’s ‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors’’ (AP–42) 17 road dust
method for calculating re-entrained road
dust emissions from paved roads.18
MOVES is EPA’s state-of-the-art tool for
estimating emissions from on-road
mobile sources. At the time ACHD
prepared the SIP, MOVES2014a was the
latest available version of the MOVES
model, which included new data,
emission standards, and functional
improvements and features over prior
versions of the model.19 EPA
subsequently released an updated
MOVES model (MOVES2014b) in
August 2018, which better estimates
non-road mobile emissions compared to
MOVES2014a. However, MOVES2014b
was not available at the time ACHD
began working on emission inventories
in support of this plan, and EPA does
not consider MOVES2014b a new model
15 81
FR 58027–58033, August 24, 2016.
EPA’s ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan
Development, Transportation Conformity, and
Other Purposes,’’ (EPA–420–B–14–008; July 2014),
p. 6.
17 EPA released an update to AP–42 in January
2011 that revised the equation for estimating paved
road dust emissions based on an updated data
regression that included new emission tests results.
18 See 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011).
19 See EPA guidance document ‘‘Policy Guidance
on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation
Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and
Other Purposes’’ (EPA–420–B–14–008; July 2014).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
16 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
for SIP and transportation conformity
purposes.20
In addition to the base year inventory
submitted to meet the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must
also submit future ‘‘baseline
inventories’’ for the projected
attainment year and each RFP milestone
year, and any other year of significance
for meeting applicable CAA
requirements.21 By ‘‘baseline
inventories’’ (also referred to as
‘‘projected baseline inventories’’), we
mean projected emissions inventories
for future years that account for, among
other things, the ongoing effects of
economic growth and adopted
emissions control requirements. The SIP
submission should include
documentation to explain how the state
calculated the emissions projections.
2. Emissions Inventories in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
The Allegheny County PM2.5
nonattainment area emissions inventory
has both small and medium city typical
emission sources and is home to several
large industrial sources of PM2.5
pollution. The Monongahela River
Valley contains the U.S. Steel
Corporation’s Mon Valley Works, which
includes the largest coke manufacturing
plant in the United States (the U.S. Steel
Clairton Coke Works) as well as the
Irvin and Edgar Thomson steel works.
The area is also home (or nearby to) to
several steel manufacturing facilities,
coal fired electric generating facilities,
and other manufacturing and industrial
facilities.
As specified by EPA’s PM2.5
Implementation Rule, pollutants
inventoried for the Allegheny County
PM2.5 area include primary (direct)
PM2.5 along with precursors SO2, NOX,
VOC, and NH3. Particulate emissions are
also transported into the Allegheny
20 See EPA guidance document ‘‘EPA Releases
MOVES2014b Mobile Source Emissions Model:
Questions and Answers,’’ (EPA–420–F–18–014;
August 2018), available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100V7H1.pdf.
21 See 40 CFR 51.1007(a), 51.1008(b), and
51.1009(f). See also U.S. EPA, ‘‘Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone [and
Particulate Matter] National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations,’’ available at: https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_
guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35855
County area from surrounding counties
in southwestern Pennsylvania, as well
as surrounding, upwind states. EPA’s
Emissions Inventory Guidance for PM2.5
specifies that PM10 should also be
included because PM10 emissions are
often used as the basis for calculating
PM2.5.22
The 2021 inventory is a projection of
the 2011 base year inventory, which
accounts for expected growth trends for
each source category, as well as
emission reductions from adopted and
implemented control measures. This
projection inventory also factors in
stationary source shutdowns occurring
since the base year. Local projections
were focused on PM2.5 and precursor
reductions from stationary point source
emissions, while regional projections
were based on reductions from all
sectors as incorporated into the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management
Association (MARAMA) inventories.
ACHD staff worked with PADEP to
develop the base year and projection
emissions inventories for the Allegheny
County PM2.5 nonattainment area.
The base 2011 and future projection
2021 emissions inventories for the
Allegheny County PM2.5 area used in
this demonstration are found in Section
4 (Emissions Inventories) of the
Commonwealth’s September 30, 2019
SIP revision, with detailed emissions
inventories found in Appendix D
(Emissions Inventories) of the SIP
revision. Documentation of the regional
inventory development is included in
Appendix E (Emissions Inventory
Documentation) of the SIP revision, and
emissions inputs used for the modeling
are described in Section 5 (Modeling
Demonstration) and Appendix F
(Modeling Protocols). Table 1 provides
a summary of the 2011 base year
emission inventory for the Allegheny
County area in tons per year (tpy) of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors and
also a summary of the 2021 projected
emissions inventory.
22 See U.S. EPA, ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone [and Particulate
Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,’’
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_
final_rev.pdf
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35856
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—BASE YEAR AND PROJECTED ATTAINMENT YEAR EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY
[Tons per year]
PM2.5
(filterable)
PM2.5
(total)
Allegheny County
PM2.5
(condensable)
PM10
SO2
NOX
VOC
NH3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2011 Base Year Emission Inventory for Allegheny County, by Sector (Tons per Year)
Point Sources .......................
Area Sources .......................
Non-road Mobile Sources ....
Highway Mobile Sources .....
Fires .....................................
Biogenic Sources .................
2,503
2,491
361
450
24
0
1,338
2,011
361
450
24
0
1,164
480
0
0
0
0
2,987
4,683
378
984
29
0
13,460
1,528
11
78
2
0
11,128
6,979
3,921
13,259
5
166
1,169
11,200
3,780
7,383
64
5,876
207
621
5
304
4
0
Total ..............................
5,829
4,185
1,644
9,061
15,080
35,460
29,972
1,141
Point Sources .......................
Area Sources .......................
Non-road Mobile Sources ....
Highway Mobile Sources .....
Fires .....................................
Biogenic Sources .................
2,256
2,708
234
266
24
0
1,256
2,226
234
266
24
0
999
472
0
0
0
0
2,722
5,486
248
722
29
0
5,921
1,079
5
31
2
0
7,928
6,664
2,212
5,708
5
168
1,534
10,221
2,752
3,479
64
5,876
202
615
6
209
4
0
Total ..............................
5,488
4,007
1,471
9,207
7,039
22,684
23,926
1,037
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on the Emission Inventories
Inventories prepared in support of this
action, which is available in the docket.
The emission inventories in the
Allegheny County area PM2.5 plan are
based on the most current and accurate
information available to PADEP and
ACHD at the time the attainment plan
was developed and used the most
recently available tools and planning
assumptions. The emission inventories
in the attainment plan comprehensively
address all source categories in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 nonattainment
area and were developed consistent
with EPA’s emission inventory
preparation guidance. The selection of
2011 for use as a base year emissions
inventory is one of the three years
(2011–2013) used for purposes of
designation of the area and the 2021
projection emissions inventory
corresponds to the moderate area
attainment deadline, in accordance with
EPA’s SIP requirements rule. The
inventories model direct PM2.5
(including the filterable and
condensable components), as well as
PM2.5 precursor emissions. For these
reasons, we are proposing to approve
the 2011 base year emissions inventory
in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3). We are also proposing
to find that the 2021 projected inventory
in the plan is an adequate basis for the
determination of RACM, RFP, and for
demonstrating attainment in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. For
further information on our review of the
emission inventories supporting this
plan, refer to EPA’s Technical Support
Document (TSD) for Emission
B. Particulate Matter Precursor
Demonstration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
1. PM2.5 Precursor Requirements
The provisions of subpart 4 of part D,
title I of the CAA do not define the term
‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of PM2.5, nor
does subpart 4 explicitly require the
control of any specifically identified PM
precursor. However, the definition of
‘‘air pollutant’’ in CAA section 302(g)
‘‘includes any precursors to the
formation of any air pollutant, to the
extent the Administrator has identified
such precursor or precursors for the
particular purpose for which the term
‘air pollutant’ is used.’’
In the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
EPA recognized that treatment of PM2.5
precursors is an important issue in
developing a PM2.5 attainment plan.23
Therein, EPA identified SO2, NOX, VOC,
and NH3 as precursors to formation of
PM2.5. Accordingly, the attainment plan
requirements of subpart 4 apply to
emissions of all four precursor
pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all
types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in
the Act (e.g., in CAA section 189(e)).
Section 189(e) of the CAA requires
that the control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 (which
includes PM2.5) also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors,
except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels
23 See section III of EPA’s PM
2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule (81 FR 58017, August 24, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that exceed the standard in the area.
Section 189(e) contains the only
expressed exception to the control
requirements under subpart 4 for
sources of PM2.5 precursor emissions.
Although section 189(e) explicitly
addresses only major stationary sources,
EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it
to also determine, under appropriate
circumstances, that regulation of
specific PM2.5 precursors from other
sources in a given nonattainment area is
not necessary.
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, a state may elect to submit to EPA
a ‘‘comprehensive precursor
demonstration’’ for a specific
nonattainment area to show that
emissions of a particular precursor from
all existing sources located in the
nonattainment area do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area.24 Such a
comprehensive precursor demonstration
must include a concentration-based
contribution analysis (i.e., evaluation of
the contribution of a particular
precursor to PM2.5 levels in the area)
and may also include a sensitivity-based
contribution analysis (i.e., evaluation of
the sensitivity of PM2.5 levels in the area
to a decrease in emissions of the
precursor). If EPA determines that the
contribution of the precursor to PM2.5
levels in the area is not significant and
approves the demonstration, the state is
not required to control emissions of the
relevant precursor from existing sources
in the current attainment plan.25
EPA issued PM2.5 Precursor
Demonstration Guidance (‘‘Precursor
24 See
40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
25 Id.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35857
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Guidance’’) to provide
recommendations to states for
conducting an optional, comprehensive
precursor demonstration as part of an
attainment plan SIP submission.26
Section 1.1.1 of the Precursor Guidance
describes the steps for performing a
precursor demonstration. First, a
concentration-based analysis should be
performed to determine whether all
emissions of the relevant precursor
contribute significantly to total PM2.5
concentrations. If the concentrationbased analysis does not support a
finding of insignificant contribution,
then a sensitivity analysis may be
conducted to evaluate, through air
quality modeling, the effect of reducing
emissions of the precursor (by a certain
percentage) from either all existing
emission sources of the precursor or
only existing major stationary sources of
the precursor, on PM2.5 levels in the
area.
Section 2.2 of the Precursor Guidance
recommends the use of 0.2 mg/m3 for the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 1.5 mg/m3 for
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as thresholds
below which ambient air quality
impacts could be considered
‘‘insignificant’’ (i.e., impacts that do not
‘‘contribute’’ to PM2.5 concentrations
that exceed the NAAQS). When
considering whether a precursor
contributes significantly to PM2.5 levels
which exceed the NAAQS in the area,
a state may also consider additional
factors based on the specific
circumstances of the area. As to air
quality impacts that exceed the 0.2 mg/
m3 annual or 1.5 mg/m3 24-hour
contribution thresholds, states may
provide additional support for a
conclusion that a particular precursor
does not contribute significantly to
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
NAAQS. States may consider other
information, such as the amount by
which the impacts exceed the
recommended contribution threshold;
the severity of nonattainment at relevant
monitors and/or grid cell locations in
the area; anticipated growth or loss of
sources; analyses of speciation data and
precursor emission inventories; and air
quality trends.27
2. Precursor Demonstration in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
The Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
includes a comprehensive precursor
demonstration, which evaluates the
impact of the precursors VOC and NH3
to nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
in Allegheny County. The
concentration-based analysis indicates
that all precursors show ambient
monitored levels above the thresholds
for significant contribution.28 Therefore,
a sensitivity analysis was performed
using Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with extensions (CAMx).29 CAMx is a
Eulerian photochemical grid model that
simulates a wide variety of inert and
chemically active pollutants, including
ozone, particulate matter, inorganic and
organic PM2.5/PM10, and mercury and
other toxics. For the sensitivity analysis,
a total of three CAMx runs were used to
evaluate PM2.5 sensitivity to reductions
of NH3 and VOC emissions in Allegheny
County: A base case and two sensitivitycase runs. For one sensitivity-case run,
anthropogenic emissions of VOC in
Allegheny County were reduced by
50%. For the other sensitivity-case run,
anthropogenic emissions of NH3 were
reduced by 50%. For both runs, the 50%
reductions were applied to both point
and area source anthropogenic
emissions with all other emissions held
constant. EPA’s Modeled Attainment
Test Software (MATS) was then used to
model design values at monitoring sites
in Allegheny County with and without
the 50% reduction in VOC and NH3.
Table 2 shows the projected annual and
24-hour reductions in PM2.5 design
values (DVs) at the monitoring sites in
the nonattainment area based on the
reductions for VOC and NH3. Additional
information regarding the sensitivity
analysis can be found in Appendix I.4
(Precursor Insignificance
Demonstration) of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan.
TABLE 2—SENSITIVITY TEST REDUCTIONS IN DESIGN VALUES (DVS) AT ALLEGHENY COUNTY AREA MONITORS
Annual basis
Monitoring Site
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Avalon ............................................................................
Lawrenceville .................................................................
Liberty ............................................................................
South Fayette .................................................................
North Park ......................................................................
Harrison ..........................................................................
North Braddock ..............................................................
Clairton ...........................................................................
As can be seen in Table 2, the
modeled decreases in design values due
to a 50% reduction in VOC and NH3 at
the Liberty monitor are both below the
significance thresholds of 0.2 mg/m3 for
the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 1.5 mg/m3
for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, ACHD determined that VOC
and NH3 are both insignificant
26 See EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Precursor Demonstration Guidance,’’ [EPA–454/R–
19–004, May 30, 2019] https://www.epa.gov/pmpollution/pm25-precursor-demonstration-guidance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Reduction in
DV with 50%
less VOC
(μg/m3)
AQS ID
42–003–0002
42–003–0008
42–003–0064
42–003–0067
42–003–0093
42–003–1008
42–003–1301
42–003–3007
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on the Precursor Demonstration
EPA has reviewed the comprehensive
precursor demonstration included in the
27 Id.
at p. 17.
additional information on the
concentration-based analysis, see Appendix C of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
28 For
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Reduction in
DV with 50%
less NH3
(μg/m3)
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
contributors to nonattainment in
Allegheny County and excluded both
precursors from additional analysis in
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
24-hour basis
0.20
0.23
0.15
0.10
0.17
0.13
0.21
0.13
Reduction in
DV with 50%
less VOC
(μg/m3)
Reduction in
DV with 50%
less NH3
(μg/m3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan and is
proposing to find that it meets the
requirements of the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule and EPA’s Precursor
Guidance. The comprehensive precursor
demonstration includes a sensitivity
analysis that indicates that the
estimated impacts of a 50% reduction in
point and area source anthropogenic
29 CAMx is a photochemical grid model that
simulates a wide variety of inert and chemically
active pollutants, including ozone, particulate
matter, inorganic and organic PM2.5/PM10, and
mercury and other toxics.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35858
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
emissions of VOC and NH3 are below
the significance thresholds of 0.2 mg/m3
for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 1.5 mg/
m3 for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the
Liberty monitor, which has consistently
been the highest reading PM2.5 monitor
in Allegheny County and the only
monitor in the County not meeting the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Since the
estimated impacts at the Liberty monitor
are below the significance threshold, it
can be concluded, for purposes of the
precursor demonstration, that the
precursors VOC and NH3 do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in
Allegheny County. Therefore, pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.1006, EPA is proposing to
find that Allegheny County is not
required to control emissions of VOC or
NH3 from existing sources in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
C. Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM)/Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that
each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology) and shall provide
for attainment of the national ambient
air quality standards.’’ Section
189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA requires that
states with areas classified as moderate
nonattainment for PM2.5 have
attainment plan provisions to assure
that RACM and RACT are implemented
no later than four years after designation
of the area. EPA reads CAA sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) together to
require that attainment plans for
moderate nonattainment areas must
provide for the implementation of
RACM and RACT for existing sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the
nonattainment area as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than four years
after designation.30
The preamble to the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule defines RACM as
‘‘any technologically and economically
feasible measure that can be
implemented in whole or in part within
four years after the effective date of
designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment
area,’’ including RACT.31 The preamble
also recommends steps for evaluating
control measures as part of a RACM/
RACT analysis.32 In short, a RACM/
RACT analysis is a process for states to
identify emission sources, evaluate
potential emission controls, and impose
those control measures and technologies
that are reasonable and necessary to
bring the area into attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the statutory attainment date for
the area.
Pursuant to the preamble of the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, in the case of a
moderate area that can demonstrate it
can attain by the statutory attainment
date without implementing all
reasonably available control measures
(i.e. RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measures), the state would
not be required to adopt certain
otherwise reasonable measures if the
state demonstrates that collectively such
measures would not enable the area to
attain the standard at least one year
earlier (i.e. ‘‘advance the attainment
date’’ by one year).33 The attainment
date for the Allegheny County
nonattainment area is December 31,
2021.
2. RACM Analysis in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
A summary of ACHD’s RACM
analysis is provided in Section 6 of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan and a
detailed analysis is provided in
Appendix J. Based on the insignificance
findings for VOC and NH3, ACHD did
not evaluate options for the control of
VOC and NH3 in their RACM analysis.
ACHD’s RACM analysis examines
options for the control of primary PM2.5
and precursors SO2 and NOX in the
Allegheny County nonattainment area
for the following source categories: Area
sources, non-road mobile sources, onroad mobile sources, and some small
point sources.
For each source category, ACHD
evaluated RACM alternatives through
the following process: (1) Examine
source category emissions in the
nonattainment area; (2) determine
technologically feasible control
technologies or measures for each
source category; and, (3) for each
technologically feasible control
technology or measure, examine the
control efficiency by pollutant, the
estimated emission reductions by
pollutant, the estimated cost per ton of
pollutant reduced, and the date by
which the technology or measure could
be reasonably implemented.
a. RACM Measures Evaluation
Table 3 lists the RACM measures in
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. These
measures are discussed in more detail in
Appendix J of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan, which is located in the
docket for this rulemaking.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RACM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Source category group
Existing controls/programs
RACM alternative(s)
Notes
Agriculture ......................................
None .............................................
None identified ..............................
Commercial Cooking ......................
None .............................................
Cremation ......................................
None .............................................
1. Charbroiler catalytic oxidizers
for chain-driven broilers..
2. HEPA filters for under-fired
boilers.
None identified ..............................
Fuel Combustion (Industrial and
Commercial).
Fuel Combustion (Residential) ......
Federal standards for boilers and
engines.
Sulfur limit for home heating oil ...
Small source of emissions; mostly
NH3 emissions, NH3 is an insignificant precursor in the nonattainment area.
1. Small emission reductions
county-wide.
2. Full implementation could take
five years from promulgation.
Small source of emissions countywide; permit restrictions are
BACT.
Full implementation could take
five years from promulgation.
Small source of emissions compared to commercial and industrial fuel combustion.
30 See
81 FR 58010 and 58034, August 24, 2016.
81 FR 58010–58035 and 58043, August 24,
2016, as well as 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(4)(i)(A).
31 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Low-NOX burners .........................
None identified ..............................
32 See 81 FR 58010–58035 and 58046, August 24,
2016.
33 See 81 FR 58018, August 24, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35859
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RACM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY—Continued
Source category group
Fuel
Combustion
Wood).
(Residential
Fugitive Dust ..................................
RACM alternative(s)
Notes
1. Fireplace insert program.
2. Prohibition of non-phase 2 outdoor
wood-fired
boilers
(OWBs).
3. No outdoor burning when Air
Quality Action Days are predicted.
4. Wood stove change-out program.
Use of dust suppressants .............
1. Additional wood stove changeout program.
2. Education and outreach on
clean burning.
3. Replacement of old stoves
when homes are sold.
4. OWB compliance for pre-2011
units.
1. Insignificant emission reductions.
2. Reductions difficult to quantify.
3. Reductions and costs difficult to
quantify; Significant PM2.5 emission reductions unlikely within
short to medium timeframe.
4. Insignificant emission reductions.
Small emission reductions countywide.
None.
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production.
Petroleum Storage .........................
None .............................................
None .............................................
Paving of all unpaved roads countywide.
No feasible, cost effective options
were identified.
None identified ..............................
Solvent Utilization ..........................
ACHD regulations .........................
None identified ..............................
Surface Coatings ...........................
ACHD regulations .........................
None identified ..............................
Marine ............................................
Federal
standards;
repowering project.
towboat
1. Vessel repowering from Tier 0
to newer engines.
2. Retrofit tugboats with diesel
particulate filters.
3. Control idling.
4. Pleasure craft controls.
Railroad ..........................................
Federal standards .........................
Off-Highway Equipment (Gasoline)
Rebate program for gasolinefueled equipment exchange.
Replacement of older engines to
newer engines.
Additional gas-for electric exchange programs.
Off-Highway Equipment (Diesel) ...
Federal Standards; idling restrictions.
Off-Highway Equipment (Other) ....
Gasoline Refueling ........................
None .............................................
Stage II vapor recovery systems ..
Gasoline Vehicles (Light-Duty) ......
Federal emission standards; Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program.
Ridesharing program ....................
Gasoline Vehicles (Heavy-Duty) ....
Federal emission standards; idling
restrictions.
None .............................................
None .............................................
Federal emission standards; idling
restrictions.
Federal emission standards; idling
restrictions.
None identified ..............................
Diesel Refueling .............................
Diesel Vehicles (Light-Duty) ..........
Diesel Vehicles (Heavy Duty) ........
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Existing controls/programs
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Vehicles (Heavy Duty).
Ethanol E–85 Vehicles (Light-duty
gasoline, capable of burning
85% ethanol 15% gasoline
blend).
Aggregate Processing ...................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Retrofit construction equipment
with a diesel particulate filter
(DPF).
None identified ..............................
None identified ..............................
None identified ..............................
None .............................................
(1) Additional diesel engine retrofits.
(2) Replacement of public or private fleets ahead of normal
schedule.
(3) Additional diesel idling requirements.
None identified ..............................
None .............................................
None identified ..............................
Rules in effect for stone, sand,
and gravel operations.
Require water sprays, dust suppressants, telescopic chutes,
and baghouse/cyclone dust collectors.
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
VOC emissions only, VOC is an
insignificant precursor in the
nonattainment area.
VOC emissions only, VOC is an
insignificant precursor in the
nonattainment area.
VOC emissions only, VOC is an
insignificant precursor in the
nonattainment area.
1. High costs.
2. Small emission reductions.
3. Emission reductions not quantified,
potential
insignificant
emission reductions.
4. Emission reductions not quantified,
potential
insignificant
emission reductions that are not
cost effective.
High costs relative to emission reductions.
Emission reductions not quantified,
potential
insignificant
emission reductions.
Small emission reductions countywide.
None.
VOC emissions only, VOC is an
insignificant precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Reductions not quantified; light
duty gasoline vehicles show
large reductions through 2021
with current controls.
Small portion of the on-road mobile source inventory.
VOC emissions only, VOC is an
insignificant precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Small portion of the on-road mobile source inventory.
(1) Small emission reductions
county-wide.
(2) Small emission reductions
county-wide.
(3) Reductions not quantified.
Small
bile
Small
bile
None.
12JNP1
portion of the on-road mosource inventory.
portion of the on-road mosource inventory.
35860
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
3. RACT Analysis in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
Section 6 of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan also includes a summary of
ACHD’s RACT analysis. ACHD’s
detailed analysis is provided in
Appendix J of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan.
ACHD used the following
methodology for their RACT analysis:
(1) Identify all current major stationary
point sources of PM2.5, SO2, or NOX in
the Allegheny County nonattainment
area; (2) identify the different processes,
or process groups, for the applicable
major source facilities and the current
controls for the processes; (3) identify
potential RACT alternatives for the
process groups; and (4) evaluate the
technological and economic feasibility
of any potential RACT alternatives.34
a. RACT Measures Evaluation
Table 4 summarizes the identified
facilities and corresponding findings
from ACHD’s RACT analysis for the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. ACHD’s
complete RACT analysis is provided in
Appendix J of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF RACT ANALYSIS IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY PM2.5 PLAN
Facility
Major
pollutants
Summary of facility
Controls
Allegheny Energy Springdale
(now Springdale Energy) .......
PM, NOX ........
Combined-cycle turbine EGU,
natural gas (NG) or fuel oil.
ATI Allegheny Ludlum ...........
PM, SO2, NOX
Specialty steel facility ............
Bay Valley (now Riverbend) ..
NOX ................
Food manufacturing facility ....
Bellefield Boiler ......................
Energy Center Pittsburgh
(North Shore).
GenOn Brunot Island .............
NOX ................
NOX ................
GenOn Cheswick ...................
PM, SO2, NOX
Steam generation facility .......
District heating and cooling
plant.
Combined-cycle turbine EGU,
NG or fuel oil.
Coal-fired EGU ......................
Low NOX burners (LNB), selective catalytic reduction
(SCR).
Baghouses, ultra-low NOX
burners (ULNB), mist eliminators.
LNB, flue gas recirculation
(FGR); switched from coal
to natural gas as fuel for all
units.
LNB, FGR ..............................
LNB, drift eliminators .............
Pittsburgh Allegheny County
Thermal (PACT).
Universal Stainless ................
University of Pittsburgh—Main
Campus.
U.S. Steel Clairton .................
NOX ................
PM, SO2, NOX
RACT Findings
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
Steam generation facility .......
Water injection with SCR,
mist eliminators.
FGD, LNB with overfire air
(OFA), SCR, ESP.
NOX limits ..............................
Meets RACT requirements.
NOX ................
NOX ................
Specialty steel facility ............
Public university .....................
LNB, baghouses ....................
ULNB, FGR, low sulfur fuel oil
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
PM, SO2, NOX
Metallurgical coke and byproducts facility.
Meets RACT requirements.
USS Edgar Thomson .............
PM, SO2, NOX
Iron and steel making facility
USS Irvin ................................
PM, SO2, NOX
Secondary steel processing
facility.
Baghouses, baffles (quench
towers), coke oven gas
(COG) grain limits,
afterburners, visible emission (VE) restrictions.
Baghouses, COG grain limits,
scrubbers, drift eliminators.
COG grain limits, scrubbers,
mist eliminators.
4. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on RACM and RACT
ACHD has found that no
economically or technologically feasible
controls (or combination thereof) in
Allegheny County are needed to show
attainment by the attainment date of
December 31, 2021 and that no feasible
controls (or combination thereof) will
advance the attainment date by one year
or more (i.e. to December 31, 2020). The
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan includes a
modeling demonstration showing that
Allegheny County can attain the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2021
attainment date through the control
strategy described in the plan.
EPA is proposing to approve ACHD’s
evaluation of RACM/RACT control
measures in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan. ACHD has demonstrated in the
plan that Allegheny County can attain
the PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment
date without implementing RACM/
RACT. Also, according to the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan, the implementation
of additional control measures will not
advance the attainment date in
Allegheny County by one year or more.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
satisfies the RACM/RACT requirements
of title I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart
4 of the CAA.
34 An explanation of sources that were excluded
from ACHD’s RACT analysis as well as the control
technologies that were analyzed are provided in
Appendix J of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
Meets RACT requirements.
D. Air Quality Modeling
1. Requirements for Air Quality
Modeling
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires that a plan for a Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area include a
demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for
attainment by the applicable attainment
date, or a demonstration that attainment
by such date is impracticable. An
attainment demonstration must show
that the control measures in the plan are
sufficient to attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date. The attainment
demonstration predicts future ambient
concentrations for comparison to the
NAAQS, making use of available
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
information on ambient concentrations,
meteorology, and current and projected
emissions inventories, including the
effect of control measures in the plan.
This information is typically used in
conjunction with a computer model of
the atmosphere.
EPA has provided additional
modeling requirements and guidance for
modeling analyses in the ‘‘Guideline on
Air Quality Models’’ (‘‘Guideline’’).35
Per the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
the attainment demonstration modeling
guidance provides recommendations
that include: Developing a conceptual
description of the problem to be
addressed; developing a modeling/
analysis protocol; selecting an
appropriate model to support the
demonstration; selecting appropriate
meteorological episodes or time periods
to model; choosing an appropriate area
to model with appropriate horizontal/
vertical resolution; generating
meteorological and air quality inputs to
the air quality model; generating
emissions inputs to the air quality
model; and, evaluating performance of
the air quality model. After these steps
are completed, the state can apply a
model to simulate effects of future year
emissions and candidate control
strategies.
2. Air Quality Modeling in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
ACHD’s September 30, 2019 PM2.5 SIP
revision includes a modeling
demonstration showing that monitors in
Allegheny County will comply with
both the 24-hour and the annual 2012
PM2.5 standards by December 31, 2021.
The demonstration is based, in part, on
results from the CAMx analysis. The
modeling analysis also includes a local
area analysis using the US EPA’s
AERMOD Gaussian dispersion model to
analyze the direct PM2.5 component for
the Liberty monitor, which has
consistently been the highest reading
PM2.5 monitor in Allegheny County.
The highest PM monitor readings in
Allegheny County are generally
attributed to a combination of high
localized industrial source emissions
with strong temperature inversions,
which trap those locally generated
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, ‘‘Guideline on Air
Quality Models,’’ 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017;
available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-airact-permit-modeling-guidance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
emissions within the major river
valleys. Elevation differences between
the valley floors and surrounding terrain
can be on the order of 500 feet. Under
ideal meteorological conditions (i.e.
light winds and clear night-time skies),
Allegheny County has observed
temperature differences between hilltop
and valley floor in the range of 2 to 7
degrees Fahrenheit along with strong
channeled flow within the Monongahela
River valley (‘‘Mon Valley’’). Strong
temperature inversions inhibit vertical
mixing, trapping emissions emitted at
near ground-level within the valleys,
contributing to episodes of poor air
quality.
Given the topography of the area,
which is marked by low mountains and
river valleys, and the resulting influence
of that topography on localized
meteorological conditions and a
propensity for atmospheric inversions,
ACHD developed their modeling
analysis to consider these localized
conditions. Further, the modeling
analysis needed to properly account for
both regional emission sources, and
more importantly the specific, localized
impacts of several large industrial
source emissions that strongly
contribute to episodes of poor air
quality. Further details related to
development of the baseline and
projected year inventories can be found
in appendices D and E of the
Commonwealth’s September 30, 2019
SIP revision, which are available in the
docket for this rulemaking. The
modeling protocols used for the
Commonwealth’s analysis are found in
Appendix F of the September 2019 SIP
revision.
Modeling for the Allegheny County
area assesses regional impacts from
PM2.5 precursors and localized impacts
from primary PM2.5 sources. CAMx was
utilized at fine grid resolution to model
both long-range transport and near-field
impacts of most sources. EPA’s
AERMOD Gaussian dispersion model
was used for simulating localized
primary PM2.5 impacts at the Liberty
monitor, which has consistently
recorded the highest monitor
concentrations since PM2.5 monitoring
began in the area in the late 1990s.
ACHD provided an extensive review
of meteorological conditions in
Allegheny County over a five-year
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35861
period from 2009 through 2013.36 The
ACHD analysis involved a general
review of inversions, winds,
temperature, and precipitation in
general and its appropriateness for the
modeling demonstration. The modeling
demonstration is indicative of these
meteorological conditions and the use of
2011 base year emissions data is
suitable to represent typical conditions
over the five-year (2009–2013) period
examined—with the exception of one
month (October 2011) that recorded
severe inversions.
CAMx-ready emissions were prepared
for the 2011 modeling base year and
projected 2021 attainment year and preprocessed for input to CAMx using the
Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) model.37 CAMx
was evaluated using ambient
observational data from three
monitoring networks: EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS) database; Federal
Reference Method (FRM) total PM2.5
mass; and the Chemical Speciation
Network (CSN) speciated PM2.5. The
Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (or
AMET) was the primary software tool
used to compare observations and
modeled values from the 1.333
kilometer (km) domain in Allegheny
County.38 ACHD found good agreement
between modeled and observed PM2.5
concentrations across Allegheny
County. The results of the model
performance evaluations can be
referenced in Appendix G of the
Commonwealth’s September 30, 2019
SIP.
ACHD used MATS with the CAMx
2011 and 2021 modeling results to
obtain 2021 projected attainment year
design value concentrations at all of the
FRM monitoring sites within the
modeling domain. This included some
monitoring sites outside the Allegheny
County PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Allegheny County’s projected 2021
PM2.5 concentrations are summarized in
Table 5 and include a breakdown of
each modeled PM2.5 component (2021
projected value is the sum of all the
PM2.5 components).
36 See Appendix B of the September 30, 2019 SIP
submittal ‘‘Meteorological Analysis.’’
37 See SMOKE model, at https://
www.cmascenter.org/smoke/.
38 See AMET software at: https://
www.cmascenter.org/amet/.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35862
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—PROJECTED 2021 CAMX MODELED VALUES FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY AREA
MONITORS
[Based on a 1.33 km grid]
CAMx projected design value and PM2.5 modeled components
(1.333 km grid)
Monitoring Site
Actual
2016–18 DV
Projected
2021 DV
OPP
ED
NH4
OCmb
SO4
NO3
NaCl
Allegheny County Area 24-Hour Design Values **
Avalon .......................................
Clairton ......................................
Harrison .....................................
Lawrenceville .............................
Liberty ........................................
North Braddock .........................
North Park .................................
South Fayette ............................
20.2
18.7
20.0
18.4
34.9
24.5
15.6
18.3
21.4
21.4
20.7
20.4
38.6
23.4
17.3
18.4
Avalon .......................................
Clairton ......................................
Harrison .....................................
Lawrenceville .............................
Liberty ........................................
North Braddock .........................
North Park .................................
South Fayette ............................
9.7
9.3
9.6
9.1
12.6
10.7
7.8
8.3
10.0
9.2
9.4
9.0
12.5
10.0
7.6
8.5
0.606
0.869
0.870
1.000
1.248
1.178
1.280
1.188
0.965
3.542
1.348
0.996
3.910
2.564
0.948
1.480
2.191
1.882
1.809
1.855
2.520
2.353
1.537
1.613
9.064
7.753
8.807
8.723
21.634
8.304
6.783
6.952
3.258
4.464
4.917
4.334
4.978
4.577
4.272
4.552
3.564
0.828
0.862
1.480
2.253
2.403
0.585
0.700
0.150
0.038
0.055
0.087
0.060
0.096
0.047
0.039
4.727
2.703
3.470
3.395
4.637
3.192
2.219
2.844
1.926
2.205
2.219
1.999
2.795
2.463
1.908
2.071
0.566
0.734
0.689
0.614
0.937
0.797
0.560
0.592
0.028
0.014
0.026
0.032
0.017
0.023
0.026
0.020
Allegheny County Area Annual Design Values
0.398
0.508
0.495
0.483
0.618
0.608
0.593
0.579
0.508
1.266
0.633
0.530
1.509
0.989
0.478
0.636
0.772
0.843
0.856
0.810
1.058
0.951
0.743
0.774
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
** 24-Hour Design values are rounded to nearest whole number so Avalon’s projected 2021 24-hour design value is 21 μg/m3
Blank = Salt and passive component held constant from base to future case, OPP = other primary PM2.5, EC = elemental carbon, NH4 = ammonium, OCmb = organic carbon mass (by) mass balance, SO4 = sulfate, NO3 = Nitrate, NaCl = ‘‘salt’’.
Modeled 2021 PM2.5 design values for
all monitors except the Liberty monitor
meet the revised 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
All monitors in Allegheny County meet
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using 2018
design values. Only the Liberty monitor
is projected to exceed the revised 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2021, based on
the CAMx developed design values.
Therefore, in accordance with EPA’s
modeling guidance, ACHD undertook a
more refined local area analysis to better
gauge emission control impacts for
sources nearby the Liberty monitor in
southern Allegheny County and the
effect of controlling those sources on
projected PM2.5 concentrations in the
Liberty monitor area. The Liberty
monitor’s location on elevated terrain
several miles downwind of the U.S.
Steel Clairton Coke Works complicates
this analysis.
As stated in EPA’s ‘‘Modeling
Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional
Haze’’ (‘‘Modeling Guidance’’), ‘‘. . .
there are numerous cases where local
source contributions may not be
dominant but are a sizable contributor
to total annual average PM2.5 at this
monitor. In these cases, a more refined
analysis of the contribution of local
primary PM2.5 sources to PM2.5 at the
monitor(s) will help explain the causes
of nonattainment at and near the
monitor and may lead to more efficient
ways to attain the NAAQS by
controlling emissions from local sources
which may be important contributors to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
the violating area.’’ 39 ACHD has done
analysis of regional monitor
concentrations and demonstrated
unique industrial source influences
using source apportionment modeling 40
and concluded that the Liberty monitor,
‘‘shows a large contribution from
carbon-rich industrial sources, not
present at the other sites, that contribute
carbons as well as primary sulfate and
several trace elements.’’
EPA’s Modeling Guidance allows the
use of several tools to evaluate
contributions of local PM2.5 sources,
such as Gaussian dispersion modeling.
While dispersion models may not be an
appropriate tool for determining
secondary PM2.5 or ozone
concentrations, they work well for use
in determining local primary PM2.5
impacts.41 ACHD utilized EPA’s
AERMOD model to conduct a local area
analysis of the Liberty monitor area. The
refined Liberty local analysis modeling
used AERMOD to further resolve the
impact of local area sources and
meteorology beyond the CAMx analysis,
39 EPA policy memo, Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze, from Richard Wayland, dated
November 29, 2018. See p. 134. Available at:
https://epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/O3-PMRH-Modeling_Guidance-2018.pdf.
40 See Appendix C of the September 30, 2019 SIP
Revision, ‘‘Speciation and Source Apportionment
Analysis.’’
41 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,
from Richard Wayland, dated November 29, 2018,
at p. 134.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to generate the final modeled design
values at the Liberty monitor. This local
area analysis shows that the Liberty
monitor will attain by attainment
deadline.
Finally, ACHD included additional
information in its September 30, 2019
SIP revision constituting a ‘‘weight of
evidence’’ demonstration to support its
modeling analysis, per EPA’s Modeling
guidance.42 ACHD’s weight of evidence
demonstration includes analysis of
downward PM2.5 monitoring trends at
Allegheny County monitors, a listing of
permanent stationary source shutdowns
(not reflected in the modeling analysis),
PM2.5 precursor reductions of SO2
resulting from reductions in neighboring
areas, emission reductions due to
population decrease projections, and
emission reductions due to voluntary
programs (not included in the SIP).
Also, additional EGU deactivations in
Pennsylvania and surrounding states
were announced after EGU forecasting
was performed (based on 2015 data).
These deactivations, which were not
included in the air quality modeling for
this plan, will lead to further reductions
of PM2.5 precursor emissions that
42 See pp. 169–171 of EPA’s Modeling Guidance
for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5 and Regional Haze, which outlines several
other analyses that could be included in any
attainment demonstration to help bolster results
from the primary modeling analysis. These could
include additional modeling analyses, analyses of
trends in ambient air quality and emissions, and
additional emissions controls/reductions.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
potentially contribute PM2.5 emissions
to Allegheny County. Further
information on recent planned EGU
deactivations can be found in Section
11.4 of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan.
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on Modeling
EPA has reviewed the modeling
demonstration prepared by ACHD for
the Allegheny County PM2.5
nonattainment area. EPA also reviewed
the supporting local area AERMOD
dispersion model analysis prepared by
ACHD to assess the impact of sources
closest to the Liberty monitor. ACHD
modeling protocols covering the
Weather Research and Forecasting
(WRF) prognostic meteorological model,
the CAMx modeling domains and the
AERMOD local area analysis all
comport with EPA’s Modeling
Guidance.43
With the exception of the Liberty
monitor, the CAMx model projected
2021 PM2.5 design values for all
monitors in Allegheny County are
projected to be below the NAAQS by the
attainment deadline. ACHD elected to
conduct a refined local area assessment
to further assess the impact of several
large nearby sources beyond the scope
of the CAMx modeling. The Allegheny
County Plan contains ACHD’s
arguments supporting its contention
that the CAMx 1.333 km modeling
analysis could be overestimating
projected 2021 PM2.5 concentrations at
the Liberty monitor.44 These CAMx
modeling limitations cited include:
Limitations in CAMx’s ability to
properly characterize concentration
gradients across the 1.333 km grid cells,
failure to use the most up to date
available stack test emissions data and
stack test emission calculations for
several key sources in the area,
improper CAMx source
characterizations, and improper source
apportionment by CAMx.
EPA proposes to agree with ACHD’s
assessment that these are reasonable
arguments to support use of a
supplemental local area analysis using
AERMOD dispersion modeling to refine
projected 2021 model concentrations at
the Liberty monitor. Final projected
2021 values at the Liberty monitor using
the local area analysis were 35 mg/m3
(24-hour) and 12.0 mg/m3 (annual),
which demonstrate attainment with the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Given that the projected 2021 PM2.5
concentrations at the Liberty monitor
43 Ibid.
44 See
Appendix F.3 of the September 30, 2019
SIP revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
just meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
ACHD’s use of additional supporting
information via a weight of evidence
demonstration is warranted. The
Allegheny County Plan contains a
monitor value trends analysis showing
statistically significant downward
trends at all of its PM2.5 monitoring
sites, including the Liberty monitor.
EPA agrees with ACHD’s contention
that the Pennsylvania Jersey Maryland
Power Pool (PJM Interconnection, or
simply PJM) forecasts of electric
generation for the last few years have
overestimated the actual amount of
electric generation needed, and as a
result the projected regional PM2.5
precursor emissions from the electric
generation sector are likely
overestimated.45 Electricity generation
and demand reports from PJM indicate
a decline in coal-fired power plant
operations and an increase in power
generation share from a rise in number
and capacity of lower emission
producing, more efficient combinedcycle natural gas plants. This trend is
leading to significant reductions in
regional emissions of SO2, a precursor to
PM2.5.46 It also appears that the CAMx
model overestimates projections for
some monitor locations in Allegheny
County, as shown by the fact that actual
measured 2018 PM2.5 design values are
already below forecast 2021 model
projections. Allegheny County also
documented additional local emission
reductions and source shutdowns which
were not accounted for in the projected
emission inventories, along with other
voluntary programs that could lead to
additional emission reductions. The
combination of these weight of evidence
impacts should lead to continued
reductions in PM2.5 monitor
concentrations in Allegheny County.
EPA believes ACHD’s modeling
demonstration shows that its projected
2021 PM2.5 design values will likely
comply with the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS—
particularly since the actual 2018 PM2.5
design values at all monitoring sites in
Allegheny County (except the Liberty
monitor) meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Allegheny County’s unmonitored area
analysis attempts to more accurately
ensure attainment over the entire county
and not just those portions covered by
the monitoring network. Given the
results of ACHD’s CAMx modeling for
the area, the refined AERMOD local area
assessment, and the additional emission
reductions and other supporting
45 See Appendix K of the September 30, 2019 SIP
revision.
46 See Section 3, page 104, https://
www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_
of_the_Market/2018.shtml.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35863
arguments from ACHD’s weight of
evidence demonstration, EPA supports
ACHD’s finding that PM2.5 design values
at the Liberty monitor will meet the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31,
2021 attainment date.
E. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for an Attainment
Demonstration
CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that
each state in which a Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area is located submit an
attainment plan that includes, among
other things, either a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date, or a
demonstration that attainment by such
date is impracticable. In addition, CAA
section 172(c)(1) generally requires, for
each nonattainment area, a plan that
provides for the implementation of all
RACM and RACT as expeditiously as
practicable and provides for attainment
of the NAAQS. EPA interprets these two
provisions together to require that an
attainment demonstration for a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
meet the following criteria: (1) The
attainment demonstration must show
the projected attainment date for the
area that is as expeditious as
practicable; (2) the attainment
demonstration must meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix W and must include inventory
data, modeling results, and emission
reduction analyses on which the state
has based its projected attainment date;
(3) the base year for the emissions
inventory required for the attainment
demonstration must be one of the three
years used for designations or another
technically appropriate inventory year;
and (4) the control strategies modeled as
part of the attainment demonstration
must be consistent with the control
strategy requirements under 40 CFR
51.1009(a), including the requirements
for RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measures.47
In addition, the attainment
demonstration must provide for the
implementation of all control measures
needed for attainment as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than the
beginning of the year containing the
applicable attainment date.48
2. Attainment Demonstration in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
As explained in section III.D of this
document, ACHD’s PM2.5 SIP includes a
modeling demonstration, based on
47 See EPA’s PM
2.5 Implementation Rule, at 40
CFR 51.1011(a).
48 Id.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35864
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
modeling using currently implemented
emission control measures, that shows
that monitors in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania will comply with both the
24-hour and the annual PM2.5 standards
by December 31, 2021. The modeling for
the Allegheny County PM2.5
nonattainment area focuses on regional
impacts from PM2.5 precursors and
localized impacts from primary PM2.5
sources. ACHD also conducted an
unmonitored area analysis to better
refine those areas of Allegheny County
further from the air monitor sites, as was
discussed earlier in section III.D of this
document pertaining to the modeling.
The attainment plan includes a
weight of evidence analysis to further
bolster the attainment demonstration.
The plan shows reductions in PM2.5
emissions and PM2.5 precursor emission
inventories between 2011 and 2021 as a
result of implementation of RACT/
RACM, stationary source shutdowns
(not reflected in the 2011 inventory),
and from implemented state, local, and
Federal emission controls.
ACHD contends that the results from
their modeling analysis, as well as its
weight of evidence supplemental
analysis, demonstrate that all monitors
in Allegheny County will attain the
revised 2012 24-hour and annual PM2.5
NAAQS by the statutory date (December
31, 2021).
3. EPA’s Evaluation of ACHD’s PM2.5
Attainment Demonstration
EPA evaluated whether ACHD has
adequately demonstrated that the
Allegheny County Area meets EPA
requirements for demonstration of
attainment, as described here:
a. The attainment demonstration must
show the projected attainment date for
the area that is as expeditious as
practicable.
As discussed in section III.D of this
preamble, EPA proposes to find that the
modeling demonstration and additional
analysis in the attainment plan show
that the area will achieve the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS by the attainment date. In its
review of RACM measures, ACHD found
no additional measures that, if enacted,
would advance the attainment deadline
earlier than the December 31, 2021
attainment deadline. Currently, 2018
PM2.5 design values at all monitoring
sites in Allegheny County except
Liberty meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Allegheny County’s unmonitored area
analysis predicts attainment over the
entire County. Given the results of the
refined local area analysis, ACHD’s
analysis of potential model
overestimations, and additional
emission reductions identified as part of
the weight of evidence demonstration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
(that are not included in the modeling
demonstration), EPA concludes that
attainment demonstration modeling
reasonably projects that all the monitors
in the area will meet the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS by the 2021 projected
attainment date and that attainment
prior to that date is not practicable.
b. The attainment demonstration must
meet the requirements of 40 CFR part
51, appendix W and must include
inventory data, modeling results, and
emission reduction analyses on which
the state has based its projected
attainment date;
Based on our analysis of the
attainment modeling demonstration in
section III.D of this document, EPA also
proposes to conclude that the
attainment demonstration modeling
includes appropriate modeling analysis
information complying with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix W. Based on EPA’s review of
the supporting PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emission inventories (as
described in the emission inventory
section of this action), EPA also
proposes to conclude that the plan
includes appropriate emission inventory
data to meet the related EPA emission
inventory requirements.
c. The base year for the emissions
inventory required for the attainment
demonstration must be one of the three
years used for designations or another
technically appropriate inventory year;
and
ACHD selected 2011 as its base year
for the emissions inventory used for the
attainment demonstration. Since 2011 is
one of the three years (i.e., 2011–2013)
used for designation purposes, EPA
finds that this choice of base year for the
attainment demonstration meets EPA
requirements.
d. The control strategies modeled as
part of the attainment demonstration
must be consistent with the control
strategy requirements under 40 CFR
51.1009(a), including the requirements
for RACM/RACT and additional
reasonable measures.
Based on our review of ACHD’s
attainment demonstration modeling,
EPA proposes to find that the air quality
modeling meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.1011(a) and accounts for all
technically and economically feasible
control measures for direct PM2.5 (as
well as PM2.5 precursor) emissions
sources upon which PADEP and ACHD
have based their projected attainment
date for the area. 40 CFR 51.1009(a) and
40 CFR 51.1011.
As part of the RACT/RACM
determination (in conjunction with the
accompanying weight of evidence
demonstration emission reductions),
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA proposes to conclude that the
control strategies modeled as part of the
attainment demonstration are consistent
with the control strategy requirements
under 40 CFR 51.1009(a), including the
requirements for RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures. Based
on the RACT/RACM analysis and the
additional weight of evidence
demonstration for PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emission reductions, EPA
believes the attainment modeling
analysis shows that the projected
December 31, 2021 attainment date for
the area is as expeditious as practicable.
e. The attainment demonstration must
provide for the implementation of all
control measures needed for attainment
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the beginning of the year
containing the applicable attainment
date.
In Section 3 (Control Strategy) of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, ACHD
sets out its attainment control strategy.
ACHD incorporated the controls
described in Section 3 in the future case
2021 emissions and modeling
inventories for the attainment
demonstration. These controls include
local source modifications, local source
shutdowns, and regional controls.
ACHD states that the local source
modifications are Federally enforceable
through ACHD installation permits and
operating permits. These local source
modifications are fully implemented,
and the shutdowns all occurred after the
2011 base year, but prior to the
submittal of the plan. The regional
controls include various Federal control
measures as well as two Pennsylvania
statewide measures related to sulfur
limits for commercial fuel oil and VOC
limits for adhesives and sealants. These
regional measures are also fully
implemented.
EPA has evaluated ACHD’s control
strategy for attainment and found that
all control measures needed for
attainment have been implemented has
expeditiously as practicable. The
attainment date is December 31, 2021.
These controls were all implemented
prior to PADEP submitting the
September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the
control measures were implemented
well before the beginning of the year
containing the applicable attainment
date, 2021.
4. EPA’s Proposed Action on the PM2.5
Attainment Demonstration
EPA proposes to conclude that the
attainment demonstration for the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan meets the
requirements for a moderate area plan
under CAA section 189(a)(1)(B), and
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
that this plan contains an approvable
demonstration (including air quality
modeling) showing that the plan
provides for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. EPA also
proposes to conclude that this plan
meets CAA section 172(c)(1)
requirements to provide for the
implementation of RACM and RACT as
expeditiously as practicable and
provides for attainment of the NAAQS.
By meeting these requirements, EPA
proposes to conclude that ACHD’s plan
for the Allegheny County PM2.5 area
meets applicable requirements for an
approvable attainment demonstration
for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
area.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
1. Requirements for Ensuring
Reasonable Further Progress
CAA section 172(c)(2) states that all
nonattainment area plans shall
demonstrate reasonable progress
towards attainment. In addition, CAA
section 189(c) requires that all PM2.5
nonattainment area SIPs include a QM
demonstration, to be achieved every
three years until the area is redesignated
to attainment and which demonstrate
RFP, as defined in CAA section 171(l).
Section 171(l) defines RFP as ‘‘such
annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by part D or may
reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’
Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act requires that a set
percentage of emissions reductions be
achieved in any given year for purposes
of satisfying the RFP requirement. EPA’s
SIP requirements rule does not require
a specific RFP related inventory, but the
attainment projected inventory for the
nonattainment area also may serve a
purpose for evaluation of RFP.49
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA has interpreted the RFP
requirement to require that
nonattainment area plans show annual
incremental emission reductions
sufficient to maintain generally linear
progress toward attainment by the
applicable deadline.50 As discussed in
EPA guidance in the Addendum to the
General Preamble (or ‘‘the
Addendum’’),51 requiring linear
progress in reductions of direct PM2.5
and any individual precursor in a PM2.5
49 See
EPA PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 81 FR
58029, August 24, 2016.
50 Addendum to the General Preamble at p.
42015. 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994.
51 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
plan may be appropriate in situations
where: The pollutant is emitted by a
large number and range of sources; the
relationship between any individual
source or source category and overall air
quality is not well known; a chemical
transformation is involved (e.g.,
secondary particulate significantly
contributes to PM2.5 levels over the
standard); and/or the emission
reductions necessary to attain the PM2.5
standard are inventory-wide.52
The Addendum indicates that
requiring linear progress may be less
appropriate in other situations, such as:
Where there are a limited number of
sources of direct PM2.5 or a precursor;
where the relationships between
individual sources and air quality are
relatively well defined; and/or where
the emission control systems utilized
will result in swift and dramatic
emission reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized
by any of these latter conditions, RFP
may be better represented as stepwise
progress as controls are implemented
and achieve significant reductions soon
thereafter. For example, if an area’s
nonattainment problem can be
attributed to a few major sources, EPA
guidance indicates that ‘‘RFP should be
met by adherence to an ambitious
compliance schedule, which is likely to
periodically yield significant emission
reductions of direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5
precursor.’’ 53 This latter case is
applicable to the Allegheny County
Area, as the violating monitor is
impacted heavily by nearby major
emission sources, which are
implementing controls in a stepwise
fashion between the base year and
attainment deadline.
Where attainment is driven by
regulatory compliance, the PM2.5
attainment plan should include a
detailed schedule for compliance with
regulations in the area and provide
corresponding annual emission
reductions to be realized from each
milestone in the schedule.54 In
reviewing an attainment plan under
CAA subpart 4, EPA considers whether
the annual incremental emission
reductions to be achieved are reasonable
in light of the statutory objective of
timely attainment. States should
consider both cost-effectiveness and
pollution reduction effectiveness when
developing implementation schedules
for its control measures and may
implement measures that are more
52 Id.
53 Id
at p. 42015.
at p. 42016.
effective at reducing PM2.5 earlier to
provide greater public health benefits.55
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
establishes specific regulatory
requirements for purposes of satisfying
the Act’s RFP requirements and
provides related guidance in the
preamble to the rule. Specifically, under
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each
PM2.5 attainment plan must contain an
RFP analysis that includes, at minimum:
(1) An implementation schedule for
control measures; (2) RFP projected
emissions for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5
plan precursors for each applicable
milestone year, based on the anticipated
control measure implementation
schedule; (3) a demonstration that the
control strategy and implementation
schedule will achieve reasonable
progress toward attainment between the
base year and the attainment year; and
(4) a demonstration that by the end of
the calendar year for each milestone
date for the area, pollutant emissions
will be at levels that reflect either
generally linear progress or stepwise
progress in reducing emissions on an
annual basis between the base year and
the attainment year.56 States should
estimate the RFP projected emissions for
each milestone year by sector on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis.57
2. RFP Demonstration in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan
The RFP demonstration and QM
demonstration methodology are detailed
in Section 7 of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan. ACHD elected to try to show
that nonattainment area emissions of
direct PM2.5 pollutants (and significant
PM2.5 precursor pollutants) decline from
the base year to the attainment year, in
a generally linear manner.
The Allegheny County Plan estimates
that emissions of direct PM2.5 will
decline steadily from 2011 through 2021
and that emissions of direct PM2.5 will
generally remain below the levels
needed to show incremental, continuing
progress toward attainment. ACHD
compiled RFP emissions inventories for
the milestone years of 2019 and 2022
using the base and projected inventories
used in the attainment demonstration.
Milestone years are based on a schedule
of 4.5 and 7.5 years after designation
(years 2019 and 2022, respectively), as
outlined in the PM2.5 Implementation
Rule for a moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area.58 Year 2019
55 Id.
56 40
CFR 51.1012(a).
81 FR 58010, 58056 (August 24, 2016).
58 RFP milestones occur every three years,
starting from the due date of the SIP (i.e., 18 months
after designation), or 4.5 years and 7.5 after
57 See
54 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
35865
Continued
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35866
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
emissions were calculated by linearly
interpolating base year 2011 and
projected case 2021 emissions. Year
2022 emissions were held constant from
the projected 2021 case, as a
conservative approach beyond the
expected attainment timeframe. In
addition to direct PM2.5 emissions, the
RFP demonstration includes PM2.5
precursor emissions of SO2 and NOX.
However, it does not include VOC and
NH3 emissions as PM2.5 precursors
because those emissions were shown to
be insignificant for purposes of the
Allegheny County Plan. The direct
PM2.5 emissions for the baseline,
milestone, and attainment years are
shown in Table 6 (with PM2.5 broken
down into filterable and condensable
components).59 The precursor emissions
are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
TABLE 6—DIRECT PM2.5 RFP EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY, BY MILESTONE YEAR
[Tons/year]
Base year
2011
Milestone year
2019
Projected attainment
2021
Milestone year
2022
Year
PM2.5
PM2.5
(filter)
PM2.5
(cond)
PM2.5
PM2.5
(filter)
PM2.5
(cond)
PM2.5
PM2.5
(filter)
PM2.5
(cond)
PM2.5
PM2.5
(filter)
PM2.5
(cond)
Point Sources ...................
Area Sources ...................
Non-road Mobile Sources
On-road Mobile Sources ..
Fires .................................
Biogenic ............................
2,503
2,491
361
450
24
0
1,338
2,011
361
450
24
0
1,164
480
0
0
0
0
2,305
2,665
259
303
24
0
1,272
2,183
259
303
24
0
1,032
473
0
0
0
0
2,256
2,708
234
266
24
0
1,256
2,226
234
266
24
0
999
472
0
0
0
0
2,256
2,708
234
266
24
0
1,256
2,226
234
266
24
0
999
472
0
0
0
0
Total ..........................
5,829
4,185
1,644
5,556
4,042
1,505
5,488
4,007
1,471
5,488
4,007
1,471
TABLE 7—ALLEGHENY COUNTY SO2 PRECURSOR RFP EMISSIONS INVENTORY, BY MILESTONE YEAR
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2011
Milestone
2019
Projected
attainment
2021
Milestone
2022
Stationary Point Sources .................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile Sources ................................................................................
On-road Mobile Sources ..................................................................................
Fires .................................................................................................................
Biogenic Sources .............................................................................................
13,460
1,528
11
78
2
0
7,429
1,169
6
41
2
0
5,921
1,079
5
31
2
0
5,921
1,079
5
31
2
0
Total ..........................................................................................................
15,080
8,647
7,039
7,039
TABLE 8—ALLEGHENY COUNTY NOX PRECURSOR RFP EMISSIONS INVENTORY
[Tons/year]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Baseline
2011
Milestone
2019
Projected
2021
Milestone
2022
Stationary Point Sources .................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile Sources ................................................................................
On-road Mobile Sources ..................................................................................
Fires .................................................................................................................
Biogenic Sources .............................................................................................
11,128
6,979
3,921
13,259
5
166
8,568
6,727
2,554
7,218
5
166
7,928
6,664
2,212
5,708
5
166
7,928
6,664
2,212
5,708
5
166
Total ..........................................................................................................
35,460
25,239
22,684
22,684
Allegheny County then compared
these RFP inventory projections against
the most currently available National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data (i.e.,
2017 for stationary point source and
2014 for mobile and area emissions) to
track the progress of their actual
emissions against their 2019 milestone
year shown in Table 9.60
designation in 2015. The second milestone of 7.5
years, although beyond the attainment date for a
moderate area, is included in the event the area (at
a future date) is reclassified from moderate to
serious nonattainment.
59 See corresponding Tables 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 of
Pennsylvania’s September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
60 See Table 7.4 of the September 30, 2019 SIP
revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35867
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—ALLEGHENY COUNTY COMPOSITE EMISSIONS INVENTORY, BASED ON MOST RECENT AVAILABLE NEI DATA
[Tons/year]
PM2.5
(filter)
PM2.5
PM2.5
(cond)
NOX
SO2
Point Sources (2017 NEI) ....................................................
Area Sources (2014 NEI) ....................................................
Non-road Mobile Sources (2014 NEI) .................................
On-road Mobile Sources (2014 NEI) ...................................
Fires (2011 NEI) ..................................................................
Biogenic Sources (2011 NEI) ..............................................
1,305
2,646
315
389
24
0
775
2,174
315
389
24
0
530
473
0
0
0
0
4,712
481
8
76
2
0
6,148
8,687
3,183
11,754
5
166
Total ..............................................................................
4,679
3,677
1,003
5,279
29,943
While the NEI dates do not directly
correspond to the 2019 RFP milestone
year, the composite inventory shows
that Allegheny County is already
meeting their projected PM2.5 and SO2
emissions. While NOX was not yet
meeting the 2019 milestone based on
actual emissions data, additional NOX
reductions from mobile sources that
occur after 2014 are expected to close
the gap between 2014 (when the latest
mobile NEI data was available) and the
2019 projected NOX milestone.
ACHD attempted to show that linear
progress towards attainment is being
made by examining its monitoring data
and its point source emissions data for
the period between the base and
attainment years, achieved by
performing a linear regression on this
data to show yearly progress. Monitored
concentrations are presented in Tables
10 and 11, showing the annual and 24hour PM2.5 design values, respectively,
for each Allegheny County site for years
2011 through 2018.61
TABLE 10—MONITORED ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES (μg/m3) FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY MONITOR SITES, WITH LINEAR
PROGRESS RATES
Yearly
rate of
linear
progress
Monitored annual design value
(μg/m3)
Monitor site
2011
Liberty ..........................................
Avalon ..........................................
North Braddock ............................
Harrison ........................................
Lawrenceville ...............................
Clairton .........................................
South Fayette ...............................
North Park ....................................
2012
15.0
14.7
12.7
12.4
11.6
11.5
11.0
9.7
2013
14.8
13.4
12.5
11.7
11.1
10.9
10.5
9.4
2014
13.4
11.4
11.7
10.6
10.3
9.8
9.6
8.8
2015
13.0
10.6
11.4
10.0
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
2016
12.6
10.6
11.2
9.8
9.7
9.9
8.8
8.5
2017
12.8
10.4
11.0
9.8
9.5
9.8
8.5
8.2
2018
13.0
10.2
10.8
9.8
9.2
9.8
8.4
8.2
12.6
9.7
10.7
9.6
9.1
9.3
8.3
7.8
¥0.33
¥0.64
¥0.30
¥0.38
¥0.35
¥0.24
¥0.39
¥0.25
TABLE 11—MONITORED 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES, WITH LINEAR PROGRESS RATES
[μg/m3]
Monitored 24-hour design value
(μg/m3)
Allegheny county monitor site
2011
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Liberty ..........................................
Avalon ..........................................
North Braddock ............................
Harrison ........................................
Clairton .........................................
Lawrenceville ...............................
South Fayette ...............................
North Park ....................................
2012
44
34
34
30
28
27
27
25
ACHD’s analysis of historical
monitored PM2.5 design values shows
that all sites in Allegheny County are
achieving roughly linear reductions
from baseline case through the most
recently available monitor data. All sites
are already below the NAAQS on both
2013
43
29
33
28
26
26
26
23
2014
37
25
29
25
22
23
24
19
2015
35
22
26
22
23
21
20
17
2016
33
23
25
22
25
21
21
18
annual and 24-hour bases, with the
exception of the Liberty monitor (for the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS). Based on the
linear annual rate of 0.33 mg/m3
improvement (for annual design values),
ACHD expects the Liberty monitor to
achieve the annual NAAQS by 2021.
2017
36
22
25
21
26
20
19
18
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018
37
21
24
21
22
19
19
17
35
20
24
20
19
18
18
16
¥1.2
¥1.7
¥1.5
¥1.4
¥0.8
¥1.3
¥1.3
¥1.1
Based on the linear yearly rate of 1.2 mg/
m3 for 24-hour design values, ACHD
expects that the Liberty monitor will
continue to achieve the 24-hour
standard.
EPA’s Implementation Rule requires
attainment plans to provide an
61 See Tables 7.5 and 7.6 in the September 30,
2019 SIP revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Linear
progress
yearly
rate
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35868
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
implementation schedule containing
regulatory implementation timeframes
showing progress towards attainment.
However, ACHD did not present a
schedule, contending that because all
control measures identified for the
Allegheny County Plan have already
been implemented, and there are no
identified RACM/RACT or ‘‘additional
control measures’’ to be implemented, a
schedule for implementation of controls
is not applicable to this SIP.
3. EPA’s Evaluation of and Proposed
Action on RFP
For direct PM2.5, EPA agrees that
ACHD has shown steady progress
towards measuring RFP for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Allegheny County
area. ACHD has shown that the
measures being implemented in the area
show ongoing progress towards
achieving the NAAQS.
ACHD has established milestones for
comparison of emissions and monitored
values corresponding to the milestone
compliance demonstration timeframes
discussed in the QM and has
demonstrated that it has achieved its
RFP related milestone requirements for
the area. Monitored ambient values in
the area are trending downward at a
steady, if not linear rate, and ACHD has
demonstrated that both emission
reductions and monitor values (for both
the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS)
are expected to continue to decrease
through the 2019 milestone deadline
and the 2021 attainment deadline.
As discussed in the precursors section
of this proposed document (section
III.B), EPA is proposing to determine
that SO2 and NOX are significant
precursors in the Allegheny County
area, but that VOCs and NH3 are
insignificant PM2.5 precursors that do
not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels in the area.
The Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
documents ACHD’s assertion that they
are implementing all reasonable RACM
and RACT and additional reasonable
measures for direct PM2.5 as
expeditiously as practicable. The plan
projects levels of direct PM2.5 emissions
in 2019 and 2022 that reflect full
implementation of the Commonwealth’s
and ACHD’s attainment control strategy
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
ACHD’s comparison of the most
recently available NEI emissions data
with the projections for 2019 and 2022
in the plan show that emissions are
falling at expected rates to achieve RFP,
and (with the exception of NOX), most
emissions are at or below 2021 projected
levels (and are expected to continue to
drop with continued implementation of
control measures identified in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
plan).62 Stationary source controls in
the area include controls at the U.S.
Steel Clairton Coke Works (the largest
modeled emission source of PM2.5 in the
area), including installation of new lowemission quench towers in 2013,
replacement of an older coking battery
in 2012, and new baffle washing
requirements implemented in 2012.
Other stationary source controls in the
area include addition of flue gas
desulfurization at the GenOn Cheswick
coal fired EGU, arc furnace
improvements and replacements at
several area steel manufacturing
facilities, etc. Further, a number of
facilities in the area have been
permanently shut down and have
surrendered their permits, including:
The Shenango Coke facility, the
Guardian and GE Bridgeville glass
plants, Bakerstown Container, and
Allegheny Aggregates, among others.63
In addition, new mobile source NOX
controls and the replacement of older,
higher emitting mobile sources with
new, lower-emitting mobile sources due
to fleet turnover are expected to
continue to reduce NOX emissions
between the 2014 NEI and the 2019 and
2022 future milestone cases.
In the case of an RFP demonstration
based solely on linear reductions in
emissions through the attainment
deadline, EPA expects that, so long as
the attainment date is as expeditious as
practicable, then generally linear
progress toward attainment by that date
would satisfy the RFP requirement.64
Thus, EPA proposes to find that the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
demonstrates that emissions of direct
PM2.5 will be reduced at rates
representing generally linear progress
towards attainment. EPA also proposes
to find that the plan demonstrates that
all reasonable measures that provide the
bases for the direct PM2.5 emissions
projections in the RFP analysis are being
implemented as expeditiously as
practicable. Accordingly, we propose to
determine that the plan requires the
annual incremental reductions in
emissions of direct PM2.5 (and
significant precursors of PM2.5) that are
necessary to ensure RFP towards
attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021, in accordance with the
62 See section 3.0 of this document for a list of
current control measures in the Allegheny County
area, including new stationary source controls and
source shutdowns in the area.
63 See Section 3 of ACHD’s plan in the September
30, 2019 SIP revision for a complete listing of
implemented PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor control
strategies.
64 See EPA’s PM
2.5 Requirements Rule at 81 FR
58056, August 24, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements of CAA sections 171(1)
and 172(c)(2).
G. Quantitative Milestone (QM)
Demonstration
1. Requirements for a QM
Demonstration
Section 189(c) requires that
attainment plans include milestones to
demonstrate that RFP is being achieved
on a timely basis. The purpose of the
QM demonstration is to allow for
periodic evaluation of the area’s
progress towards attainment of the
NAAQS consistent with RFP
requirements. Because RFP is an annual
emission reduction requirement while
the QMs are to be achieved every three
years, when a state demonstrates
compliance with the QM, it
demonstrates that RFP has been
achieved during each of the relevant
three years. QMs provide an objective
means to evaluate progress toward
attainment, e.g., through imposition of
emission controls in the attainment plan
and the requirement to quantify those
required emission reductions.
The CAA does not specify the starting
point for counting the three-year periods
for QMs under CAA section 189(c). In
the General Preamble and Addendum,
EPA interpreted the CAA to require that
the starting point for the first three-year
period be the due date for the Moderate
area plan submission.65 Consistent with
this longstanding interpretation of the
Act, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
requires that each plan for a Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area contain QMs
to be achieved no later than milestone
dates 4.5 years and 7.5 years from the
date of designation of the area.66
Because EPA designated the Allegheny
County area nonattainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS effective April 15,
2015, the applicable QM dates for
purposes of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan are October 15, 2019 and October
15, 2022.67
The CAA requires states to submit
QM reports (due 90 days after each
milestone). Under EPA’s PM2.5
implementation rule,68 a submitted QM
report must include, at minimum: (1) A
certification by the Governor (or
Governor’s designee) that the SIP
control strategy is being implemented
consistent with the RFP plan, as
described in the applicable attainment
plan; (2) technical support, including
65 General Preamble, 57 FR 13539 (April 16,
1992); and Addendum, 59 FR 42016 (August 16,
1994).
66 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1).
67 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
68 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016) (codified at 40
CFR part 51, subpart Z).
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35869
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
calculations, sufficient to document
completion statistics for appropriate
milestones and to demonstrate that the
QM has been satisfied and how the
emissions reductions achieved to date
compare to those required or scheduled
to meet RFP; and (3) a discussion of
whether the area will attain the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the
projected attainment date for the area.69
These reports should include
calculations and any assumptions made
by the state concerning how RFP has
been met, e.g., through quantification of
emission reductions to date.70
2. QM Demonstration in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan and 2019 QM Report
a. Allegheny County Area QM
Demonstration
The September 30, 2019 SIP revision
describes ACHD’s approach to
demonstrating compliance with the QM
requirements of CAA section 189, in
which measured air quality
concentrations, as well as future
projected air quality concentrations, are
used to satisfy the milestone reporting
requirement. For the Allegheny County
moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area,
these QMs must to be reported to EPA
for the milestone years 2019 and (if
applicable) 2022. The QM report for
year 2019 was due January 14, 2020 (i.e.,
90 days after the first milestone date of
October 15, 2019). The second report for
the 2022 milestone would be required
only if the area failed to attain the
NAAQS by its 2021 attainment date and
were to be reclassified to a serious area.
In that case, a 2022 milestone report
would be due by January 14, 2023.
Because the Liberty monitor was the
only monitor in the Allegheny County
area not meeting the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS when EPA designated the area
nonattainment and is currently not
meeting the NAAQS, ACHD based its
QMs on the design values for the Liberty
monitor. For the 2019 QM
demonstration in the September 20,
2019 SIP, ACHD calculated the expected
design values at the Liberty monitor
based on a linear regression over a 10year timeframe (from 2011 to the 2021
attainment year). The air quality
modeling in the Allegheny County Plan
predicts that the area will attain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its
December 31, 2021 attainment deadline.
ACHD assumed that the 2019–2021
design value at the Liberty monitor
would be equal to the level of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, or 12 mg/m3.
Assuming linear progress, ACHD
calculated 2019 design values for the
Liberty monitor for both the annual and
24-hour 71 PM2.5 NAAQS in Table 12.
TABLE 12—LIBERTY MONITOR AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATION MILESTONES
[μg/m3]
Base year
(2011)
Liberty design value
Annual ..................................................................................
24-Hour ................................................................................
b. Allegheny County PM2.5 Area 2019
QM Report
Projected year
(2021)
15.0
44
¥0.3
¥0.9
12.0
35
that report dated April 8, 2020,
(collectively, the 2019 QM Report). The
2019 QM Report includes air quality
monitoring data reports from AQS
showing that the 2016–2018 design
values for the Liberty monitor met the
PADEP submitted the Allegheny
County 2019 QM Report to EPA on
January 14, 2020 and a supplement to
Linear yearly
rate
Milestone year
(2019)
Milestone year
(2022)
12.6
37
12.0
35
milestone levels set forth in Table 12. In
addition, the preliminary 72 2017–2019
design values at the Liberty monitor are
lower than the 2016–2018 design
values. The data is presented in Table
13.
TABLE 13—LIBERTY MONITOR DESIGN VALUES FOR THE 2012 ANNUAL AND 24 HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS
[In μg/m3]
2019
Milestone
NAAQS
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Annual ..........................................................................................................................................
24-Hour ........................................................................................................................................
AQS reports submitted in the 2019
QM Report continue to show that all
other monitors in the Allegheny County
area have design values lower than
those of the Liberty monitor. To
demonstrate RFP is being met, as part of
the 2019 QM Report ACHD verified that
all controls listed as part of the plan’s
control strategy remain in place.
Further, ACHD states that, ‘‘RFP is being
achieved for Allegheny County and
69 40
70 Id.
CFR 51.1013(b).
at pp. 42016–42017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
12.6
37
2017–2019
Preliminary
12.4
35
progress should continue toward
attainment, to be achieved by the
attainment date of December 31, 2021.’’
Furthermore, PADEP concurred with
ACHD’s certification that the control
strategy is being implemented in
Allegheny County consistent with the
RFP plan and that milestones are being
achieved as included in the SIP.
In the attainment plan, ACHD
developed the 2019 RFP milestone
emissions inventory by linearly
interpolating 2011 base year and
projected 2021 attainment year
emissions inventories used in its
modeled attainment demonstration. In
the 2019 QM report, ACHD presented
updated actual emissions data for the
stationary point source sector of the
emissions inventory for 2017 and 2018,
along with prior data for the 2011–2016
period, as listed in Table 14.
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is set at 35 mg/m3.
2019 data is fully validated and qualityassured, but not yet certified. The 2019 data must
be certified by May 1, 2020, in accordance with 40
CFR 58.15.
71 The
72 The
Jkt 250001
12.6
37
2016–2018
Final
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35870
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14—ANNUAL ALLEGHENY COUNTY POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2011–2018, WITH YEARLY LINEAR
PROGRESS RATES
[In tons/year]
Point source emissions
(tons/year)
Pollutant
2011
PM2.5 ............................................
SO2 ...............................................
NOX ..............................................
2012
2,503
13,460
11,128
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1013(b)(3), the
QM report must include a discussion of
whether the PM2.5 NAAQS will be
attained by the projected attainment
date for the area. ACHD’s 2019 QM
report contains an evaluation of ambient
air quality trends, meteorology, and
emission control strategies. In the 2019
QM Report, ACHD concludes that it
2013
1,725
6,542
11,881
2014
1,822
6,032
13,073
2015
2,127
8,593
13,715
1,511
5,279
10,278
expects the area to attain the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the December
31, 2021 attainment date. The 2019
report also contains a trend analysis of
the Liberty monitor showing a decline
in monitored PM2.5 concentrations
through 2019. An accompanying
analysis of quarterly means for the
Liberty monitor from 1999 to 2019
2016
2017
1,373
4,864
8,560
2018
1,282
4,758
6,337
Linear
progress
yearly
rate
1,360
7,122
6,925
¥145
¥716
¥882
shows that the lowest quarterly means
have occurred in the last four years,
with three of the record-low quarters
occurring in the last two years. The
annual weighted PM2.5 means for the
Liberty monitor are shown in Table 15
for the 2009–2019 period.
TABLE 15—LIBERTY MONITOR ANNUAL WEIGHTED MEAN CONCENTRATIONS, 2009–2019
Metric
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Liberty weighted mean (μg/m3) ........
15.0
16.0
14.0
14.3
12.0
12.7
12.9
12.8
13.4
11.5
12.2
Note: ACHD observes that concentrations are declining based on emission controls, but differences in the yearly concentrations at the Liberty
monitor show dependence on the frequency and severity of inversions. Inversions were less frequent in 2013 and more prevalent in 2012 and
2017.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
ACHD concludes that, based on
monitored data, meteorology, and
controls, ACHD expects that the
Allegheny County Area will attain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by or before
its December 31, 2021 attainment
deadline.
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on the QM Demonstration
EPA has reviewed the QM
demonstration contained in the
September 30, 2019 moderate area
attainment plan for the Allegheny
County Area, as well as the 2019 QM
Report submitted to EPA on January 14,
2020 (as supplemented on April 8,
2020). This demonstration confirms that
the monitored ambient air quality levels
in the area satisfy EPA requirements for
milestone levels.
The 2019 QM report shows that 2016–
2018 design values for the Liberty
monitor (the only monitor that did not
meet the NAAQS since the area was
designated nonattainment) met the
milestone test established by ACHD in
the attainment plan. Preliminary 2017–
2019 design values at the Liberty
monitor presented in the 2019 QM
report are lower than the 2016–2018
design values. Finally, air quality data
reports from EPA’s AQS show that the
2016–2018 design values for the Liberty
monitor met the QM levels set out in the
attainment plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
EPA has reviewed the RFP data
presented in the 2019 QM Report and
finds that the Allegheny County area
has made demonstrable progress in
reducing emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5
significant precursors since EPA
designated the area nonattainment for
the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2015. Comparing
stationary source emissions in the 2019
QM Report to those predicted in the
attainment plan for 2019, EPA finds that
the most recent emissions inventory is
well below the RFP milestone.
Therefore, EPA finds that emissions
reductions are meeting RFP through the
2019 period.
EPA determined in an April 22, 2020
letter to PADEP that (based on its review
of information contained in the plan
and additional information provided in
the 2019 QM report) ACHD has
adequately demonstrated that the 2019
QMs for a moderate area plan have been
met. The 2019 QM Report contains each
of the required components to meet the
QM requirements of CAA section
189(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1013(b).
For further information on EPA’s
review of the QM methodology and the
2019 QM Report, please refer to our TSD
on the 2019 QM Report prepared in
support of this action, which is
available in the docket.73
73 By letter dated April 22, 2020, from EPA
Regional Administrator Servidio to PADEP
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
H. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency
Measures
In accordance with section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule requires that attainment
demonstrations for moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas include
contingency measures.74 Contingency
measures are additional control
measures to be implemented in the
event that EPA determines that an area
failed to meet RFP requirements
(including associated QMs) or failed to
attain the PM2.5 primary standard by the
applicable attainment date.
In order for contingency measures to
be approvable as part of a state’s PM2.5
moderate area attainment plan, the
measures must meet the following
requirements set forth in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1014:
(1) The contingency measures must be
fully adopted rules or control measures
that are ready to be implemented
quickly upon a determination by the
Administrator of the nonattainment
area’s failure to meet RFP, failure to
meet any QM, failure to submit a QM
Secretary McDonnell, EPA determined that ACHD
adequately demonstrated that the 2019 QMs
provided in the attainment plan have been met.
74 See 40 CFR 51.1014 and 81 FR 58010 at p.
58066, August 24, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
report or failure to attain the standard
by the applicable attainment date; (2)
the plan must contain trigger
mechanisms for the contingency
measures, specify a schedule for
implementation, and indicate that the
measures will be implemented with
minimal further action by the state or by
EPA; 75 (3) the contingency measures
shall consist of control measures that
are not otherwise included in the
control strategy or that achieve
emissions reductions not otherwise
relied upon in the control strategy for
the area; and (4) the contingency
measures should provide for emissions
reductions approximately equivalent to
one year’s worth of reductions needed
for RFP.
2. Contingency Measures in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
Section 8 (Contingency Measures) of
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
identifies as contingency measures two
actions for the mitigation of primary
PM2.5 from the U.S. Steel Clairton Plant
that are to be implemented as the result
of a July 27, 2019 settlement agreement
and order (#19060) between ACHD and
U.S. Steel. These actions, which include
the installation of a cover and/or air
curtain and the installation of a new
combustion (under-firing) stack at the
U.S. Steel Clairton Works, are to be
implemented by May 1, 2020 and
November 1, 2021, respectively. ACHD
predicts that, based on additional
modeling, these two actions will lead to
a reduction in absolute annual modeled
impacts of 0.10 mg/m3 at the Liberty
monitor (AQS Site ID 42–003–0064) and
that the resulting 2022 PM2.5 annual
design value will be lowered by 0.07 mg/
m3. ACHD did not include these
expected reductions in PM2.5 emissions
at the U.S. Steel Clairton facility in the
emissions inventory portion of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on Contingency Measures
EPA does not consider the two actions
contained in the July 27, 2019
settlement agreement and order to be
suitable contingency measures.
According to the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, ‘‘Contingency
measures must be fully adopted rules or
control measures that are ready to be
75 According to the PM
2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
states must show that the contingency measures can
be implemented with minimal further action and no
additional rulemaking actions, such as public
hearings or legislative review. EPA generally
expects all actions needed to effect full
implementation of the contingency measures to
occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the state of
the area’s failure to meet an RFP requirement or
attain the NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
implemented quickly upon a
determination by the Administrator of
the nonattainment area’s failure to meet
RFP, failure to meet any QM, failure to
submit a QM report or failure to attain
the standard by the applicable
attainment date.’’ 81 FR 58010 at 58066,
August 24, 2016.
Contingency measures are to be
implemented only if they are
‘‘triggered’’ in the event of the
Administrator’s determination that the
Area failed to meet RFP requirements
(including associated QMs) or failed to
attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. The
installation of the air curtain and stack
at the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works
will be implemented regardless of
whether the Allegheny County Area
fails to meet the RFP requirements or
attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
attainment date. Measures that will be
implemented regardless of being
triggered are not considered appropriate
to use as contingency measures.
Therefore, EPA cannot fully approve
Section 8 (Contingency Measures) of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan because
the two measures in the settlement
agreement and order do not meet the
contingency measures requirements of
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 40
CFR 51.1014.
EPA informed ACHD of this concern
prior to the publication of ACHD’s
proposed plan. In response, PADEP
submitted a letter to EPA dated April
20, 2020, concurring with ACHD’s
commitment to adopt specific
contingency measures and an
attainment year MVEB in accordance
with EPA’s proposed conditional
approval of those elements of the
September 30, 2019 SIP revision. In its
April 7, 2020 letter to PADEP, ACHD
commits to adopt measures from the
following list that will provide for a
reduction of 34 tons per year of direct
PM2.5 emissions countywide (or an
equivalent reduction in combination of
PM2.5 precursors), or 9.4 tons per year of
PM2.5 in the immediate vicinity of the
Liberty monitor. Measures include
implementation of the following at the
U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works: (1)
Increased residence times for the
Pushing Emission Control (PEC) hoods
during the pushing process (as
described in ACHD Article XXI
§ 2105.21.e.6) for batteries 1–3, 13–15,
and 19–20; (2) increased baffle washing
for the Quench Towers; (3) road and
parking lot paving; and (4)
improvements to the PEC baghouses.
Additional potential measures include
road paving on a portion of unpaved
public county roads; adoption of an
ordinance to restrict sale and use of
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35871
heavy fuel oil and/or waste derived
liquid fuel (WDLF) in Allegheny
County; expansion of an existing wood
stove change out program; repowering
or replacement of tugboats and/or
locomotives utilized by the U.S. Steel
Mon Valley Works facilities; and
replacement of locomotives at the
McKeesport switchyard with new,
cleaner equipment that meets the most
recent standards.
After adopting measures, PADEP will
submit a SIP revision, on behalf of
ACHD, containing the adopted measures
and meeting the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 40
CFR 51.1014. In addition, the
contingency measures section will
include a description of the trigger
mechanisms and schedules for
implementation of the contingency
measures, as required by section
51.1014. ACHD and PADEP have
committed to submit the contingency
measures SIP revision to EPA as
expeditiously as possible, but no later
than one year after the effective date of
EPA’s final notice of conditional
approval of the September 30, 2019 SIP
revision.
However, as stated previously, the
expected emission reductions from the
installation of the air curtain and stack
at the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works
were not included in the emissions
inventory included in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan. Therefore, it is
expected that these actions will provide
for additional emission reductions
beyond those projected in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan. Thus, the
installation of the air curtain and stack
at Clairton provide additional assurance
that the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS will be
attained in the Allegheny County
nonattainment area by the attainment
date.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the
installation of the air curtain and stack
at the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works
are better suited as additional control
measures for attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS in the Allegheny County Area.
EPA is proposing to approve the
installation of the air curtain and stack
at the Clairton Coke Works contained in
the settlement agreement and order
(#19060) referenced in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan as additional control
measures for the attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS in the Allegheny County
nonattainment area.
EPA is also proposing to conditionally
approve the contingency measures
portion of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan. As discussed previously, ACHD
commits to adopt contingency measures
and submit, through PADEP, a
supplemental SIP revision consisting of
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35872
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
a revised contingency measures section
of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan that
includes adopted contingency measures
from the April 20, 2020 letter and meets
the requirements of the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1014.
EPA’s approval of the contingency
measures portion of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan is contingent on
ACHD’s adoption of approvable
contingency measures and submittal of
a SIP revision that meets the
contingency measures requirements of
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 40
CFR 51.1014.
I. Transportation Conformity and
MVEBs
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
Federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the
SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing
the severity and number of violations of
the NAAQS and achieving expeditious
attainment of the standards. Conformity
to the SIP’s goals means that such
actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen
the severity of an existing violation, or
(3) delay timely attainment of any
NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA requires
that transportation plans, programs, and
projects which are funded or approved
under title 23 of the United States Code
must be determined to conform with
state or Federal air implementation
plans. A MVEB is that portion of the
total allowable emissions allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use that are
defined in the implementation plan for
a control strategy SIP revision.76
Actions involving Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to EPA’s
transportation conformity rule, codified
at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this
rule, the area metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) coordinates with
state and local air quality and
transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA,
and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s
regional transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs
conform to the applicable SIP.77 This
76 EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule at 40
CFR 93.101 defines a ‘‘control strategy SIP revision’’
as a ‘‘plan which contains specific strategies for
controlling the emissions and reducing ambient
levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA
requirements of RFP and attainment.’’
77 The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
(SPC) is the official Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the 10-county Southwestern
Pennsylvania Region, which includes the City of
Pittsburgh and surrounding counties—including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
conformity demonstration is typically
done by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned
highway and transit systems are less
than or equal to the MVEB contained in
all control strategy SIPs.78 An
attainment, maintenance, or RFP plan
SIP should include budgets for the
attainment year, each required RFP
milestone year, and the last year of the
maintenance plan, as appropriate.
Budgets are generally established for
specific years and specific pollutants or
precursors and must reflect all of the
motor vehicle control measures
contained in the applicable plan.79 For
MVEBs to be approvable, they must
meet, at a minimum, EPA’s conformity
adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
All PM2.5 control strategy SIP MVEBs
must include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle
emissions (including emissions from
tailpipes, brake wear, and tire wear).80
Precursors of PM2.5 must also be
included in the MVEB, in certain
circumstances. NOX is included in
PM2.5 nonattainment area MVEBs,
unless both EPA Regional Administrator
and the director of the state air agency
made a finding that transportationrelated emissions of NOX are
insignificant to PM2.5 nonattainment in
the area.81 Other potential PM2.5
precursor emissions, such as VOC, SO2
and NH3 are only included in PM2.5 area
MVEBs if EPA has determined them to
be significant in the area.82
In order for a pollutant or precursor
to be considered an insignificant
contributor, the control strategy SIP
must demonstrate that it is unreasonable
to expect that such an area would
experience enough motor vehicle
emissions growth in that pollutant/
precursor for a NAAQS violation to
occur. Insignificance determinations are
based on factors such as air quality, SIP
motor vehicle control measures, trends
and projections of motor vehicle
emissions, and the percentage of the
total SIP inventory that is comprised of
motor vehicle emissions.83 ACHD did
Allegheny County. SPC is responsible for planning
and prioritizing the use of all state and Federal
transportation funds allocated to the region.
78 See 40 CFR 93.118(a).
79 See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
80 Per 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), direct PM
2.5 emissions
from re-entrained road dust need only be included
in the MVEB if EPA Regional Administrator or the
director of the state air agency has made a finding
that re-entrained road dust emissions within the
area are a significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem or if the applicable SIP
includes re-entrained road dust in the budget as
part of the RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.
81 See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
82 See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v).
83 See 40 CFR 93.109(f) for criteria for
insignificance determinations. EPA’s rationale for
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not submit and is not seeking an
insignificance determination for NOX.
2. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Attainment
Plan
The Commonwealth’s September 30,
2019 SIP revision lacks a MVEB specific
to the 2012 PM2.5 attainment plan for
the attainment year of 2021. Instead, the
SIP revision refers to existing MVEBs for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
established by EPA’s approval of the
maintenance plan for the PittsburghBeaver Valley area for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.84 This maintenance
plan included MVEBs for 2017 and
2025, for the larger Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley area (comprised of part of
Allegheny County (excluding the
Liberty-Clairton area), Beaver, Butler,
Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties, as well as portions of
Armstrong County, Greene, and
Lawrence Counties).
Neither EPA nor the Commonwealth’s
air director have made transportationrelated insignificance findings for NOX,
and EPA has not determined that
transportation-related emissions of SO2,
VOC, or NH3 are significant in
Allegheny County. Therefore, there is
no established MVEB for SO2, VOC, and
NH3 in any approved control strategy
SIP for the Allegheny County PM2.5 area.
ACHD has determined VOC and NH3 to
be insignificant as precursors to PM2.5
nonattainment as part of the attainment
plan.85 Therefore, transportation
conformity requirements are applicable
only to PM2.5 and NOX for the Allegheny
County Area.
3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action on the Intended MVEB
EPA is proposing to find that ACHD’s
plan failed to establish a MVEB for the
2012 PM2.5 attainment plan control
strategy SIP for the 2021 attainment
year, as required for emission budgets
by 40 CFR 93.118. A budget is required
for each NAAQS for each control
strategy SIP, so that conformity can be
demonstrated via a ‘‘budget’’ test for
that particular area and control strategy
milestone.86
Because the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan fails to establish an attainment year
2021 MVEB for PM2.5 and NOX, EPA
cannot approve this element of the plan
at this time. However, PADEP
subsequently submitted a letter to EPA
allowing insignificance determinations is described
in the July 1, 2004 revision to the Transportation
Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004.
84 See 80 FR 59624, October 2, 2015.
85 See Section 5 (Modeling Demonstration) of the
September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
86 See 40 CFR 93.118(a), (b), and (e).
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
dated April 20, 2020, committing to
remedy this deficiency by establishing a
MVEB in accordance with EPA’s
Transportation Conformity Rule
requirements by September 30, 2020.
Because ACHD and the MPO have
identified the actual MVEB to be
established as part of their April 20,
2020 commitment, EPA is including the
MVEB in this action for informational
purposes only. The MVEB must still be
adopted by Allegheny County through
its normal SIP development process,
which includes EPA’s related
35873
requirements to undergo public
comment. The April 20, 2020
commitment letter clearly identifies the
MVEB that ACHD and the MPO intend
to propose for the 2021 attainment year,
as shown in Table 16.
TABLE 16—ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS ATTAINMENT YEAR INTENDED MVEB FOR DIRECT PM2.5 AND
NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx)
Motor vehicle emissions budget year
Direct PM2.5
on-road
emissions
(tons per year)
NOX on-road
emissions
(tons per year)
2021 .........................................................................................................................................................................
266
5,708
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Remedy of this MVEB-related
deficiency of the September 30, 2019
SIP revision entails: Identifying the
attainment year MVEB in a
supplemental SIP revision; conducting a
public comment process on the
identified MVEB (per the requirements
of EPA conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.118(e)); and formally submitting the
established MVEB to EPA as a
supplemental revision to the attainment
plan SIP revision. EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the MVEB
element of the SIP submittal until
ACHD remedies the deficiency with the
2021 MVEB.
IV. Summary of Proposed Action and
Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is
proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s
September 30, 2019 SIP revision to
address the CAA’s Moderate area
planning requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Allegheny County
nonattainment area—with the exception
of the contingency measures and MVEB
elements of the plan, which EPA
proposes to conditionally approve.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve the following elements of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan:
(1) The 2011 base year emissions
inventory as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3);
(2) The RACM/RACT demonstration
as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C);
(3) The attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(B);
(4) The RFP demonstration as meeting
the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(2); and
(5) The QM demonstration as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 189(c).
EPA also proposes to conditionally
approve the MVEB and contingency
measures elements of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan. Under section
110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
conditionally approve a plan based on
a commitment from the Commonwealth
to adopt specific enforceable measures
within a date certain no more than one
year from the date of final conditional
approval. If Pennsylvania fails to meet
its commitments by the commitment
date, the approval is treated as a
disapproval.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the following
elements of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan:
(1) The attainment year 2021 MVEB,
as the plan failed to identify the MVEB,
as required by CAA section 176(c) and
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. However,
Pennsylvania submitted a commitment
letter to EPA on April 20, 2020
transmitting ACHD’s April 7, 2020 letter
that identifies their proposed MVEB for
2021 and commits to finalize a 2021
budget (following public notice and
comment) and to submit it to EPA by
September 30, 2020 as a revision to this
SIP submission and;
(2) The contingency measures in
Section 8 (Contingency Measures) of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, as the
submitted contingency measures do not
satisfy the requirements of the CAA
section 172(c)(9) or the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 51.1014.
Upon receipt of that subsequent SIP
submission, EPA will take separate
action to determine whether those
adopted contingency measures satisfy
relevant EPA requirements for
contingency measures.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document.
The deadline and instructions for
submission of comments are provided
in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of
this action. EPA will consider any
received comments prior to finalizing
this proposed action.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 proposed 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);
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
35874
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 114 / Friday, June 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
• 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, this proposed rule
proposing to approve the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan (with the exception
of the contingency measures and MVEB
elements, which EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve) does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the Commonwealth, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 4, 2020
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020–12499 Filed 6–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698; FRL–10009–66–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AU81
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Listing of Substitutes Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy program, this action proposes to
list certain substances in the
refrigeration and air conditioning sector
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jun 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
and the foam blowing sector. For the
retail food refrigeration—mediumtemperature stand-alone units (new)
end-use, EPA is proposing to list
substitutes as acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits. For the residential
and light commercial air conditioning
and heat pumps (new) end-use, EPA is
proposing to list substitutes as
acceptable subject to use conditions. For
the foam blowing sector, extruded
polystyrene: Boardstock and billet enduse, EPA is proposing to list substitutes
as acceptable. This action also proposes
to remove an acceptable subject to use
conditions listing for the fire
suppression sector because EPA more
recently listed the substitute as
acceptable with no use restrictions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 27, 2020. Any party
requesting a public hearing must notify
the contact listed below under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on June 17, 2020.
If a virtual hearing is held, it will take
place on or before June 29, 2020 and
further information will be provided on
EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone website at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698, to
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, EPA’s full public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Docket Center and Reading
Room was closed to public visitors on
March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://
www.regulations.gov or email, as there
is a temporary suspension of mail
delivery to EPA, and no hand deliveries
are currently accepted. For further
information on EPA Docket Center
services and the current status, please
visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code
6205T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–564–0983; email address:
thompson.christina@epa.gov. Notices
and rulemakings under EPA’s
Significant New Alternatives Policy
program are available on EPA’s
Stratospheric Ozone website at https://
www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary and Background
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are
used in the preamble?
II. What is EPA proposing in this action?
A. Retail Food Refrigeration—Proposed
Listing of R–448A, R–449A and R–449B
as Acceptable, Subject to Narrowed Use
Limits, for Retail Food Refrigeration—
Medium-Temperature Stand-Alone Units
(New)
1. Background on Retail Food
Refrigeration—Medium-Temperature
Stand-Alone Units
2. What are R–448A, R–449A and R–449B
and how do they compare to other
refrigerants in the same end-use?
3. Summary of AHRI Petition
4. What is EPA proposing for R–448A,
R–449A and R–449B?
B. Residential and Light Commercial Air
Conditioning and Heat Pumps—
Proposed Listing of R–452B, R–454A,
R–454B, R–454C, and R–457A as
Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions,
for Use in Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps End-Use for New Equipment; and
R–32 as Acceptable, Subject to Use
Conditions, for Use in Residential and
Light Commercial Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps—Equipment Other Than
Self-Contained Room Air Conditioners,
for New Equipment
1. Background on Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps
2. What are the ASHRAE classifications for
refrigerant flammability?
3. What are R–32, R–452B, R–454A, R–
454B, R–454C, and R–457A and how do
they compare to other refrigerants in the
same end-use?
4. Why is EPA proposing these specific use
conditions?
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35852-35874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12499]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157; FRL-10010-42-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Area Attainment
Plan for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) to
address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') requirements for the 2012
annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Allegheny County
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area (``Allegheny County
area''). The SIP revision contains the ``Attainment Demonstration for
the Allegheny County, PA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 2012
NAAQS,'' submitted on September 30, 2019 (also referred to as ``the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan'' or simply ``the plan''). EPA
is proposing to fully approve the following elements of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan: The base year emissions inventory, the
particulate matter precursor contribution demonstration, the reasonably
available control measures/reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT) demonstration, the attainment demonstration, the air
quality modeling demonstration supporting attainment by the attainment
deadline, the reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, and the
a demonstration of interim quantitative milestones to ensure timely
attainment. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the following
elements of this Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan SIP revision:
The contingency measures and the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB)
elements of the plan. PADEP commits, on behalf of ACHD, to submit a
supplemental SIP revision to remedy those portions of the plan for
which EPA is proposing conditional approval within twelve months of
EPA's final conditional approval action. This action is being taken
under the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0157 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment.
[[Page 35853]]
The written comment is considered the official comment and should
include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is (215) 814-2176. Mr. Rehn can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Clean Air Act Plan Requirements for Areas Designated Moderate
Nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS
III. Review of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
A. Emissions Inventories for the Base Year and Attainment Year
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
2. Emissions Inventories in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the Emission
Inventories
B. Particulate Matter Precursor Demonstration
1. PM2.5 Precursor Requirements
2. Precursor Demonstration in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the Precursor
Demonstration
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
2. RACM Analysis in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
a. RACM Measures Evaluation
3. RACT Analysis in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
a. RACT Measures Evaluation
4. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on RACM and RACT
D. Air Quality Modeling
1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
2. Air Quality Modeling in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on Modeling
E. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for an Attainment Demonstration
2. Attainment Demonstration in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation of ACHD's PM2.5 Attainment
Demonstration
4. EPA's Proposed Action on the PM2.5 Attainment
Demonstration
F. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
1. Requirements for Ensuring Reasonable Further Progress
2. RFP Demonstration in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation of and Proposed Action on RFP
G. Quantitative Milestone (QM) Demonstration
1. Requirements for a QM Demonstration
2. QM Demonstration in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan and 2019 QM Report
a. Allegheny County Area QM Demonstration
b. Allegheny County PM2.5 Area 2019 QM Report
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the QM Demonstration
H. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
2. Contingency Measures in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on Contingency Measures
I. Transportation Conformity and MVEBs
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
2. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Attainment Plan
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the Intended MVEB
IV. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA has established NAAQS for certain
pervasive air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria pollutants'') and
conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should
be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established. EPA sets the
NAAQS for criteria pollutants at levels required to protect public
health and welfare. ``Primary'' NAAQS are those determined by EPA as
requisite to protect human health, while ``secondary'' NAAQS are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of the NAAQS pollutant.\1\
Particulate matter is one of the criteria pollutants for which EPA has
established health-based standards. The CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control particulate matter emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CAA section 109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter includes particles with diameters that are
generally 2.5 microns or smaller (referred to as PM2.5) and
particles with diameters that are generally 10 microns or smaller (or
PM10). Particulate matter has deleterious effects on the
environment, both to human health and to plants and wildlife. The
effects on human health include premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and decreased lung function.
Some individuals, such as older adults and people with lung or heart
disease, are particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure.
Impacts on the environment include impairment of visibility, as well as
damage to vegetation and ecosystems.\2\ Sources can directly emit
PM2.5 into the atmosphere, in the form of a solid or a
liquid particle (i.e., ``direct PM2.5'' or ``primary
PM2.5''). PM2.5 can also form as a result of
chemical reactions in the atmosphere of precursor pollutants emitted
from sources (i.e. ``secondary PM2.5''). Such secondary
PM2.5 precursor pollutants include nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 78 FR 3086, 3088 (January 15, 2013).
\3\ See EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No.
EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the particulate matter NAAQS to
establish new primary and secondary annual and 24-hour standards for
PM2.5.\4\ The annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. The 24-hour (daily) standard was set
at 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on the 3-year average of the annual 98th
percentile values of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each
population-oriented monitor within an area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).
\5\ In this action, EPA set primary and secondary standards at
the same level for both the 24-hour and the annual PM2.5
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2006,\6\ EPA revisited the particulate matter NAAQS,
retaining the annual average PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 [mu]g/m\3\,
but revising the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [micro]g/m\3\
(based on a 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile values of 24-
hour concentrations).\7\ On January 15, 2013, EPA finalized the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the annual standard to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, but retained the current 24-hour standard of 35
[micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-
hour concentrations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 71 FR 61144.
\7\ Under 40 CFR part 50, the primary and secondary 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the annual arithmetic mean
concentration (as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N) is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ at all
relevant monitoring sites in the subject area, averaged over a 3-
year period.
\8\ See 78 FR 3086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35854]]
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. EPA designated and classified the
Allegheny County area as ``Moderate'' nonattainment for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 standards based on ambient monitoring data that showed
the area was above 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 2011-2013 monitoring
period.\9\ Based on monitoring data for the 2011-2013 period, the
PM2.5 annual design values for the Liberty monitor [AIRS ID
42-00300064] were 13.4 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Allegheny County 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area lies
in southwestern Pennsylvania and in 2018 had a population of 1,218,452
persons. Pittsburgh is the largest city in Allegheny County, which also
contains the Cities of Clairton, Duquesne, and McKeesport. In total,
the County has 130 self-governing municipalities. Allegheny County has
complex, mountainous terrain cut by numerous river valleys, which can
work to trap locally generated air pollutants. Within the County, some
river valleys lie at less than 720 feet in elevation above mean sea
level (MSL), while adjacent hilltops can be greater than 1250 feet--
with frequently large temperature differences between the hilltop and
valley floor (e.g. 2 to 7 [deg]F) during clear, light-wind, nighttime
conditions. The combination of higher elevation mountainous terrain and
river valleys, in conjunction with cool weather, traps locally
generated pollution and makes the area prone to atmospheric inversions
that impair PM2.5 dispersion, sometimes for multiple days,
particularly during winter. The Liberty monitor sits above the east
bank of the Monongahela River at an elevation of 1,100 feet,
immediately downwind of the highest emitting PM2.5
stationary source in the area, the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works,
which lies in the river valley at an elevation 300 feet below the
monitor. As a result, the monitored PM2.5 values at the
Liberty monitor are sometimes far higher than those of other monitors
in the surrounding region.
ACHD has the primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area, working in
conjunction with the PADEP in preparing the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan. Under Pennsylvania law, authority for regulating
sources in the area is split between the County and Pennsylvania, with
ACHD having primary responsibility for regulating stationary sources in
the area.
II. Clean Air Act Plan Requirements for Areas Designated Moderate
Nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS
A January 4, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit decision \10\ stated that EPA must implement
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to title I, part D, subpart 4 of the
CAA, which contains provisions specifically concerning PM10
nonattainment areas. With respect to the statutory requirements for
attainment plans for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, general
CAA nonattainment area planning requirements are found in part D,
subpart 1, and planning requirements specific to areas designated
Moderate for particulate matter are found in subpart 4 of part D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F. 3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has a longstanding general guidance document interpreting the
1990 amendments to the CAA, referred to as the General Preamble for the
Implementation of title I of the Clean Air Act of 1990 (or the
``General Preamble'').\11\ The General Preamble addresses the
relationship between the requirements of CAA part D, subpart 1 and
subpart 4, and provides recommendations to states for meeting certain
statutory requirements for particulate matter attainment plans. As
explained in the General Preamble, requirements specific to Moderate
area attainment plan SIP submissions for particulate matter NAAQS are
set forth in subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA. However, such SIP
submissions must also meet the general attainment planning provisions
in subpart 1 of part D, title I of the CAA, to the extent these
provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,''
the more specific subpart 4 requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
\12\ See 57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA also promulgated the
``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard: State
Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule'' (or the
``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule'').\13\ The PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule provides additional regulatory requirements and
guidance applicable to attainment plan submissions for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS that is the subject of this action. The PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule also clarifies how states should meet the statutory
SIP requirements that apply to areas designated nonattainment for any
PM2.5 NAAQS under both subparts 1 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA subpart 1 statutory requirements for attainment plans
include: (i) The section 172(c)(1) requirements for RACM/RACT and
attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to
demonstrate RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3) requirement for
preparation of emissions inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5)
requirements for adoption of a nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement to adopt
contingency measures.
Requirements specific to Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
areas under CAA subpart 4 include: (i) The section 189(a)(1)(A) and
189(e) NNSR permit program requirements; (ii) the section 189(a)(1)(B)
requirements for attainment demonstrations; (iii) the section
189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and QMs. Under CAA subpart 4, states with Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas must provide for attainment in the
area as expeditiously as practicable (but no later than December 31,
2021) for the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS. In addition, under
CAA subpart 4, direct PM2.5 (and all precursors to the
formation of PM2.5) are subject to control unless EPA
approves a demonstration from the state establishing that a given
precursor does not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 40 CFR 51.1006 and 51.1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Review of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
A. Emissions Inventories for the Base Year and Attainment Year
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area . .
.'' By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of
the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base
year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, this includes emissions of direct
PM2.5 as well as the main chemical precursors to the
formation of secondary PM2.5, including NOX,
SO2, VOCs, and ammonia (NH3). Primary
PM2.5 is comprised of both
[[Page 35855]]
condensable and filterable particulate matter components.
EPA PM2.5 requirements rule establishes that ``the base
year inventory for the nonattainment area: (a) Be required to represent
one of the 3 years used for designations or another technically
appropriate year; (b) include actual emissions of all sources within
the nonattainment area; (c) be annual total or average-season-day
emissions in accordance with the NAAQS violation; (d) include direct
PM2.5 (filterable and condensable) as well as all scientific
PM2.5 precursors . . .'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 81 FR 58027-58033, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state must include in its SIP submission documentation explaining
how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source
emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning
assumptions available at the time it develops the SIP submission.\16\
States are also required to use EPA's ``Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors'' (AP-42) \17\ road dust method for calculating re-
entrained road dust emissions from paved roads.\18\ MOVES is EPA's
state-of-the-art tool for estimating emissions from on-road mobile
sources. At the time ACHD prepared the SIP, MOVES2014a was the latest
available version of the MOVES model, which included new data, emission
standards, and functional improvements and features over prior versions
of the model.\19\ EPA subsequently released an updated MOVES model
(MOVES2014b) in August 2018, which better estimates non-road mobile
emissions compared to MOVES2014a. However, MOVES2014b was not available
at the time ACHD began working on emission inventories in support of
this plan, and EPA does not consider MOVES2014b a new model for SIP and
transportation conformity purposes.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for
State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity,
and Other Purposes,'' (EPA-420-B-14-008; July 2014), p. 6.
\17\ EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011 that
revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based
on an updated data regression that included new emission tests
results.
\18\ See 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011).
\19\ See EPA guidance document ``Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation
Conformity, and Other Purposes'' (EPA-420-B-14-008; July 2014).
\20\ See EPA guidance document ``EPA Releases MOVES2014b Mobile
Source Emissions Model: Questions and Answers,'' (EPA-420-F-18-014;
August 2018), available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100V7H1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the State must also submit
future ``baseline inventories'' for the projected attainment year and
each RFP milestone year, and any other year of significance for meeting
applicable CAA requirements.\21\ By ``baseline inventories'' (also
referred to as ``projected baseline inventories''), we mean projected
emissions inventories for future years that account for, among other
things, the ongoing effects of economic growth and adopted emissions
control requirements. The SIP submission should include documentation
to explain how the state calculated the emissions projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 40 CFR 51.1007(a), 51.1008(b), and 51.1009(f). See also
U.S. EPA, ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
[and Particulate Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Emissions Inventories in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
The Allegheny County PM2.5 nonattainment area emissions
inventory has both small and medium city typical emission sources and
is home to several large industrial sources of PM2.5
pollution. The Monongahela River Valley contains the U.S. Steel
Corporation's Mon Valley Works, which includes the largest coke
manufacturing plant in the United States (the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke
Works) as well as the Irvin and Edgar Thomson steel works. The area is
also home (or nearby to) to several steel manufacturing facilities,
coal fired electric generating facilities, and other manufacturing and
industrial facilities.
As specified by EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule,
pollutants inventoried for the Allegheny County PM2.5 area
include primary (direct) PM2.5 along with precursors
SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3. Particulate
emissions are also transported into the Allegheny County area from
surrounding counties in southwestern Pennsylvania, as well as
surrounding, upwind states. EPA's Emissions Inventory Guidance for
PM2.5 specifies that PM10 should also be included
because PM10 emissions are often used as the basis for
calculating PM2.5.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See U.S. EPA, ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone [and Particulate Matter] National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,''
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2021 inventory is a projection of the 2011 base year inventory,
which accounts for expected growth trends for each source category, as
well as emission reductions from adopted and implemented control
measures. This projection inventory also factors in stationary source
shutdowns occurring since the base year. Local projections were focused
on PM2.5 and precursor reductions from stationary point
source emissions, while regional projections were based on reductions
from all sectors as incorporated into the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA) inventories. ACHD staff worked with
PADEP to develop the base year and projection emissions inventories for
the Allegheny County PM2.5 nonattainment area.
The base 2011 and future projection 2021 emissions inventories for
the Allegheny County PM2.5 area used in this demonstration
are found in Section 4 (Emissions Inventories) of the Commonwealth's
September 30, 2019 SIP revision, with detailed emissions inventories
found in Appendix D (Emissions Inventories) of the SIP revision.
Documentation of the regional inventory development is included in
Appendix E (Emissions Inventory Documentation) of the SIP revision, and
emissions inputs used for the modeling are described in Section 5
(Modeling Demonstration) and Appendix F (Modeling Protocols). Table 1
provides a summary of the 2011 base year emission inventory for the
Allegheny County area in tons per year (tpy) of direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors and also a summary of the 2021
projected emissions inventory.
[[Page 35856]]
Table 1--Base Year and Projected Attainment Year Emission Inventories for Allegheny County
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5
Allegheny County (total) (filterable) (condensable) PM10 SO2 NOX VOC NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Base Year Emission Inventory for Allegheny County, by Sector (Tons per Year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 2,503 1,338 1,164 2,987 13,460 11,128 1,169 207
Area Sources.................................... 2,491 2,011 480 4,683 1,528 6,979 11,200 621
Non-road Mobile Sources......................... 361 361 0 378 11 3,921 3,780 5
Highway Mobile Sources.......................... 450 450 0 984 78 13,259 7,383 304
Fires........................................... 24 24 0 29 2 5 64 4
Biogenic Sources................................ 0 0 0 0 0 166 5,876 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 5,829 4,185 1,644 9,061 15,080 35,460 29,972 1,141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 2,256 1,256 999 2,722 5,921 7,928 1,534 202
Area Sources.................................... 2,708 2,226 472 5,486 1,079 6,664 10,221 615
Non-road Mobile Sources......................... 234 234 0 248 5 2,212 2,752 6
Highway Mobile Sources.......................... 266 266 0 722 31 5,708 3,479 209
Fires........................................... 24 24 0 29 2 5 64 4
Biogenic Sources................................ 0 0 0 0 0 168 5,876 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 5,488 4,007 1,471 9,207 7,039 22,684 23,926 1,037
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the Emission Inventories
The emission inventories in the Allegheny County area
PM2.5 plan are based on the most current and accurate
information available to PADEP and ACHD at the time the attainment plan
was developed and used the most recently available tools and planning
assumptions. The emission inventories in the attainment plan
comprehensively address all source categories in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 nonattainment area and were developed consistent with
EPA's emission inventory preparation guidance. The selection of 2011
for use as a base year emissions inventory is one of the three years
(2011-2013) used for purposes of designation of the area and the 2021
projection emissions inventory corresponds to the moderate area
attainment deadline, in accordance with EPA's SIP requirements rule.
The inventories model direct PM2.5 (including the filterable
and condensable components), as well as PM2.5 precursor
emissions. For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2011 base
year emissions inventory in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). We are also
proposing to find that the 2021 projected inventory in the plan is an
adequate basis for the determination of RACM, RFP, and for
demonstrating attainment in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
For further information on our review of the emission inventories
supporting this plan, refer to EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD)
for Emission Inventories prepared in support of this action, which is
available in the docket.
B. Particulate Matter Precursor Demonstration
1. PM2.5 Precursor Requirements
The provisions of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA do not
define the term ``precursor'' for purposes of PM2.5, nor
does subpart 4 explicitly require the control of any specifically
identified PM precursor. However, the definition of ``air pollutant''
in CAA section 302(g) ``includes any precursors to the formation of any
air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term
`air pollutant' is used.''
In the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, EPA recognized that
treatment of PM2.5 precursors is an important issue in
developing a PM2.5 attainment plan.\23\ Therein, EPA
identified SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 as
precursors to formation of PM2.5. Accordingly, the
attainment plan requirements of subpart 4 apply to emissions of all
four precursor pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all types of
stationary, area, and mobile sources, except as otherwise provided in
the Act (e.g., in CAA section 189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See section III of EPA's PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule (81 FR 58017, August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(e) of the CAA requires that the control requirements
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 (which includes
PM2.5) also apply to major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10
levels that exceed the standard in the area. Section 189(e) contains
the only expressed exception to the control requirements under subpart
4 for sources of PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although section
189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, EPA
interprets the Act as authorizing it to also determine, under
appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific PM2.5
precursors from other sources in a given nonattainment area is not
necessary.
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect
to submit to EPA a ``comprehensive precursor demonstration'' for a
specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular
precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area.\24\ Such a comprehensive precursor
demonstration must include a concentration-based contribution analysis
(i.e., evaluation of the contribution of a particular precursor to
PM2.5 levels in the area) and may also include a
sensitivity-based contribution analysis (i.e., evaluation of the
sensitivity of PM2.5 levels in the area to a decrease in
emissions of the precursor). If EPA determines that the contribution of
the precursor to PM2.5 levels in the area is not significant
and approves the demonstration, the state is not required to control
emissions of the relevant precursor from existing sources in the
current attainment plan.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA issued PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance
(``Precursor
[[Page 35857]]
Guidance'') to provide recommendations to states for conducting an
optional, comprehensive precursor demonstration as part of an
attainment plan SIP submission.\26\ Section 1.1.1 of the Precursor
Guidance describes the steps for performing a precursor demonstration.
First, a concentration-based analysis should be performed to determine
whether all emissions of the relevant precursor contribute
significantly to total PM2.5 concentrations. If the
concentration-based analysis does not support a finding of
insignificant contribution, then a sensitivity analysis may be
conducted to evaluate, through air quality modeling, the effect of
reducing emissions of the precursor (by a certain percentage) from
either all existing emission sources of the precursor or only existing
major stationary sources of the precursor, on PM2.5 levels
in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Precursor Demonstration
Guidance,'' [EPA-454/R-19-004, May 30, 2019] https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/pm25-precursor-demonstration-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2.2 of the Precursor Guidance recommends the use of 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 1.5 [micro]g/
m\3\ for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as thresholds below which
ambient air quality impacts could be considered ``insignificant''
(i.e., impacts that do not ``contribute'' to PM2.5
concentrations that exceed the NAAQS). When considering whether a
precursor contributes significantly to PM2.5 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area, a state may also consider additional
factors based on the specific circumstances of the area. As to air
quality impacts that exceed the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ annual or 1.5
[micro]g/m\3\ 24-hour contribution thresholds, states may provide
additional support for a conclusion that a particular precursor does
not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that
exceed the NAAQS. States may consider other information, such as the
amount by which the impacts exceed the recommended contribution
threshold; the severity of nonattainment at relevant monitors and/or
grid cell locations in the area; anticipated growth or loss of sources;
analyses of speciation data and precursor emission inventories; and air
quality trends.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id. at p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Precursor Demonstration in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan
The Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan includes a comprehensive
precursor demonstration, which evaluates the impact of the precursors
VOC and NH3 to nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
in Allegheny County. The concentration-based analysis indicates that
all precursors show ambient monitored levels above the thresholds for
significant contribution.\28\ Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was
performed using Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions
(CAMx).\29\ CAMx is a Eulerian photochemical grid model that simulates
a wide variety of inert and chemically active pollutants, including
ozone, particulate matter, inorganic and organic PM2.5/
PM10, and mercury and other toxics. For the sensitivity
analysis, a total of three CAMx runs were used to evaluate
PM2.5 sensitivity to reductions of NH3 and VOC
emissions in Allegheny County: A base case and two sensitivity-case
runs. For one sensitivity-case run, anthropogenic emissions of VOC in
Allegheny County were reduced by 50%. For the other sensitivity-case
run, anthropogenic emissions of NH3 were reduced by 50%. For
both runs, the 50% reductions were applied to both point and area
source anthropogenic emissions with all other emissions held constant.
EPA's Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) was then used to model
design values at monitoring sites in Allegheny County with and without
the 50% reduction in VOC and NH3. Table 2 shows the
projected annual and 24-hour reductions in PM2.5 design
values (DVs) at the monitoring sites in the nonattainment area based on
the reductions for VOC and NH3. Additional information
regarding the sensitivity analysis can be found in Appendix I.4
(Precursor Insignificance Demonstration) of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For additional information on the concentration-based
analysis, see Appendix C of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan.
\29\ CAMx is a photochemical grid model that simulates a wide
variety of inert and chemically active pollutants, including ozone,
particulate matter, inorganic and organic PM2.5/
PM10, and mercury and other toxics.
Table 2--Sensitivity Test Reductions in Design Values (DVs) at Allegheny County Area Monitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual basis 24-hour basis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in Reduction in Reduction in Reduction in
Monitoring Site AQS ID DV with 50% DV with 50% DV with 50% DV with 50%
less VOC less NH3 less VOC less NH3
([micro]g/ ([micro]g/ ([micro]g/ ([micro]g/
m\3\) m\3\) m\3\) m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon....................... 42-003-0002 0.01 0.20 0.0 0.1
Lawrenceville................ 42-003-0008 0.00 0.23 0.0 0.0
Liberty...................... 42-003-0064 0.00 0.15 0.0 0.8
South Fayette................ 42-003-0067 0.00 0.10 0.0 0.1
North Park................... 42-003-0093 0.00 0.17 0.1 0.9
Harrison..................... 42-003-1008 0.00 0.13 0.0 0.0
North Braddock............... 42-003-1301 0.00 0.21 0.0 0.4
Clairton..................... 42-003-3007 0.00 0.13 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table 2, the modeled decreases in design values
due to a 50% reduction in VOC and NH3 at the Liberty monitor
are both below the significance thresholds of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ for the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, ACHD determined that VOC and
NH3 are both insignificant contributors to nonattainment in
Allegheny County and excluded both precursors from additional analysis
in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the Precursor Demonstration
EPA has reviewed the comprehensive precursor demonstration included
in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan and is proposing to find
that it meets the requirements of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule and EPA's Precursor Guidance. The comprehensive precursor
demonstration includes a sensitivity analysis that indicates that the
estimated impacts of a 50% reduction in point and area source
anthropogenic
[[Page 35858]]
emissions of VOC and NH3 are below the significance
thresholds of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the
Liberty monitor, which has consistently been the highest reading
PM2.5 monitor in Allegheny County and the only monitor in
the County not meeting the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Since
the estimated impacts at the Liberty monitor are below the significance
threshold, it can be concluded, for purposes of the precursor
demonstration, that the precursors VOC and NH3 do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
in Allegheny County. Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1006, EPA is
proposing to find that Allegheny County is not required to control
emissions of VOC or NH3 from existing sources in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ``provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and
shall provide for attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards.'' Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA requires that states with
areas classified as moderate nonattainment for PM2.5 have
attainment plan provisions to assure that RACM and RACT are implemented
no later than four years after designation of the area. EPA reads CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) together to require that attainment
plans for moderate nonattainment areas must provide for the
implementation of RACM and RACT for existing sources of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the nonattainment
area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than four years after
designation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 81 FR 58010 and 58034, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule defines
RACM as ``any technologically and economically feasible measure that
can be implemented in whole or in part within four years after the
effective date of designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment
area,'' including RACT.\31\ The preamble also recommends steps for
evaluating control measures as part of a RACM/RACT analysis.\32\ In
short, a RACM/RACT analysis is a process for states to identify
emission sources, evaluate potential emission controls, and impose
those control measures and technologies that are reasonable and
necessary to bring the area into attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment date for the
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 81 FR 58010-58035 and 58043, August 24, 2016, as well
as 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(4)(i)(A).
\32\ See 81 FR 58010-58035 and 58046, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the preamble of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, in the case of a moderate area that can demonstrate it can attain
by the statutory attainment date without implementing all reasonably
available control measures (i.e. RACM/RACT and additional reasonable
measures), the state would not be required to adopt certain otherwise
reasonable measures if the state demonstrates that collectively such
measures would not enable the area to attain the standard at least one
year earlier (i.e. ``advance the attainment date'' by one year).\33\
The attainment date for the Allegheny County nonattainment area is
December 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 81 FR 58018, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. RACM Analysis in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
A summary of ACHD's RACM analysis is provided in Section 6 of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan and a detailed analysis is
provided in Appendix J. Based on the insignificance findings for VOC
and NH3, ACHD did not evaluate options for the control of
VOC and NH3 in their RACM analysis. ACHD's RACM analysis
examines options for the control of primary PM2.5 and
precursors SO2 and NOX in the Allegheny County
nonattainment area for the following source categories: Area sources,
non-road mobile sources, on-road mobile sources, and some small point
sources.
For each source category, ACHD evaluated RACM alternatives through
the following process: (1) Examine source category emissions in the
nonattainment area; (2) determine technologically feasible control
technologies or measures for each source category; and, (3) for each
technologically feasible control technology or measure, examine the
control efficiency by pollutant, the estimated emission reductions by
pollutant, the estimated cost per ton of pollutant reduced, and the
date by which the technology or measure could be reasonably
implemented.
a. RACM Measures Evaluation
Table 3 lists the RACM measures in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan. These measures are discussed in more detail in
Appendix J of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, which is
located in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 3--Summary of RACM Alternatives Evaluated for Allegheny County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing controls/
Source category group programs RACM alternative(s) Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture.......................... None................... None identified........ Small source of
emissions; mostly NH3
emissions, NH3 is an
insignificant
precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Commercial Cooking................... None................... 1. Charbroiler 1. Small emission
catalytic oxidizers reductions county-
for chain-driven wide.
broilers.. 2. Full implementation
2. HEPA filters for could take five years
under-fired boilers.. from promulgation.
Cremation............................ None................... None identified........ Small source of
emissions county-wide;
permit restrictions
are BACT.
Fuel Combustion (Industrial and Federal standards for Low-NOX burners........ Full implementation
Commercial). boilers and engines. could take five years
from promulgation.
Fuel Combustion (Residential)........ Sulfur limit for home None identified........ Small source of
heating oil. emissions compared to
commercial and
industrial fuel
combustion.
[[Page 35859]]
Fuel Combustion (Residential Wood)... 1. Fireplace insert 1. Additional wood 1. Insignificant
program. stove change-out emission reductions.
2. Prohibition of non- program. 2. Reductions difficult
phase 2 outdoor wood- 2. Education and to quantify.
fired boilers (OWBs).. outreach on clean 3. Reductions and costs
3. No outdoor burning burning.. difficult to quantify;
when Air Quality 3. Replacement of old Significant PM2.5
Action Days are stoves when homes are emission reductions
predicted.. sold.. unlikely within short
4. Wood stove change- 4. OWB compliance for to medium timeframe.
out program.. pre-2011 units.. 4. Insignificant
emission reductions.
Fugitive Dust........................ Use of dust Paving of all unpaved Small emission
suppressants. roads countywide. reductions county-
wide.
Oil and Gas Exploration and None................... No feasible, cost None.
Production. effective options were
identified.
Petroleum Storage.................... None................... None identified........ VOC emissions only, VOC
is an insignificant
precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Solvent Utilization.................. ACHD regulations....... None identified........ VOC emissions only, VOC
is an insignificant
precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Surface Coatings..................... ACHD regulations....... None identified........ VOC emissions only, VOC
is an insignificant
precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Marine............................... Federal standards; 1. Vessel repowering 1. High costs.
towboat repowering from Tier 0 to newer 2. Small emission
project. engines. reductions.
2. Retrofit tugboats 3. Emission reductions
with diesel not quantified,
particulate filters.. potential
3. Control idling...... insignificant emission
4. Pleasure craft reductions.
controls.. 4. Emission reductions
not quantified,
potential
insignificant emission
reductions that are
not cost effective.
Railroad............................. Federal standards...... Replacement of older High costs relative to
engines to newer emission reductions.
engines.
Off-Highway Equipment (Gasoline)..... Rebate program for Additional gas-for Emission reductions not
gasoline-fueled electric exchange quantified, potential
equipment exchange. programs. insignificant emission
reductions.
Off-Highway Equipment (Diesel)....... Federal Standards; Retrofit construction Small emission
idling restrictions. equipment with a reductions county-
diesel particulate wide.
filter (DPF).
Off-Highway Equipment (Other)........ None................... None identified........ None.
Gasoline Refueling................... Stage II vapor recovery None identified........ VOC emissions only, VOC
systems. is an insignificant
precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Gasoline Vehicles (Light-Duty)....... Federal emission Ridesharing program.... Reductions not
standards; Inspection/ quantified; light duty
Maintenance (I/M) gasoline vehicles show
program. large reductions
through 2021 with
current controls.
Gasoline Vehicles (Heavy-Duty)....... Federal emission None................... Small portion of the on-
standards; idling road mobile source
restrictions. inventory.
Diesel Refueling..................... None................... None identified........ VOC emissions only, VOC
is an insignificant
precursor in the
nonattainment area.
Diesel Vehicles (Light-Duty)......... Federal emission None identified........ Small portion of the on-
standards; idling road mobile source
restrictions. inventory.
Diesel Vehicles (Heavy Duty)......... Federal emission (1) Additional diesel (1) Small emission
standards; idling engine retrofits. reductions county-
restrictions. (2) Replacement of wide.
public or private (2) Small emission
fleets ahead of normal reductions county-
schedule.. wide.
(3) Additional diesel (3) Reductions not
idling requirements.. quantified.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles None................... None identified........ Small portion of the on-
(Heavy Duty). road mobile source
inventory.
Ethanol E-85 Vehicles (Light-duty None................... None identified........ Small portion of the on-
gasoline, capable of burning 85% road mobile source
ethanol 15% gasoline blend). inventory.
Aggregate Processing................. Rules in effect for Require water sprays, None.
stone, sand, and dust suppressants,
gravel operations. telescopic chutes, and
baghouse/cyclone dust
collectors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35860]]
3. RACT Analysis in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
Section 6 of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan also
includes a summary of ACHD's RACT analysis. ACHD's detailed analysis is
provided in Appendix J of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
ACHD used the following methodology for their RACT analysis: (1)
Identify all current major stationary point sources of
PM2.5, SO2, or NOX in the Allegheny
County nonattainment area; (2) identify the different processes, or
process groups, for the applicable major source facilities and the
current controls for the processes; (3) identify potential RACT
alternatives for the process groups; and (4) evaluate the technological
and economic feasibility of any potential RACT alternatives.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ An explanation of sources that were excluded from ACHD's
RACT analysis as well as the control technologies that were analyzed
are provided in Appendix J of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. RACT Measures Evaluation
Table 4 summarizes the identified facilities and corresponding
findings from ACHD's RACT analysis for the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan. ACHD's complete RACT analysis is provided in
Appendix J of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
Table 4--Summary of RACT Analysis in Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of
Facility Major pollutants facility Controls RACT Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Springdale..... PM, NOX........... Combined-cycle Low NOX burners Meets RACT
(now Springdale Energy)......... turbine EGU, (LNB), selective requirements.
natural gas (NG) catalytic
or fuel oil. reduction (SCR).
ATI Allegheny Ludlum............ PM, SO2, NOX...... Specialty steel Baghouses, ultra- Meets RACT
facility. low NOX burners requirements.
(ULNB), mist
eliminators.
Bay Valley (now Riverbend)...... NOX............... Food manufacturing LNB, flue gas Meets RACT
facility. recirculation requirements.
(FGR); switched
from coal to
natural gas as
fuel for all
units.
Bellefield Boiler............... NOX............... Steam generation LNB, FGR.......... Meets RACT
facility. requirements.
Energy Center Pittsburgh (North NOX............... District heating LNB, drift Meets RACT
Shore). and cooling plant. eliminators. requirements.
GenOn Brunot Island............. PM, SO2, NOX...... Combined-cycle Water injection Meets RACT
turbine EGU, NG with SCR, mist requirements.
or fuel oil. eliminators.
GenOn Cheswick.................. PM, SO2, NOX...... Coal-fired EGU.... FGD, LNB with Meets RACT
overfire air requirements.
(OFA), SCR, ESP.
Pittsburgh Allegheny County NOX............... Steam generation NOX limits........ Meets RACT
Thermal (PACT). facility. requirements.
Universal Stainless............. NOX............... Specialty steel LNB, baghouses.... Meets RACT
facility. requirements.
University of Pittsburgh--Main NOX............... Public university. ULNB, FGR, low Meets RACT
Campus. sulfur fuel oil. requirements.
U.S. Steel Clairton............. PM, SO2, NOX...... Metallurgical coke Baghouses, baffles Meets RACT
and by-products (quench towers), requirements.
facility. coke oven gas
(COG) grain
limits,
afterburners,
visible emission
(VE) restrictions.
USS Edgar Thomson............... PM, SO2, NOX...... Iron and steel Baghouses, COG Meets RACT
making facility. grain limits, requirements.
scrubbers, drift
eliminators.
USS Irvin....................... PM, SO2, NOX...... Secondary steel COG grain limits, Meets RACT
processing scrubbers, mist requirements.
facility. eliminators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on RACM and RACT
ACHD has found that no economically or technologically feasible
controls (or combination thereof) in Allegheny County are needed to
show attainment by the attainment date of December 31, 2021 and that no
feasible controls (or combination thereof) will advance the attainment
date by one year or more (i.e. to December 31, 2020). The Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan includes a modeling demonstration showing
that Allegheny County can attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2021 attainment date through the control strategy
described in the plan.
EPA is proposing to approve ACHD's evaluation of RACM/RACT control
measures in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. ACHD has
demonstrated in the plan that Allegheny County can attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date without implementing
RACM/RACT. Also, according to the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan, the implementation of additional control measures will not
advance the attainment date in Allegheny County by one year or more.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan satisfies the RACM/RACT requirements of title I,
part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4 of the CAA.
D. Air Quality Modeling
1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that a plan for a Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area include a demonstration (including
air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date, or a demonstration that attainment by such
date is impracticable. An attainment demonstration must show that the
control measures in the plan are sufficient to attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date. The attainment demonstration predicts future ambient
concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS, making use of available
[[Page 35861]]
information on ambient concentrations, meteorology, and current and
projected emissions inventories, including the effect of control
measures in the plan. This information is typically used in conjunction
with a computer model of the atmosphere.
EPA has provided additional modeling requirements and guidance for
modeling analyses in the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models''
(``Guideline'').\35\ Per the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
the attainment demonstration modeling guidance provides recommendations
that include: Developing a conceptual description of the problem to be
addressed; developing a modeling/analysis protocol; selecting an
appropriate model to support the demonstration; selecting appropriate
meteorological episodes or time periods to model; choosing an
appropriate area to model with appropriate horizontal/vertical
resolution; generating meteorological and air quality inputs to the air
quality model; generating emissions inputs to the air quality model;
and, evaluating performance of the air quality model. After these steps
are completed, the state can apply a model to simulate effects of
future year emissions and candidate control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models,'' 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017; available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-act-permit-modeling-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Air Quality Modeling in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
ACHD's September 30, 2019 PM2.5 SIP revision includes a
modeling demonstration showing that monitors in Allegheny County will
comply with both the 24-hour and the annual 2012 PM2.5
standards by December 31, 2021. The demonstration is based, in part, on
results from the CAMx analysis. The modeling analysis also includes a
local area analysis using the US EPA's AERMOD Gaussian dispersion model
to analyze the direct PM2.5 component for the Liberty
monitor, which has consistently been the highest reading
PM2.5 monitor in Allegheny County.
The highest PM monitor readings in Allegheny County are generally
attributed to a combination of high localized industrial source
emissions with strong temperature inversions, which trap those locally
generated emissions within the major river valleys. Elevation
differences between the valley floors and surrounding terrain can be on
the order of 500 feet. Under ideal meteorological conditions (i.e.
light winds and clear night-time skies), Allegheny County has observed
temperature differences between hilltop and valley floor in the range
of 2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit along with strong channeled flow within
the Monongahela River valley (``Mon Valley''). Strong temperature
inversions inhibit vertical mixing, trapping emissions emitted at near
ground-level within the valleys, contributing to episodes of poor air
quality.
Given the topography of the area, which is marked by low mountains
and river valleys, and the resulting influence of that topography on
localized meteorological conditions and a propensity for atmospheric
inversions, ACHD developed their modeling analysis to consider these
localized conditions. Further, the modeling analysis needed to properly
account for both regional emission sources, and more importantly the
specific, localized impacts of several large industrial source
emissions that strongly contribute to episodes of poor air quality.
Further details related to development of the baseline and projected
year inventories can be found in appendices D and E of the
Commonwealth's September 30, 2019 SIP revision, which are available in
the docket for this rulemaking. The modeling protocols used for the
Commonwealth's analysis are found in Appendix F of the September 2019
SIP revision.
Modeling for the Allegheny County area assesses regional impacts
from PM2.5 precursors and localized impacts from primary
PM2.5 sources. CAMx was utilized at fine grid resolution to
model both long-range transport and near-field impacts of most sources.
EPA's AERMOD Gaussian dispersion model was used for simulating
localized primary PM2.5 impacts at the Liberty monitor,
which has consistently recorded the highest monitor concentrations
since PM2.5 monitoring began in the area in the late 1990s.
ACHD provided an extensive review of meteorological conditions in
Allegheny County over a five-year period from 2009 through 2013.\36\
The ACHD analysis involved a general review of inversions, winds,
temperature, and precipitation in general and its appropriateness for
the modeling demonstration. The modeling demonstration is indicative of
these meteorological conditions and the use of 2011 base year emissions
data is suitable to represent typical conditions over the five-year
(2009-2013) period examined--with the exception of one month (October
2011) that recorded severe inversions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Appendix B of the September 30, 2019 SIP submittal
``Meteorological Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMx-ready emissions were prepared for the 2011 modeling base year
and projected 2021 attainment year and pre-processed for input to CAMx
using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) model.\37\
CAMx was evaluated using ambient observational data from three
monitoring networks: EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database; Federal
Reference Method (FRM) total PM2.5 mass; and the Chemical
Speciation Network (CSN) speciated PM2.5. The Atmospheric
Model Evaluation Tool (or AMET) was the primary software tool used to
compare observations and modeled values from the 1.333 kilometer (km)
domain in Allegheny County.\38\ ACHD found good agreement between
modeled and observed PM2.5 concentrations across Allegheny
County. The results of the model performance evaluations can be
referenced in Appendix G of the Commonwealth's September 30, 2019 SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See SMOKE model, at https://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/.
\38\ See AMET software at: https://www.cmascenter.org/amet/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACHD used MATS with the CAMx 2011 and 2021 modeling results to
obtain 2021 projected attainment year design value concentrations at
all of the FRM monitoring sites within the modeling domain. This
included some monitoring sites outside the Allegheny County
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Allegheny County's projected 2021
PM2.5 concentrations are summarized in Table 5 and include a
breakdown of each modeled PM2.5 component (2021 projected
value is the sum of all the PM2.5 components).
[[Page 35862]]
Table 5--Projected 2021 CAMx Modeled Values for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegheny County Area Monitors
[Based on a 1.33 km grid]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMx projected design value and PM2.5 modeled components (1.333 km grid)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Site Actual Projected
2016-18 DV 2021 DV OPP ED NH4 OCmb SO4 NO3 NaCl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County Area 24-Hour Design Values **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon............................. 20.2 21.4 0.606 0.965 2.191 9.064 3.258 3.564 0.150
Clairton........................... 18.7 21.4 0.869 3.542 1.882 7.753 4.464 0.828 0.038
Harrison........................... 20.0 20.7 0.870 1.348 1.809 8.807 4.917 0.862 0.055
Lawrenceville...................... 18.4 20.4 1.000 0.996 1.855 8.723 4.334 1.480 0.087
Liberty............................ 34.9 38.6 1.248 3.910 2.520 21.634 4.978 2.253 0.060
North Braddock..................... 24.5 23.4 1.178 2.564 2.353 8.304 4.577 2.403 0.096
North Park......................... 15.6 17.3 1.280 0.948 1.537 6.783 4.272 0.585 0.047
South Fayette...................... 18.3 18.4 1.188 1.480 1.613 6.952 4.552 0.700 0.039
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County Area Annual Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon............................. 9.7 10.0 0.398 0.508 0.772 4.727 1.926 0.566 0.028
Clairton........................... 9.3 9.2 0.508 1.266 0.843 2.703 2.205 0.734 0.014
Harrison........................... 9.6 9.4 0.495 0.633 0.856 3.470 2.219 0.689 0.026
Lawrenceville...................... 9.1 9.0 0.483 0.530 0.810 3.395 1.999 0.614 0.032
Liberty............................ 12.6 12.5 0.618 1.509 1.058 4.637 2.795 0.937 0.017
North Braddock..................... 10.7 10.0 0.608 0.989 0.951 3.192 2.463 0.797 0.023
North Park......................... 7.8 7.6 0.593 0.478 0.743 2.219 1.908 0.560 0.026
South Fayette...................... 8.3 8.5 0.579 0.636 0.774 2.844 2.071 0.592 0.020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** 24-Hour Design values are rounded to nearest whole number so Avalon's projected 2021 24-hour design value is 21 [micro]g/m\3\
Blank = Salt and passive component held constant from base to future case, OPP = other primary PM2.5, EC = elemental carbon, NH4 = ammonium, OCmb =
organic carbon mass (by) mass balance, SO4 = sulfate, NO3 = Nitrate, NaCl = ``salt''.
Modeled 2021 PM2.5 design values for all monitors except
the Liberty monitor meet the revised 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All
monitors in Allegheny County meet the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
using 2018 design values. Only the Liberty monitor is projected to
exceed the revised 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2021, based on
the CAMx developed design values. Therefore, in accordance with EPA's
modeling guidance, ACHD undertook a more refined local area analysis to
better gauge emission control impacts for sources nearby the Liberty
monitor in southern Allegheny County and the effect of controlling
those sources on projected PM2.5 concentrations in the
Liberty monitor area. The Liberty monitor's location on elevated
terrain several miles downwind of the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works
complicates this analysis.
As stated in EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze''
(``Modeling Guidance''), ``. . . there are numerous cases where local
source contributions may not be dominant but are a sizable contributor
to total annual average PM2.5 at this monitor. In these
cases, a more refined analysis of the contribution of local primary
PM2.5 sources to PM2.5 at the monitor(s) will
help explain the causes of nonattainment at and near the monitor and
may lead to more efficient ways to attain the NAAQS by controlling
emissions from local sources which may be important contributors to the
violating area.'' \39\ ACHD has done analysis of regional monitor
concentrations and demonstrated unique industrial source influences
using source apportionment modeling \40\ and concluded that the Liberty
monitor, ``shows a large contribution from carbon-rich industrial
sources, not present at the other sites, that contribute carbons as
well as primary sulfate and several trace elements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EPA policy memo, Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, from
Richard Wayland, dated November 29, 2018. See p. 134. Available at:
https://epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/O3-PM-RH-Modeling_Guidance-2018.pdf.
\40\ See Appendix C of the September 30, 2019 SIP Revision,
``Speciation and Source Apportionment Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Modeling Guidance allows the use of several tools to evaluate
contributions of local PM2.5 sources, such as Gaussian
dispersion modeling. While dispersion models may not be an appropriate
tool for determining secondary PM2.5 or ozone
concentrations, they work well for use in determining local primary
PM2.5 impacts.\41\ ACHD utilized EPA's AERMOD model to
conduct a local area analysis of the Liberty monitor area. The refined
Liberty local analysis modeling used AERMOD to further resolve the
impact of local area sources and meteorology beyond the CAMx analysis,
to generate the final modeled design values at the Liberty monitor.
This local area analysis shows that the Liberty monitor will attain by
attainment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, from Richard Wayland,
dated November 29, 2018, at p. 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, ACHD included additional information in its September 30,
2019 SIP revision constituting a ``weight of evidence'' demonstration
to support its modeling analysis, per EPA's Modeling guidance.\42\
ACHD's weight of evidence demonstration includes analysis of downward
PM2.5 monitoring trends at Allegheny County monitors, a
listing of permanent stationary source shutdowns (not reflected in the
modeling analysis), PM2.5 precursor reductions of
SO2 resulting from reductions in neighboring areas, emission
reductions due to population decrease projections, and emission
reductions due to voluntary programs (not included in the SIP). Also,
additional EGU deactivations in Pennsylvania and surrounding states
were announced after EGU forecasting was performed (based on 2015
data). These deactivations, which were not included in the air quality
modeling for this plan, will lead to further reductions of
PM2.5 precursor emissions that
[[Page 35863]]
potentially contribute PM2.5 emissions to Allegheny County.
Further information on recent planned EGU deactivations can be found in
Section 11.4 of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See pp. 169-171 of EPA's Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and
Regional Haze, which outlines several other analyses that could be
included in any attainment demonstration to help bolster results
from the primary modeling analysis. These could include additional
modeling analyses, analyses of trends in ambient air quality and
emissions, and additional emissions controls/reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on Modeling
EPA has reviewed the modeling demonstration prepared by ACHD for
the Allegheny County PM2.5 nonattainment area. EPA also
reviewed the supporting local area AERMOD dispersion model analysis
prepared by ACHD to assess the impact of sources closest to the Liberty
monitor. ACHD modeling protocols covering the Weather Research and
Forecasting (WRF) prognostic meteorological model, the CAMx modeling
domains and the AERMOD local area analysis all comport with EPA's
Modeling Guidance.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of the Liberty monitor, the CAMx model projected
2021 PM2.5 design values for all monitors in Allegheny
County are projected to be below the NAAQS by the attainment deadline.
ACHD elected to conduct a refined local area assessment to further
assess the impact of several large nearby sources beyond the scope of
the CAMx modeling. The Allegheny County Plan contains ACHD's arguments
supporting its contention that the CAMx 1.333 km modeling analysis
could be overestimating projected 2021 PM2.5 concentrations
at the Liberty monitor.\44\ These CAMx modeling limitations cited
include: Limitations in CAMx's ability to properly characterize
concentration gradients across the 1.333 km grid cells, failure to use
the most up to date available stack test emissions data and stack test
emission calculations for several key sources in the area, improper
CAMx source characterizations, and improper source apportionment by
CAMx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Appendix F.3 of the September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to agree with ACHD's assessment that these are
reasonable arguments to support use of a supplemental local area
analysis using AERMOD dispersion modeling to refine projected 2021
model concentrations at the Liberty monitor. Final projected 2021
values at the Liberty monitor using the local area analysis were 35
[micro]g/m\3\ (24-hour) and 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (annual), which
demonstrate attainment with the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Given that the projected 2021 PM2.5 concentrations at
the Liberty monitor just meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, ACHD's
use of additional supporting information via a weight of evidence
demonstration is warranted. The Allegheny County Plan contains a
monitor value trends analysis showing statistically significant
downward trends at all of its PM2.5 monitoring sites,
including the Liberty monitor. EPA agrees with ACHD's contention that
the Pennsylvania Jersey Maryland Power Pool (PJM Interconnection, or
simply PJM) forecasts of electric generation for the last few years
have overestimated the actual amount of electric generation needed, and
as a result the projected regional PM2.5 precursor emissions
from the electric generation sector are likely overestimated.\45\
Electricity generation and demand reports from PJM indicate a decline
in coal-fired power plant operations and an increase in power
generation share from a rise in number and capacity of lower emission
producing, more efficient combined-cycle natural gas plants. This trend
is leading to significant reductions in regional emissions of
SO2, a precursor to PM2.5.\46\ It also appears
that the CAMx model overestimates projections for some monitor
locations in Allegheny County, as shown by the fact that actual
measured 2018 PM2.5 design values are already below forecast
2021 model projections. Allegheny County also documented additional
local emission reductions and source shutdowns which were not accounted
for in the projected emission inventories, along with other voluntary
programs that could lead to additional emission reductions. The
combination of these weight of evidence impacts should lead to
continued reductions in PM2.5 monitor concentrations in
Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Appendix K of the September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
\46\ See Section 3, page 104, https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_Market/2018.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes ACHD's modeling demonstration shows that its projected
2021 PM2.5 design values will likely comply with the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS--particularly since the actual 2018
PM2.5 design values at all monitoring sites in Allegheny
County (except the Liberty monitor) meet the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Allegheny County's unmonitored area analysis attempts to more
accurately ensure attainment over the entire county and not just those
portions covered by the monitoring network. Given the results of ACHD's
CAMx modeling for the area, the refined AERMOD local area assessment,
and the additional emission reductions and other supporting arguments
from ACHD's weight of evidence demonstration, EPA supports ACHD's
finding that PM2.5 design values at the Liberty monitor will
meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2021
attainment date.
E. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for an Attainment Demonstration
CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that each state in which a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area is located submit an
attainment plan that includes, among other things, either a
demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date, or a
demonstration that attainment by such date is impracticable. In
addition, CAA section 172(c)(1) generally requires, for each
nonattainment area, a plan that provides for the implementation of all
RACM and RACT as expeditiously as practicable and provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets these two provisions together
to require that an attainment demonstration for a Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area meet the following criteria: (1)
The attainment demonstration must show the projected attainment date
for the area that is as expeditious as practicable; (2) the attainment
demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W
and must include inventory data, modeling results, and emission
reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected
attainment date; (3) the base year for the emissions inventory required
for the attainment demonstration must be one of the three years used
for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year; and
(4) the control strategies modeled as part of the attainment
demonstration must be consistent with the control strategy requirements
under 40 CFR 51.1009(a), including the requirements for RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule, at 40 CFR
51.1011(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the attainment demonstration must provide for the
implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the beginning of the
year containing the applicable attainment date.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Attainment Demonstration in the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan
As explained in section III.D of this document, ACHD's
PM2.5 SIP includes a modeling demonstration, based on
[[Page 35864]]
modeling using currently implemented emission control measures, that
shows that monitors in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will comply with
both the 24-hour and the annual PM2.5 standards by December
31, 2021. The modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5
nonattainment area focuses on regional impacts from PM2.5
precursors and localized impacts from primary PM2.5 sources.
ACHD also conducted an unmonitored area analysis to better refine those
areas of Allegheny County further from the air monitor sites, as was
discussed earlier in section III.D of this document pertaining to the
modeling.
The attainment plan includes a weight of evidence analysis to
further bolster the attainment demonstration. The plan shows reductions
in PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursor emission
inventories between 2011 and 2021 as a result of implementation of
RACT/RACM, stationary source shutdowns (not reflected in the 2011
inventory), and from implemented state, local, and Federal emission
controls.
ACHD contends that the results from their modeling analysis, as
well as its weight of evidence supplemental analysis, demonstrate that
all monitors in Allegheny County will attain the revised 2012 24-hour
and annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory date (December 31,
2021).
3. EPA's Evaluation of ACHD's PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration
EPA evaluated whether ACHD has adequately demonstrated that the
Allegheny County Area meets EPA requirements for demonstration of
attainment, as described here:
a. The attainment demonstration must show the projected attainment
date for the area that is as expeditious as practicable.
As discussed in section III.D of this preamble, EPA proposes to
find that the modeling demonstration and additional analysis in the
attainment plan show that the area will achieve the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date. In its review of RACM
measures, ACHD found no additional measures that, if enacted, would
advance the attainment deadline earlier than the December 31, 2021
attainment deadline. Currently, 2018 PM2.5 design values at
all monitoring sites in Allegheny County except Liberty meet the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Allegheny County's unmonitored area analysis
predicts attainment over the entire County. Given the results of the
refined local area analysis, ACHD's analysis of potential model
overestimations, and additional emission reductions identified as part
of the weight of evidence demonstration (that are not included in the
modeling demonstration), EPA concludes that attainment demonstration
modeling reasonably projects that all the monitors in the area will
meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 2021 projected attainment
date and that attainment prior to that date is not practicable.
b. The attainment demonstration must meet the requirements of 40
CFR part 51, appendix W and must include inventory data, modeling
results, and emission reduction analyses on which the state has based
its projected attainment date;
Based on our analysis of the attainment modeling demonstration in
section III.D of this document, EPA also proposes to conclude that the
attainment demonstration modeling includes appropriate modeling
analysis information complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix W. Based on EPA's review of the supporting PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emission inventories (as described in
the emission inventory section of this action), EPA also proposes to
conclude that the plan includes appropriate emission inventory data to
meet the related EPA emission inventory requirements.
c. The base year for the emissions inventory required for the
attainment demonstration must be one of the three years used for
designations or another technically appropriate inventory year; and
ACHD selected 2011 as its base year for the emissions inventory
used for the attainment demonstration. Since 2011 is one of the three
years (i.e., 2011-2013) used for designation purposes, EPA finds that
this choice of base year for the attainment demonstration meets EPA
requirements.
d. The control strategies modeled as part of the attainment
demonstration must be consistent with the control strategy requirements
under 40 CFR 51.1009(a), including the requirements for RACM/RACT and
additional reasonable measures.
Based on our review of ACHD's attainment demonstration modeling,
EPA proposes to find that the air quality modeling meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(a) and accounts for all technically and
economically feasible control measures for direct PM2.5 (as
well as PM2.5 precursor) emissions sources upon which PADEP
and ACHD have based their projected attainment date for the area. 40
CFR 51.1009(a) and 40 CFR 51.1011.
As part of the RACT/RACM determination (in conjunction with the
accompanying weight of evidence demonstration emission reductions), EPA
proposes to conclude that the control strategies modeled as part of the
attainment demonstration are consistent with the control strategy
requirements under 40 CFR 51.1009(a), including the requirements for
RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures. Based on the RACT/RACM
analysis and the additional weight of evidence demonstration for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions,
EPA believes the attainment modeling analysis shows that the projected
December 31, 2021 attainment date for the area is as expeditious as
practicable.
e. The attainment demonstration must provide for the implementation
of all control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the beginning of the year containing the
applicable attainment date.
In Section 3 (Control Strategy) of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan, ACHD sets out its attainment control strategy.
ACHD incorporated the controls described in Section 3 in the future
case 2021 emissions and modeling inventories for the attainment
demonstration. These controls include local source modifications, local
source shutdowns, and regional controls. ACHD states that the local
source modifications are Federally enforceable through ACHD
installation permits and operating permits. These local source
modifications are fully implemented, and the shutdowns all occurred
after the 2011 base year, but prior to the submittal of the plan. The
regional controls include various Federal control measures as well as
two Pennsylvania statewide measures related to sulfur limits for
commercial fuel oil and VOC limits for adhesives and sealants. These
regional measures are also fully implemented.
EPA has evaluated ACHD's control strategy for attainment and found
that all control measures needed for attainment have been implemented
has expeditiously as practicable. The attainment date is December 31,
2021. These controls were all implemented prior to PADEP submitting the
September 30, 2019 SIP revision. Therefore, EPA concludes that the
control measures were implemented well before the beginning of the year
containing the applicable attainment date, 2021.
4. EPA's Proposed Action on the PM2.5 Attainment
Demonstration
EPA proposes to conclude that the attainment demonstration for the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan meets the requirements for a
moderate area plan under CAA section 189(a)(1)(B), and
[[Page 35865]]
that this plan contains an approvable demonstration (including air
quality modeling) showing that the plan provides for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. EPA also proposes to conclude that this
plan meets CAA section 172(c)(1) requirements to provide for the
implementation of RACM and RACT as expeditiously as practicable and
provides for attainment of the NAAQS. By meeting these requirements,
EPA proposes to conclude that ACHD's plan for the Allegheny County
PM2.5 area meets applicable requirements for an approvable
attainment demonstration for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
area.
F. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
1. Requirements for Ensuring Reasonable Further Progress
CAA section 172(c)(2) states that all nonattainment area plans
shall demonstrate reasonable progress towards attainment. In addition,
CAA section 189(c) requires that all PM2.5 nonattainment
area SIPs include a QM demonstration, to be achieved every three years
until the area is redesignated to attainment and which demonstrate RFP,
as defined in CAA section 171(l). Section 171(l) defines RFP as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by part D or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' Neither subpart 1 nor
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act requires that a set percentage
of emissions reductions be achieved in any given year for purposes of
satisfying the RFP requirement. EPA's SIP requirements rule does not
require a specific RFP related inventory, but the attainment projected
inventory for the nonattainment area also may serve a purpose for
evaluation of RFP.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See EPA PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 81 FR 58029,
August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA has interpreted the
RFP requirement to require that nonattainment area plans show annual
incremental emission reductions sufficient to maintain generally linear
progress toward attainment by the applicable deadline.\50\ As discussed
in EPA guidance in the Addendum to the General Preamble (or ``the
Addendum''),\51\ requiring linear progress in reductions of direct
PM2.5 and any individual precursor in a PM2.5
plan may be appropriate in situations where: The pollutant is emitted
by a large number and range of sources; the relationship between any
individual source or source category and overall air quality is not
well known; a chemical transformation is involved (e.g., secondary
particulate significantly contributes to PM2.5 levels over
the standard); and/or the emission reductions necessary to attain the
PM2.5 standard are inventory-wide.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Addendum to the General Preamble at p. 42015. 59 FR 41998,
August 16, 1994.
\51\ Id.
\52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Addendum indicates that requiring linear progress may be less
appropriate in other situations, such as: Where there are a limited
number of sources of direct PM2.5 or a precursor; where the
relationships between individual sources and air quality are relatively
well defined; and/or where the emission control systems utilized will
result in swift and dramatic emission reductions.
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter
conditions, RFP may be better represented as stepwise progress as
controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions soon
thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be
attributed to a few major sources, EPA guidance indicates that ``RFP
should be met by adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule, which
is likely to periodically yield significant emission reductions of
direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor.'' \53\ This
latter case is applicable to the Allegheny County Area, as the
violating monitor is impacted heavily by nearby major emission sources,
which are implementing controls in a stepwise fashion between the base
year and attainment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id at p. 42015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where attainment is driven by regulatory compliance, the
PM2.5 attainment plan should include a detailed schedule for
compliance with regulations in the area and provide corresponding
annual emission reductions to be realized from each milestone in the
schedule.\54\ In reviewing an attainment plan under CAA subpart 4, EPA
considers whether the annual incremental emission reductions to be
achieved are reasonable in light of the statutory objective of timely
attainment. States should consider both cost-effectiveness and
pollution reduction effectiveness when developing implementation
schedules for its control measures and may implement measures that are
more effective at reducing PM2.5 earlier to provide greater
public health benefits.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id. at p. 42016.
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule establishes specific
regulatory requirements for purposes of satisfying the Act's RFP
requirements and provides related guidance in the preamble to the rule.
Specifically, under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each
PM2.5 attainment plan must contain an RFP analysis that
includes, at minimum: (1) An implementation schedule for control
measures; (2) RFP projected emissions for direct PM2.5 and
all PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone
year, based on the anticipated control measure implementation schedule;
(3) a demonstration that the control strategy and implementation
schedule will achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the
base year and the attainment year; and (4) a demonstration that by the
end of the calendar year for each milestone date for the area,
pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect either generally
linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an annual
basis between the base year and the attainment year.\56\ States should
estimate the RFP projected emissions for each milestone year by sector
on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
\57\ See 81 FR 58010, 58056 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. RFP Demonstration in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
The RFP demonstration and QM demonstration methodology are detailed
in Section 7 of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. ACHD
elected to try to show that nonattainment area emissions of direct
PM2.5 pollutants (and significant PM2.5 precursor
pollutants) decline from the base year to the attainment year, in a
generally linear manner.
The Allegheny County Plan estimates that emissions of direct
PM2.5 will decline steadily from 2011 through 2021 and that
emissions of direct PM2.5 will generally remain below the
levels needed to show incremental, continuing progress toward
attainment. ACHD compiled RFP emissions inventories for the milestone
years of 2019 and 2022 using the base and projected inventories used in
the attainment demonstration. Milestone years are based on a schedule
of 4.5 and 7.5 years after designation (years 2019 and 2022,
respectively), as outlined in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule
for a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area.\58\ Year 2019
[[Page 35866]]
emissions were calculated by linearly interpolating base year 2011 and
projected case 2021 emissions. Year 2022 emissions were held constant
from the projected 2021 case, as a conservative approach beyond the
expected attainment timeframe. In addition to direct PM2.5
emissions, the RFP demonstration includes PM2.5 precursor
emissions of SO2 and NOX. However, it does not
include VOC and NH3 emissions as PM2.5 precursors
because those emissions were shown to be insignificant for purposes of
the Allegheny County Plan. The direct PM2.5 emissions for
the baseline, milestone, and attainment years are shown in Table 6
(with PM2.5 broken down into filterable and condensable
components).\59\ The precursor emissions are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ RFP milestones occur every three years, starting from the
due date of the SIP (i.e., 18 months after designation), or 4.5
years and 7.5 after designation in 2015. The second milestone of 7.5
years, although beyond the attainment date for a moderate area, is
included in the event the area (at a future date) is reclassified
from moderate to serious nonattainment.
\59\ See corresponding Tables 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 of
Pennsylvania's September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
Table 6--Direct PM2.5 RFP Emissions Inventory for Allegheny County, by Milestone Year
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year 2011 Milestone year 2019 Projected attainment 2021 Milestone year 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5 (filter) (cond) PM2.5 (filter) (cond) PM2.5 (filter) (cond) PM2.5 (filter) (cond)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............................................... 2,503 1,338 1,164 2,305 1,272 1,032 2,256 1,256 999 2,256 1,256 999
Area Sources................................................ 2,491 2,011 480 2,665 2,183 473 2,708 2,226 472 2,708 2,226 472
Non-road Mobile Sources..................................... 361 361 0 259 259 0 234 234 0 234 234 0
On-road Mobile Sources...................................... 450 450 0 303 303 0 266 266 0 266 266 0
Fires....................................................... 24 24 0 24 24 0 24 24 0 24 24 0
Biogenic.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 5,829 4,185 1,644 5,556 4,042 1,505 5,488 4,007 1,471 5,488 4,007 1,471
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Allegheny County SO2 Precursor RFP Emissions Inventory, by Milestone Year
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Baseline 2011 Milestone 2019 attainment Milestone 2022
2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources........................ 13,460 7,429 5,921 5,921
Area Sources.................................... 1,528 1,169 1,079 1,079
Non-road Mobile Sources......................... 11 6 5 5
On-road Mobile Sources.......................... 78 41 31 31
Fires........................................... 2 2 2 2
Biogenic Sources................................ 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 15,080 8,647 7,039 7,039
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Allegheny County NOX Precursor RFP Emissions Inventory
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 2011 Milestone 2019 Projected 2021 Milestone 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources........................ 11,128 8,568 7,928 7,928
Area Sources.................................... 6,979 6,727 6,664 6,664
Non-road Mobile Sources......................... 3,921 2,554 2,212 2,212
On-road Mobile Sources.......................... 13,259 7,218 5,708 5,708
Fires........................................... 5 5 5 5
Biogenic Sources................................ 166 166 166 166
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 35,460 25,239 22,684 22,684
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County then compared these RFP inventory projections
against the most currently available National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
data (i.e., 2017 for stationary point source and 2014 for mobile and
area emissions) to track the progress of their actual emissions against
their 2019 milestone year shown in Table 9.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Table 7.4 of the September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
[[Page 35867]]
Table 9--Allegheny County Composite Emissions Inventory, Based on Most Recent Available NEI Data
[Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (filter) PM2.5 (cond)
PM2.5 SO2 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources (2017 NEI)........ 1,305 775 530 4,712 6,148
Area Sources (2014 NEI)......... 2,646 2,174 473 481 8,687
Non-road Mobile Sources (2014 315 315 0 8 3,183
NEI)...........................
On-road Mobile Sources (2014 389 389 0 76 11,754
NEI)...........................
Fires (2011 NEI)................ 24 24 0 2 5
Biogenic Sources (2011 NEI)..... 0 0 0 0 166
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 4,679 3,677 1,003 5,279 29,943
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the NEI dates do not directly correspond to the 2019 RFP
milestone year, the composite inventory shows that Allegheny County is
already meeting their projected PM2.5 and SO2
emissions. While NOX was not yet meeting the 2019 milestone
based on actual emissions data, additional NOX reductions
from mobile sources that occur after 2014 are expected to close the gap
between 2014 (when the latest mobile NEI data was available) and the
2019 projected NOX milestone.
ACHD attempted to show that linear progress towards attainment is
being made by examining its monitoring data and its point source
emissions data for the period between the base and attainment years,
achieved by performing a linear regression on this data to show yearly
progress. Monitored concentrations are presented in Tables 10 and 11,
showing the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 design values,
respectively, for each Allegheny County site for years 2011 through
2018.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Tables 7.5 and 7.6 in the September 30, 2019 SIP
revision.
Table 10--Monitored Annual PM2.5 Design Values ([mu]g/m\3\) for Allegheny County Monitor Sites, With Linear Progress Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitored annual design value ([mu]g/m\3\) Yearly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rate of
Monitor site linear
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 progress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty.............................................. 15.0 14.8 13.4 13.0 12.6 12.8 13.0 12.6 -0.33
Avalon............................................... 14.7 13.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 10.4 10.2 9.7 -0.64
North Braddock....................................... 12.7 12.5 11.7 11.4 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.7 -0.30
Harrison............................................. 12.4 11.7 10.6 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.6 -0.38
Lawrenceville........................................ 11.6 11.1 10.3 10.0 9.7 9.5 9.2 9.1 -0.35
Clairton............................................. 11.5 10.9 9.8 9.5 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.3 -0.24
South Fayette........................................ 11.0 10.5 9.6 9.0 8.8 8.5 8.4 8.3 -0.39
North Park........................................... 9.7 9.4 8.8 8.5 8.5 8.2 8.2 7.8 -0.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11--Monitored 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values, With Linear Progress Rates
[[mu]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitored 24-hour design value ([mu]g/m\3\) Linear
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- progress
Allegheny county monitor site yearly
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty.............................................. 44 43 37 35 33 36 37 35 -1.2
Avalon............................................... 34 29 25 22 23 22 21 20 -1.7
North Braddock....................................... 34 33 29 26 25 25 24 24 -1.5
Harrison............................................. 30 28 25 22 22 21 21 20 -1.4
Clairton............................................. 28 26 22 23 25 26 22 19 -0.8
Lawrenceville........................................ 27 26 23 21 21 20 19 18 -1.3
South Fayette........................................ 27 26 24 20 21 19 19 18 -1.3
North Park........................................... 25 23 19 17 18 18 17 16 -1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACHD's analysis of historical monitored PM2.5 design
values shows that all sites in Allegheny County are achieving roughly
linear reductions from baseline case through the most recently
available monitor data. All sites are already below the NAAQS on both
annual and 24-hour bases, with the exception of the Liberty monitor
(for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS). Based on the linear annual
rate of 0.33 [mu]g/m\3\ improvement (for annual design values), ACHD
expects the Liberty monitor to achieve the annual NAAQS by 2021. Based
on the linear yearly rate of 1.2 [mu]g/m\3\ for 24-hour design values,
ACHD expects that the Liberty monitor will continue to achieve the 24-
hour standard.
EPA's Implementation Rule requires attainment plans to provide an
[[Page 35868]]
implementation schedule containing regulatory implementation timeframes
showing progress towards attainment. However, ACHD did not present a
schedule, contending that because all control measures identified for
the Allegheny County Plan have already been implemented, and there are
no identified RACM/RACT or ``additional control measures'' to be
implemented, a schedule for implementation of controls is not
applicable to this SIP.
3. EPA's Evaluation of and Proposed Action on RFP
For direct PM2.5, EPA agrees that ACHD has shown steady
progress towards measuring RFP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Allegheny County area. ACHD has shown that the measures being
implemented in the area show ongoing progress towards achieving the
NAAQS.
ACHD has established milestones for comparison of emissions and
monitored values corresponding to the milestone compliance
demonstration timeframes discussed in the QM and has demonstrated that
it has achieved its RFP related milestone requirements for the area.
Monitored ambient values in the area are trending downward at a steady,
if not linear rate, and ACHD has demonstrated that both emission
reductions and monitor values (for both the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS) are expected to continue to decrease through
the 2019 milestone deadline and the 2021 attainment deadline.
As discussed in the precursors section of this proposed document
(section III.B), EPA is proposing to determine that SO2 and
NOX are significant precursors in the Allegheny County area,
but that VOCs and NH3 are insignificant PM2.5
precursors that do not contribute significantly to ambient
PM2.5 levels in the area.
The Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan documents ACHD's
assertion that they are implementing all reasonable RACM and RACT and
additional reasonable measures for direct PM2.5 as
expeditiously as practicable. The plan projects levels of direct
PM2.5 emissions in 2019 and 2022 that reflect full
implementation of the Commonwealth's and ACHD's attainment control
strategy for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
ACHD's comparison of the most recently available NEI emissions data
with the projections for 2019 and 2022 in the plan show that emissions
are falling at expected rates to achieve RFP, and (with the exception
of NOX), most emissions are at or below 2021 projected
levels (and are expected to continue to drop with continued
implementation of control measures identified in the plan).\62\
Stationary source controls in the area include controls at the U.S.
Steel Clairton Coke Works (the largest modeled emission source of
PM2.5 in the area), including installation of new low-
emission quench towers in 2013, replacement of an older coking battery
in 2012, and new baffle washing requirements implemented in 2012. Other
stationary source controls in the area include addition of flue gas
desulfurization at the GenOn Cheswick coal fired EGU, arc furnace
improvements and replacements at several area steel manufacturing
facilities, etc. Further, a number of facilities in the area have been
permanently shut down and have surrendered their permits, including:
The Shenango Coke facility, the Guardian and GE Bridgeville glass
plants, Bakerstown Container, and Allegheny Aggregates, among
others.\63\ In addition, new mobile source NOX controls and
the replacement of older, higher emitting mobile sources with new,
lower-emitting mobile sources due to fleet turnover are expected to
continue to reduce NOX emissions between the 2014 NEI and
the 2019 and 2022 future milestone cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See section 3.0 of this document for a list of current
control measures in the Allegheny County area, including new
stationary source controls and source shutdowns in the area.
\63\ See Section 3 of ACHD's plan in the September 30, 2019 SIP
revision for a complete listing of implemented PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of an RFP demonstration based solely on linear
reductions in emissions through the attainment deadline, EPA expects
that, so long as the attainment date is as expeditious as practicable,
then generally linear progress toward attainment by that date would
satisfy the RFP requirement.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See EPA's PM2.5 Requirements Rule at 81 FR
58056, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA proposes to find that the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan demonstrates that emissions of direct
PM2.5 will be reduced at rates representing generally linear
progress towards attainment. EPA also proposes to find that the plan
demonstrates that all reasonable measures that provide the bases for
the direct PM2.5 emissions projections in the RFP analysis
are being implemented as expeditiously as practicable. Accordingly, we
propose to determine that the plan requires the annual incremental
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 (and significant
precursors of PM2.5) that are necessary to ensure RFP
towards attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 2021,
in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 171(1) and
172(c)(2).
G. Quantitative Milestone (QM) Demonstration
1. Requirements for a QM Demonstration
Section 189(c) requires that attainment plans include milestones to
demonstrate that RFP is being achieved on a timely basis. The purpose
of the QM demonstration is to allow for periodic evaluation of the
area's progress towards attainment of the NAAQS consistent with RFP
requirements. Because RFP is an annual emission reduction requirement
while the QMs are to be achieved every three years, when a state
demonstrates compliance with the QM, it demonstrates that RFP has been
achieved during each of the relevant three years. QMs provide an
objective means to evaluate progress toward attainment, e.g., through
imposition of emission controls in the attainment plan and the
requirement to quantify those required emission reductions.
The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the three-
year periods for QMs under CAA section 189(c). In the General Preamble
and Addendum, EPA interpreted the CAA to require that the starting
point for the first three-year period be the due date for the Moderate
area plan submission.\65\ Consistent with this longstanding
interpretation of the Act, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
requires that each plan for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
area contain QMs to be achieved no later than milestone dates 4.5 years
and 7.5 years from the date of designation of the area.\66\ Because EPA
designated the Allegheny County area nonattainment for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS effective April 15, 2015, the applicable QM
dates for purposes of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan are
October 15, 2019 and October 15, 2022.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992); and
Addendum, 59 FR 42016 (August 16, 1994).
\66\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1).
\67\ 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires states to submit QM reports (due 90 days after
each milestone). Under EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule,\68\
a submitted QM report must include, at minimum: (1) A certification by
the Governor (or Governor's designee) that the SIP control strategy is
being implemented consistent with the RFP plan, as described in the
applicable attainment plan; (2) technical support, including
[[Page 35869]]
calculations, sufficient to document completion statistics for
appropriate milestones and to demonstrate that the QM has been
satisfied and how the emissions reductions achieved to date compare to
those required or scheduled to meet RFP; and (3) a discussion of
whether the area will attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by
the projected attainment date for the area.\69\ These reports should
include calculations and any assumptions made by the state concerning
how RFP has been met, e.g., through quantification of emission
reductions to date.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016) (codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z).
\69\ 40 CFR 51.1013(b).
\70\ Id. at pp. 42016-42017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. QM Demonstration in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan and
2019 QM Report
a. Allegheny County Area QM Demonstration
The September 30, 2019 SIP revision describes ACHD's approach to
demonstrating compliance with the QM requirements of CAA section 189,
in which measured air quality concentrations, as well as future
projected air quality concentrations, are used to satisfy the milestone
reporting requirement. For the Allegheny County moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area, these QMs must to be reported to
EPA for the milestone years 2019 and (if applicable) 2022. The QM
report for year 2019 was due January 14, 2020 (i.e., 90 days after the
first milestone date of October 15, 2019). The second report for the
2022 milestone would be required only if the area failed to attain the
NAAQS by its 2021 attainment date and were to be reclassified to a
serious area. In that case, a 2022 milestone report would be due by
January 14, 2023.
Because the Liberty monitor was the only monitor in the Allegheny
County area not meeting the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS when EPA
designated the area nonattainment and is currently not meeting the
NAAQS, ACHD based its QMs on the design values for the Liberty monitor.
For the 2019 QM demonstration in the September 20, 2019 SIP, ACHD
calculated the expected design values at the Liberty monitor based on a
linear regression over a 10-year timeframe (from 2011 to the 2021
attainment year). The air quality modeling in the Allegheny County Plan
predicts that the area will attain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by its December 31, 2021 attainment deadline. ACHD assumed that
the 2019-2021 design value at the Liberty monitor would be equal to the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, or 12 [micro]g/m\3\.
Assuming linear progress, ACHD calculated 2019 design values for the
Liberty monitor for both the annual and 24-hour \71\ PM2.5
NAAQS in Table 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is set at 35 [micro]g/
m\3\.
Table 12--Liberty Monitor Air Quality Concentration Milestones
[[mu]g/m\3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year Projected year Linear yearly Milestone year Milestone year
Liberty design value (2011) (2021) rate (2019) (2022)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual.......................... 15.0 12.0 -0.3 12.6 12.0
24-Hour......................... 44 35 -0.9 37 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Allegheny County PM2.5 Area 2019 QM Report
PADEP submitted the Allegheny County 2019 QM Report to EPA on
January 14, 2020 and a supplement to that report dated April 8, 2020,
(collectively, the 2019 QM Report). The 2019 QM Report includes air
quality monitoring data reports from AQS showing that the 2016-2018
design values for the Liberty monitor met the milestone levels set
forth in Table 12. In addition, the preliminary \72\ 2017-2019 design
values at the Liberty monitor are lower than the 2016-2018 design
values. The data is presented in Table 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The 2019 data is fully validated and quality-assured, but
not yet certified. The 2019 data must be certified by May 1, 2020,
in accordance with 40 CFR 58.15.
Table 13--Liberty Monitor Design Values for the 2012 Annual and 24 Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
[In [mu]g/m3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2016-2018 2017-2019
NAAQS Milestone Final Preliminary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual.......................................................... 12.6 12.6 12.4
24-Hour......................................................... 37 37 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS reports submitted in the 2019 QM Report continue to show that
all other monitors in the Allegheny County area have design values
lower than those of the Liberty monitor. To demonstrate RFP is being
met, as part of the 2019 QM Report ACHD verified that all controls
listed as part of the plan's control strategy remain in place. Further,
ACHD states that, ``RFP is being achieved for Allegheny County and
progress should continue toward attainment, to be achieved by the
attainment date of December 31, 2021.'' Furthermore, PADEP concurred
with ACHD's certification that the control strategy is being
implemented in Allegheny County consistent with the RFP plan and that
milestones are being achieved as included in the SIP.
In the attainment plan, ACHD developed the 2019 RFP milestone
emissions inventory by linearly interpolating 2011 base year and
projected 2021 attainment year emissions inventories used in its
modeled attainment demonstration. In the 2019 QM report, ACHD presented
updated actual emissions data for the stationary point source sector of
the emissions inventory for 2017 and 2018, along with prior data for
the 2011-2016 period, as listed in Table 14.
[[Page 35870]]
Table 14--Annual Allegheny County Point Source Emissions for the Period 2011-2018, With Yearly Linear Progress Rates
[In tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point source emissions (tons/year) Linear
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- progress
Pollutant yearly
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................ 2,503 1,725 1,822 2,127 1,511 1,373 1,282 1,360 -145
SO2.................................................. 13,460 6,542 6,032 8,593 5,279 4,864 4,758 7,122 -716
NOX.................................................. 11,128 11,881 13,073 13,715 10,278 8,560 6,337 6,925 -882
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1013(b)(3), the QM report must include a
discussion of whether the PM2.5 NAAQS will be attained by
the projected attainment date for the area. ACHD's 2019 QM report
contains an evaluation of ambient air quality trends, meteorology, and
emission control strategies. In the 2019 QM Report, ACHD concludes that
it expects the area to attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
the December 31, 2021 attainment date. The 2019 report also contains a
trend analysis of the Liberty monitor showing a decline in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations through 2019. An accompanying analysis
of quarterly means for the Liberty monitor from 1999 to 2019 shows that
the lowest quarterly means have occurred in the last four years, with
three of the record-low quarters occurring in the last two years. The
annual weighted PM2.5 means for the Liberty monitor are
shown in Table 15 for the 2009-2019 period.
Table 15--Liberty Monitor Annual Weighted Mean Concentrations, 2009-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty weighted mean ([mu]g/m\3\)........ 15.0 16.0 14.0 14.3 12.0 12.7 12.9 12.8 13.4 11.5 12.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ACHD observes that concentrations are declining based on emission controls, but differences in the yearly concentrations at the Liberty monitor
show dependence on the frequency and severity of inversions. Inversions were less frequent in 2013 and more prevalent in 2012 and 2017.
ACHD concludes that, based on monitored data, meteorology, and
controls, ACHD expects that the Allegheny County Area will attain the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by or before its December 31, 2021
attainment deadline.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the QM Demonstration
EPA has reviewed the QM demonstration contained in the September
30, 2019 moderate area attainment plan for the Allegheny County Area,
as well as the 2019 QM Report submitted to EPA on January 14, 2020 (as
supplemented on April 8, 2020). This demonstration confirms that the
monitored ambient air quality levels in the area satisfy EPA
requirements for milestone levels.
The 2019 QM report shows that 2016-2018 design values for the
Liberty monitor (the only monitor that did not meet the NAAQS since the
area was designated nonattainment) met the milestone test established
by ACHD in the attainment plan. Preliminary 2017-2019 design values at
the Liberty monitor presented in the 2019 QM report are lower than the
2016-2018 design values. Finally, air quality data reports from EPA's
AQS show that the 2016-2018 design values for the Liberty monitor met
the QM levels set out in the attainment plan.
EPA has reviewed the RFP data presented in the 2019 QM Report and
finds that the Allegheny County area has made demonstrable progress in
reducing emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 significant
precursors since EPA designated the area nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2015. Comparing stationary source emissions
in the 2019 QM Report to those predicted in the attainment plan for
2019, EPA finds that the most recent emissions inventory is well below
the RFP milestone. Therefore, EPA finds that emissions reductions are
meeting RFP through the 2019 period.
EPA determined in an April 22, 2020 letter to PADEP that (based on
its review of information contained in the plan and additional
information provided in the 2019 QM report) ACHD has adequately
demonstrated that the 2019 QMs for a moderate area plan have been met.
The 2019 QM Report contains each of the required components to meet the
QM requirements of CAA section 189(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1013(b).
For further information on EPA's review of the QM methodology and
the 2019 QM Report, please refer to our TSD on the 2019 QM Report
prepared in support of this action, which is available in the
docket.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ By letter dated April 22, 2020, from EPA Regional
Administrator Servidio to PADEP Secretary McDonnell, EPA determined
that ACHD adequately demonstrated that the 2019 QMs provided in the
attainment plan have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule requires that attainment
demonstrations for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas
include contingency measures.\74\ Contingency measures are additional
control measures to be implemented in the event that EPA determines
that an area failed to meet RFP requirements (including associated QMs)
or failed to attain the PM2.5 primary standard by the
applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See 40 CFR 51.1014 and 81 FR 58010 at p. 58066, August 24,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for contingency measures to be approvable as part of a
state's PM2.5 moderate area attainment plan, the measures
must meet the following requirements set forth in the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1014: (1) The contingency measures
must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be
implemented quickly upon a determination by the Administrator of the
nonattainment area's failure to meet RFP, failure to meet any QM,
failure to submit a QM
[[Page 35871]]
report or failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment
date; (2) the plan must contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency
measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the
measures will be implemented with minimal further action by the state
or by EPA; \75\ (3) the contingency measures shall consist of control
measures that are not otherwise included in the control strategy or
that achieve emissions reductions not otherwise relied upon in the
control strategy for the area; and (4) the contingency measures should
provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's
worth of reductions needed for RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ According to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
states must show that the contingency measures can be implemented
with minimal further action and no additional rulemaking actions,
such as public hearings or legislative review. EPA generally expects
all actions needed to effect full implementation of the contingency
measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the state of the
area's failure to meet an RFP requirement or attain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Contingency Measures in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan
Section 8 (Contingency Measures) of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan identifies as contingency measures two actions
for the mitigation of primary PM2.5 from the U.S. Steel
Clairton Plant that are to be implemented as the result of a July 27,
2019 settlement agreement and order (#19060) between ACHD and U.S.
Steel. These actions, which include the installation of a cover and/or
air curtain and the installation of a new combustion (under-firing)
stack at the U.S. Steel Clairton Works, are to be implemented by May 1,
2020 and November 1, 2021, respectively. ACHD predicts that, based on
additional modeling, these two actions will lead to a reduction in
absolute annual modeled impacts of 0.10 [micro]g/m\3\ at the Liberty
monitor (AQS Site ID 42-003-0064) and that the resulting 2022
PM2.5 annual design value will be lowered by 0.07 [micro]g/
m\3\. ACHD did not include these expected reductions in
PM2.5 emissions at the U.S. Steel Clairton facility in the
emissions inventory portion of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on Contingency Measures
EPA does not consider the two actions contained in the July 27,
2019 settlement agreement and order to be suitable contingency
measures. According to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
``Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures
that are ready to be implemented quickly upon a determination by the
Administrator of the nonattainment area's failure to meet RFP, failure
to meet any QM, failure to submit a QM report or failure to attain the
standard by the applicable attainment date.'' 81 FR 58010 at 58066,
August 24, 2016.
Contingency measures are to be implemented only if they are
``triggered'' in the event of the Administrator's determination that
the Area failed to meet RFP requirements (including associated QMs) or
failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. The installation of the air curtain and stack at the
U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works will be implemented regardless of
whether the Allegheny County Area fails to meet the RFP requirements or
attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date. Measures that
will be implemented regardless of being triggered are not considered
appropriate to use as contingency measures. Therefore, EPA cannot fully
approve Section 8 (Contingency Measures) of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan because the two measures in the settlement
agreement and order do not meet the contingency measures requirements
of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1014.
EPA informed ACHD of this concern prior to the publication of
ACHD's proposed plan. In response, PADEP submitted a letter to EPA
dated April 20, 2020, concurring with ACHD's commitment to adopt
specific contingency measures and an attainment year MVEB in accordance
with EPA's proposed conditional approval of those elements of the
September 30, 2019 SIP revision. In its April 7, 2020 letter to PADEP,
ACHD commits to adopt measures from the following list that will
provide for a reduction of 34 tons per year of direct PM2.5
emissions countywide (or an equivalent reduction in combination of
PM2.5 precursors), or 9.4 tons per year of PM2.5
in the immediate vicinity of the Liberty monitor. Measures include
implementation of the following at the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works:
(1) Increased residence times for the Pushing Emission Control (PEC)
hoods during the pushing process (as described in ACHD Article XXI
Sec. 2105.21.e.6) for batteries 1-3, 13-15, and 19-20; (2) increased
baffle washing for the Quench Towers; (3) road and parking lot paving;
and (4) improvements to the PEC baghouses. Additional potential
measures include road paving on a portion of unpaved public county
roads; adoption of an ordinance to restrict sale and use of heavy fuel
oil and/or waste derived liquid fuel (WDLF) in Allegheny County;
expansion of an existing wood stove change out program; repowering or
replacement of tugboats and/or locomotives utilized by the U.S. Steel
Mon Valley Works facilities; and replacement of locomotives at the
McKeesport switchyard with new, cleaner equipment that meets the most
recent standards.
After adopting measures, PADEP will submit a SIP revision, on
behalf of ACHD, containing the adopted measures and meeting the
requirements of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 40 CFR
51.1014. In addition, the contingency measures section will include a
description of the trigger mechanisms and schedules for implementation
of the contingency measures, as required by section 51.1014. ACHD and
PADEP have committed to submit the contingency measures SIP revision to
EPA as expeditiously as possible, but no later than one year after the
effective date of EPA's final notice of conditional approval of the
September 30, 2019 SIP revision.
However, as stated previously, the expected emission reductions
from the installation of the air curtain and stack at the U.S. Steel
Clairton Coke Works were not included in the emissions inventory
included in the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. Therefore, it
is expected that these actions will provide for additional emission
reductions beyond those projected in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan. Thus, the installation of the air curtain and
stack at Clairton provide additional assurance that the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS will be attained in the Allegheny County
nonattainment area by the attainment date.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the installation of the air curtain
and stack at the U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works are better suited as
additional control measures for attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS in the Allegheny County Area. EPA is proposing to approve the
installation of the air curtain and stack at the Clairton Coke Works
contained in the settlement agreement and order (#19060) referenced in
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan as additional control
measures for the attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Allegheny County nonattainment area.
EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve the contingency
measures portion of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. As
discussed previously, ACHD commits to adopt contingency measures and
submit, through PADEP, a supplemental SIP revision consisting of
[[Page 35872]]
a revised contingency measures section of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan that includes adopted contingency measures from
the April 20, 2020 letter and meets the requirements of the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1014. EPA's
approval of the contingency measures portion of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan is contingent on ACHD's adoption of approvable
contingency measures and submittal of a SIP revision that meets the
contingency measures requirements of the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1014.
I. Transportation Conformity and MVEBs
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone. Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects which are funded or approved under title
23 of the United States Code must be determined to conform with state
or Federal air implementation plans. A MVEB is that portion of the
total allowable emissions allocated to highway and transit vehicle use
that are defined in the implementation plan for a control strategy SIP
revision.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.101
defines a ``control strategy SIP revision'' as a ``plan which
contains specific strategies for controlling the emissions and
reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA
requirements of RFP and attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to EPA's
transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
Under this rule, the area metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
coordinates with state and local air quality and transportation
agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs conform to
the applicable SIP.\77\ This conformity demonstration is typically done
by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway
and transit systems are less than or equal to the MVEB contained in all
control strategy SIPs.\78\ An attainment, maintenance, or RFP plan SIP
should include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP
milestone year, and the last year of the maintenance plan, as
appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and
specific pollutants or precursors and must reflect all of the motor
vehicle control measures contained in the applicable plan.\79\ For
MVEBs to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA's conformity
adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) is the
official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the 10-county
Southwestern Pennsylvania Region, which includes the City of
Pittsburgh and surrounding counties--including Allegheny County. SPC
is responsible for planning and prioritizing the use of all state
and Federal transportation funds allocated to the region.
\78\ See 40 CFR 93.118(a).
\79\ See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All PM2.5 control strategy SIP MVEBs must include direct
PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions (including emissions from
tailpipes, brake wear, and tire wear).\80\ Precursors of
PM2.5 must also be included in the MVEB, in certain
circumstances. NOX is included in PM2.5
nonattainment area MVEBs, unless both EPA Regional Administrator and
the director of the state air agency made a finding that
transportation-related emissions of NOX are insignificant to
PM2.5 nonattainment in the area.\81\ Other potential
PM2.5 precursor emissions, such as VOC, SO2 and
NH3 are only included in PM2.5 area MVEBs if EPA
has determined them to be significant in the area.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Per 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), direct PM2.5 emissions
from re-entrained road dust need only be included in the MVEB if EPA
Regional Administrator or the director of the state air agency has
made a finding that re-entrained road dust emissions within the area
are a significant contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment
problem or if the applicable SIP includes re-entrained road dust in
the budget as part of the RFP, attainment, or maintenance strategy.
\81\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
\82\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for a pollutant or precursor to be considered an
insignificant contributor, the control strategy SIP must demonstrate
that it is unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant/precursor for a
NAAQS violation to occur. Insignificance determinations are based on
factors such as air quality, SIP motor vehicle control measures, trends
and projections of motor vehicle emissions, and the percentage of the
total SIP inventory that is comprised of motor vehicle emissions.\83\
ACHD did not submit and is not seeking an insignificance determination
for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See 40 CFR 93.109(f) for criteria for insignificance
determinations. EPA's rationale for allowing insignificance
determinations is described in the July 1, 2004 revision to the
Transportation Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Attainment Plan
The Commonwealth's September 30, 2019 SIP revision lacks a MVEB
specific to the 2012 PM2.5 attainment plan for the
attainment year of 2021. Instead, the SIP revision refers to existing
MVEBs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS established by EPA's
approval of the maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\84\ This maintenance plan
included MVEBs for 2017 and 2025, for the larger Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley area (comprised of part of Allegheny County (excluding the
Liberty-Clairton area), Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties, as well as portions of Armstrong County, Greene, and Lawrence
Counties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See 80 FR 59624, October 2, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither EPA nor the Commonwealth's air director have made
transportation-related insignificance findings for NOX, and
EPA has not determined that transportation-related emissions of
SO2, VOC, or NH3 are significant in Allegheny
County. Therefore, there is no established MVEB for SO2,
VOC, and NH3 in any approved control strategy SIP for the
Allegheny County PM2.5 area. ACHD has determined VOC and
NH3 to be insignificant as precursors to PM2.5
nonattainment as part of the attainment plan.\85\ Therefore,
transportation conformity requirements are applicable only to
PM2.5 and NOX for the Allegheny County Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See Section 5 (Modeling Demonstration) of the September 30,
2019 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action on the Intended MVEB
EPA is proposing to find that ACHD's plan failed to establish a
MVEB for the 2012 PM2.5 attainment plan control strategy SIP
for the 2021 attainment year, as required for emission budgets by 40
CFR 93.118. A budget is required for each NAAQS for each control
strategy SIP, so that conformity can be demonstrated via a ``budget''
test for that particular area and control strategy milestone.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 40 CFR 93.118(a), (b), and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan fails to
establish an attainment year 2021 MVEB for PM2.5 and
NOX, EPA cannot approve this element of the plan at this
time. However, PADEP subsequently submitted a letter to EPA
[[Page 35873]]
dated April 20, 2020, committing to remedy this deficiency by
establishing a MVEB in accordance with EPA's Transportation Conformity
Rule requirements by September 30, 2020. Because ACHD and the MPO have
identified the actual MVEB to be established as part of their April 20,
2020 commitment, EPA is including the MVEB in this action for
informational purposes only. The MVEB must still be adopted by
Allegheny County through its normal SIP development process, which
includes EPA's related requirements to undergo public comment. The
April 20, 2020 commitment letter clearly identifies the MVEB that ACHD
and the MPO intend to propose for the 2021 attainment year, as shown in
Table 16.
Table 16--Allegheny County, PA 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Year Intended
MVEB for Direct PM2.5 and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5 on-
road emissions NOX on-road
Motor vehicle emissions budget year (tons per emissions
year) (tons per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021.................................. 266 5,708
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remedy of this MVEB-related deficiency of the September 30, 2019
SIP revision entails: Identifying the attainment year MVEB in a
supplemental SIP revision; conducting a public comment process on the
identified MVEB (per the requirements of EPA conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.118(e)); and formally submitting the established MVEB to EPA as a
supplemental revision to the attainment plan SIP revision. EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the MVEB element of the SIP
submittal until ACHD remedies the deficiency with the 2021 MVEB.
IV. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania's September 30, 2019 SIP revision to address the CAA's
Moderate area planning requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the Allegheny County nonattainment area--with the exception of the
contingency measures and MVEB elements of the plan, which EPA proposes
to conditionally approve.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following elements of
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan:
(1) The 2011 base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
(2) The RACM/RACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C);
(3) The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(B);
(4) The RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2); and
(5) The QM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(c).
EPA also proposes to conditionally approve the MVEB and contingency
measures elements of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. Under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a plan
based on a commitment from the Commonwealth to adopt specific
enforceable measures within a date certain no more than one year from
the date of final conditional approval. If Pennsylvania fails to meet
its commitments by the commitment date, the approval is treated as a
disapproval.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
following elements of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan:
(1) The attainment year 2021 MVEB, as the plan failed to identify
the MVEB, as required by CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A. However, Pennsylvania submitted a commitment letter to EPA on April
20, 2020 transmitting ACHD's April 7, 2020 letter that identifies their
proposed MVEB for 2021 and commits to finalize a 2021 budget (following
public notice and comment) and to submit it to EPA by September 30,
2020 as a revision to this SIP submission and;
(2) The contingency measures in Section 8 (Contingency Measures) of
the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, as the submitted
contingency measures do not satisfy the requirements of the CAA section
172(c)(9) or the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule at 40 CFR
51.1014. Upon receipt of that subsequent SIP submission, EPA will take
separate action to determine whether those adopted contingency measures
satisfy relevant EPA requirements for contingency measures.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are
provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this action. EPA will
consider any received comments prior to finalizing this proposed
action.
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 proposed 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);
[[Page 35874]]
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, this proposed rule proposing to approve the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan (with the exception of the contingency
measures and MVEB elements, which EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve) does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the Commonwealth, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: June 4, 2020
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-12499 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
