Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Area Attainment Plan for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 26388-26401 [2021-09565]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26388
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–
001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions
on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
Dated: May 5, 2021.
R.S. Rhodes,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector Lower Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2021–10256 Filed 5–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T08–0230 to read as
follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
§ 165.T08–0230 Safety Zone; Lower
Mississippi River, Mile Marker 365, Natchez,
MS.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All navigable waters of the
Lower Mississippi River from Mile
Marker (MM) 364.5 through 365.5 in the
vicinity of Natchez, MS.
(b) Regulations. (1) Under the general
safety zone regulations in subpart C of
this part, you may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi
River (COTP) or the COTP’s designated
representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector
Lower Mississippi River.
(2) To seek permission to enter,
contact the COTP or the COTP’s
representative via VHF–FM channel 16
or by telephone at 901–521–4822. Those
in the safety zone must comply with all
lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
(3) Persons or vessels seeking to enter
the safety zones must request
permission from the COTP or a
designated representative on VHF–FM
channel 16 or by telephone at 901–521–
4822. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with
the instructions of the COTP or
designated representative.
(c) Effective period. This section is
effective from 4 p.m. through 7 p.m. on
May 15, 2021.
(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP
or a designated representative will
inform the public of the enforcement
times and date for this safety zone
through Broadcast Notices to Mariners,
Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety
Marine Information Broadcasts, as
appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0157; FRL–10023–
27–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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving most
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 (the
‘‘Allegheny County Area,’’ or ‘‘the
Area’’). The revision constitutes a
comprehensive plan to ensure the
Allegheny County Area’s timely
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is approving this revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with
the requirements of the CAA.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This final rule is effective on
June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0157. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
DATES:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
A. Approval of the Attainment Plan and
Related Elements
B. Conditional Approval of the
Contingency Measures Portion of the
Attainment Plan
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Epidemiological studies have shown
statistically significant correlations
between elevated levels of PM2.5
(particulate matter with a diameter of
2.5 microns or less) and premature
mortality. Other important health effects
associated with PM2.5 exposure include
aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, changes in lung
function, and increased respiratory
symptoms. Individuals particularly
sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung
disease, and children.1 PM2.5 can be
emitted directly into the atmosphere as
a solid or liquid particle (‘‘primary
PM2.5’’ or ‘‘direct PM2.5’’) or can be
1 See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; (2012) Final Rule (78 FR 3086–
3088, January 15, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions among
precursor pollutants such as nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides, volatile
organic compounds, and ammonia
(‘‘secondary PM2.5’’).2
EPA first established annual and 24hour NAAQS for PM2.5 on July 18,
1997.3 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, and the 24hour (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 monitor
within an area.4 On October 17, 2006,
EPA revised the level of 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.5 On January 15, 2013,
EPA revised the annual standard to 12.0
mg/m3, based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations.6 We
refer to this standard as the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The SIP submission at issue in
this action pertains to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Proposed Action
EPA designated and classified the
Allegheny County Area as ‘‘Moderate’’
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.7 On September 30, 2019,
PADEP submitted the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan SIP revision, on behalf of
ACHD, in order to meet the applicable
requirements for Moderate areas and to
provide for attainment of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in the Allegheny County Area.
The SIP revision contains the
attainment demonstration for the
Allegheny County Area (also referred to
as ‘‘the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan’’
or ‘‘the Plan’’). On June 12, 2020 (85 FR
35852), EPA proposed to fully approve
2 See Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule; Final Rule (72 FR 20586, 20589, April 25,
2007).
3 See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter (1997); Final Rule (62 FR 38652,
July 18, 1997). The initial NAAQS for PM2.5
included annual standards of 15.0 mg/m3, based on
a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65
mg/m3, based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile
24-hour concentrations (40 CFR 50.7).
4 The primary and secondary standards were set
at the same level for both the 24-hour and the
annual PM2.5 standards.
5 See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Final Rule (71 FR 61144,
October 17, 2006).
6 See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Final Rule (78 FR 3086, January
15, 2013).
7 See Air Quality Designations for the 2012
Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); Final
Rule (80 FR 2206, January 15, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
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)
element, the air quality modeling
demonstration supporting attainment by
the attainment deadline, the reasonable
further progress (RFP) analysis, and the
quantitative milestones to ensure timely
attainment.8
Having identified deficiencies (and
having obtained a commitment to
remedy those deficiencies within one
year of final action), EPA proposed a
conditional approval of the contingency
measures and the 2021 motor vehicle
emission budget (MVEB) element of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan.
Pennsylvania committed (via an April
20, 2020 letter to EPA) to submit a
supplemental SIP revision to remedy
those two elements of the Plan by no
later than twelve months after EPA’s
final conditional approval action.
As part of our June 12, 2020 proposal,
we proposed to find that the suite of
PM2.5 control requirements in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan meets all
RACM/RACT requirements for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM
precursors and to approve the PM2.5
RACM evaluation as meeting the
applicable nonattainment area plan
requirements under CAA sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and 40 CFR
51.1009.
EPA also proposed to find that the
attainment demonstration in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan satisfies
the requirements of sections 189(a)(1)(B)
and 172(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR
51.1011(a). In support of this proposal,
we found that the ACHD relied upon
acceptable modeling techniques to
demonstrate attainment of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Allegheny County
Area, and that the Plan demonstrates
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. We
determined that the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan provides a convincing
justification that emission reductions
from the control measures listed in the
Plan will provide for timely attainment
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2021 attainment date. Our
June 12, 2020 proposed rule provides a
more detailed discussion of our
evaluation of the Plan.9
Other specific requirements
applicable to attainment plans under the
8 See Allegheny County Area Attainment Plan for
the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standard; Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR
35852, June 12, 2020).
9 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26389
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the rationale for
EPA’s proposed action are explained in
the June 12, 2020 proposed rule, and its
associated technical support documents
(TSDs), and will not be restated here.
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The June 12, 2020 proposed action to
approve the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan opened a public comment period,
which ended on July 13, 2020.
Following a request for additional time
from a public advocacy group, EPA
published a document on July 31, 2020
reopening and extending the public
comment period through August 13,
2020.10 EPA received public comments
from several environmental groups and
several individual commenters. The
comments received have been placed in
the docket for this action. EPA’s
summary of the significant adverse
comments received on the proposed
action and our responses to those
comments are listed below.
Comment 1: The commenter requests
that EPA consider the lateness of ACHD
submission of the Plan (nearly three
years after the due date) when assessing
the ‘‘credibility’’ of ACHD’s attainment
demonstration. The commenter
contends that ACHD’s stated reason for
being late (i.e., the complexity of the
plan analysis) is inadequate justification
for the lateness. The commenter states
that if ACHD had not submitted a plan
to EPA before the 18-month sanctions
clock deadline, the Allegheny PM2.5
nonattainment area would have been
subject to sanctions, including a more
stringent emissions offset ratio
requirement applicable to new and
modified major stationary sources. The
commenter posits that the delay in
submitting this Plan provides ‘‘context’’
for flaws in the submitted plan.
Response 1: Although the
Commonwealth submitted the
Allegheny County Plan well after the
October 15, 2016 CAA statutory
deadline, EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that this delay in
submission must be presumed to result
in a flawed Plan. Lateness of the Plan in
and of itself does not interfere with the
ability of ACHD to prepare an
attainment plan meeting the CAA and
related EPA regulatory requirements.
Section 110(k) requires EPA to evaluate
and to act upon SIP submissions from
states. EPA has authority to approve,
disapprove, or conditionally approve a
SIP submission, in whole or in part,
based upon whether the submission
meets all applicable requirements.
Lateness of a state’s submission of the
10 See
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
85 FR 46046, July 31, 2020.
14MYR1
26390
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Plan to EPA does not affect EPA’s
obligation to evaluate and act upon the
SIP submission based on its merits,
consistent with those requirements. As
explained in the proposed action, EPA
has determined that the SIP submission
from ACHD does meet most of the
applicable requirements as submitted.
However, EPA is herein requiring that
Pennsylvania meet these applicable
requirements when addressing the
conditional approval of the contingency
measures’ requirement.
Regarding the sanctions process
mentioned by the commenter, EPA’s
finding of failure to submit deficiency
was remedied by EPA’s November 1,
2019 letter determining that PADEP’s
September 30, 2019 SIP submittal of the
Plan was complete.11 At that point,
sanctions under section 179 of the CAA
for failing to submit the required
nonattainment plan ceased to be
applicable. If Pennsylvania fails to
remedy the identified conditions of the
conditional approval, converting those
elements of the Plan to a disapproval,
then that disapproval would constitute
a new finding under the terms of CAA
section 179(a), beginning a new 18month period prior to potential
application of sanctions described by
CAA section 179(b). EPA’s conversion
of the proposed conditional approval
into a final conditional approval by this
action will prevent the further
imposition of CAA section 179(b)
sanctions unless Pennsylvania does not
submit the required elements of the Plan
by the deadline under the final
conditional approval, i.e., one year from
the date of EPA’s final conditional
approval.
Comment 2: The commenter states
that EPA should require more rigorous
analyses from ACHD for the Plan since
it contains air quality modeling tailored
to attaining the NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3
precisely, with no margin of safety. The
commenter cites EPA’s 2018 ‘‘Guidance
for Attainment Demonstrations for
PM2.5,’’ which states that ‘‘supplemental
evidence should accompany all model
attainment demonstrations’’ 12 and that
‘‘generally, those modeling analyses that
show that attainment will be reached in
the future with some margin of safety
will need more limited supporting
material,’’ 13 and goes on to state that
11 See Document EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0157–
0045 in the docket for this action at
www.regulations.gov.
12 See EPA, Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze (November 29, 2018), p. 169,
available in the online docket for this action at
www.regulations.gov, Document ID EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–1057–0068.
13 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
‘‘for other attainment cases in which the
projected future design value is closer to
the NAAQS, more rigorous supporting
analyses should be completed.’’ 14 The
commenter points out that ACHD’s
modeling projects attainment at exactly
the level of the NAAQS (i.e., 12.0 mg/
m3) and the commenter thus believes
EPA should adhere to its guidance by
compelling ACHD to provide more
rigorous analyses to support its
attainment demonstration.15
The commenter questions the
credibility of ACHD’s Plan, given public
statements by ACHD that it is prohibited
from developing a control strategy for
NAAQS attainment that reduces
emissions to levels that would result in
air quality that is better than the level
required for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter argues that
ACHD’s contention in the Plan that they
are prevented by state/local law from
adopting a control strategy that exceeds
Federal requirements (i.e., that provides
emission reductions resulting in an
attainment year design value below the
12.0 mg/m3 standard) is not supported
by state or local law.
Response 2: EPA acknowledges that
its guidance recommends that modeling
demonstrations projecting PM2.5 design
value concentrations that are close to
the level of NAAQS (as is the case for
the Liberty Monitor at issue in the Plan)
should have more supporting evidence
and analyses. EPA’s November 2018
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze
guidance directs that supplemental
evidence should accompany all model
attainment demonstrations and that,
generally, those modeling analyses that
show that attainment will be reached in
the future with some margin of safety
will need more limited supporting
material. However, for other attainment
cases in which the projected future
design value is closer to the NAAQS,
more rigorous supporting analyses
should be completed.16
Based on information provided in the
weight of evidence (WOE) analysis
submitted as part of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan, including
information from the electric grid
operator for the area (PJM
Interconnection, LLC), EPA has
concluded that Allegheny County has
performed a ‘‘more rigorous supporting
analyses’’ in support of its modeling
analysis demonstration that meets EPA’s
14 Id.
15 See ACHD September 30, 2019 SIP revision
Main Document, (Table 5–5, Base and Future
Design Values (mg/m3), Liberty), p. 36. Available at
www.regulations.gov, Document ID EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–1057.
16 See EPA’s November 2018 Ozone, PM
2.5 and
Regional Haze guidance, p. 169.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
guidance. The Plan projects that all
monitors in the Allegheny County PM2.5
nonattainment area will comply with
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the required
2021 attainment date.17 The commenter
did not mention the Plan’s WOE
analysis or PJM data in its comment, so
it is not clear if the commenter was
aware of their existence. Allegheny
County’s WOE analysis shows declining
PM2.5 monitor concentrations,
additional source emission reductions
not included in the modeling analysis,
precursor sulfur dioxide (SO2)
reductions imposed in Allegheny
County’s 1-hour SO2 SIP, reductions in
emissions due to electric generating unit
(EGU) shutdowns within the PJM
Interconnection territory, a comparison
of model SO2/NOX EGU emissions
showing potential excess precursor
emissions in the projected year model
inventory (see Appendix K of ACHD‘s
SIP submittal) which could lead to a
model overprediction bias, overall
emission reductions due to declining
local population trends, and additional
emission reductions associated with
several local control measures. These
represent additional analyses that
would not be necessary if the modeling
projected attainment at a design value
below 12.0 mg/m3. Also, the commenter
does not elaborate on why ACHD’s
analysis is inadequate, other than to
assert that it should be more rigorous.
Finally, the commenter did not provide
any additional analyses or evidence
supporting its assertion that Allegheny
County’s SIP will not provide for
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
statutory attainment date (see response
to comment 4 regarding current PM2.5
design values in Allegheny County). In
the absence of any contrary evidence,
upon EPA’s review of the SIP
submission including the modeling and
additional evidence supporting the
predicted attainment by the attainment
date, EPA concludes that ACHD’s Plan
will bring the area into attainment.
The commenter asserts that there is
no legal prohibition at the state or
county level preventing the state or
county from requiring a greater level of
emission reductions of direct PM2.5 or
PM2.5 precursors that would allow the
Area to model attainment at a design
value below 12.0 mg/m3. However, the
existence or nonexistence of such a
prohibition is not germane to the task at
hand, which is determining whether the
submitted Plan will result in attainment
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Allegheny
County by the attainment date. In this
case, the attainment modeling projecting
17 See Appendix M of ACHD’s September 12,
2019 SIP revision, comments 69 and 70.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
that the design value for this Area will
meet the NAAQS limit by the
attainment date is sufficient to
demonstrate that the PM2.5 NAAQS will
be met, in accordance with CAA
requirements.
Comment 3: The commenter claims
that EPA’s 2018 guidance does not
allow the use of a Local Area Analysis
(LAA) in order to disregard a modeled
future (i.e., attainment year) design
value that is higher than the NAAQS.
The commenter asserts this is not
reasonable because the purpose of the
attainment demonstration analysis is to
facilitate a control strategy, rather than
as a substitute for a forecast of
nonattainment. The commenter states
that after calculating a future design
value of 12.6 mg/m3 at the Liberty
monitor using CAMx modeling, ACHD
rejected the result and instead
conducted a supplemental LAA, the
results of which ACHD instead used to
demonstrate that the attainment year
design value test was met.
The commenter notes that ACHD
acknowledges that the CAMx model,
which is EPA’s recommended model for
PM2.5, can address local impacts as well
as regional impacts by selecting certain
available options within the CAMx
model. The commenter also alleges that
despite the fact that the CAMx modeling
addressed local impacts, ACHD ignored
those CAMx-derived local impacts in
favor of a separate LAA that used
AERMOD to determine those local
impacts, which were then fed back into
the CAMx model.18 The commenter
argues that this approach is not
consistent with EPA’s PM2.5 attainment
demonstration guidance. Further, the
commenter states that the purpose of a
LAA is not to engineer a design value
that will just meet the NAAQS, but
rather to supplement the results of the
attainment test.
The commenter asserts that EPA’s
2018 Guidance cites the relative
attainment tests described in sections
4.2, 4.4.2 and 4.5 of the guidance as the
primary modeling tools used in an
attainment demonstration, and that use
of a chemical transport grid model on a
regional or local scale is the best tool
available to judge the impacts of
changes in future year emissions on
concentrations. The commenter further
argues that ‘‘while the Agency
contemplates other models, the purpose
is only to ‘supplement’ the results of the
modeled attainment test.’’ 19 The
commenter notes that when EPA’s
guidance indicates that while use of
18 Id. See section 5.4.1 [Liberty LAA
Methodology], p. 33.
19 Id. Pp. 171–172.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
such models ‘‘may be useful as a
supplemental analysis . . .’’ it is
speaking to the control strategy rather
than to the attainment demonstration
itself.
The commenter argues that EPA’s
guidance does not state that a
supplemental dispersion model could
be the basis for the actual attainment
test, which is the result reached by
ACHD. The commenter disagrees (both
from a policy and a legal perspective)
with ACHD’s rationale, which seeks to
characterize the sources contributing to
levels of fine particulates at the Liberty
Monitor, based on statements in ACHD’s
modeling demonstration that ‘‘Source
characterization with CAMx was likely
not fully representative of some sources
near Liberty, specifically for some
processes at the USS Clairton Plant,’’
and that ‘‘Refined modeling with
AERMOD can more accurately account
for many processes with the use of
different source types . . .’’ The
commenter argues that a question
regarding relative contribution among
sources is separate from a question
regarding the reliability of modeling
results obtained through the use of
CAMx.
The commenter argues that ACHD’s
other rationales for use of a LAA are
also invalid, surmising that if CAMx
were conservative with its EGU
assumptions, that would not make the
CAMx modeling flawed.20 Similarly, the
commenter argues that if ‘‘some local
primary PM2.5 emissions were
overestimated with the inventory used
for the CAMx modeling,’’ that would
not be a justification for abandoning the
CAMx model.21 The commenter further
argues that suggestions that the spatial
grading in the CAMx model is ‘‘likely
too large to properly simulate localized
impacts at Liberty’’ or that ‘‘species are
not being properly apportioned by the
modeled results’’ are also not
justifiable.22
The commenter argues that while EPA
guidance contemplates that PM2.5
measurement data from monitors may
not be representative of ‘‘area-wide’’ air
quality and therefore not suitable for
comparison with the standard, this
statement is limited to ‘‘micro-scale’’
and ‘‘middle-scale’’ sites.23 The
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 See EPA ‘‘Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze,’’ p. 133, which states, ‘‘PM2.5
measurement data from monitors that are not
representative of ‘‘area-wide’’ air quality, but rather
of relatively unique micro-scale, or localized hot
spot, or unique middle-scale impact sites, are not
eligible for comparison to the annual PM2.5
NAAQS.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26391
commenter contends that by preparing a
LAA with ‘‘supplemental’’ modeling
and then using this to replace the
‘‘primary’’ modeling analysis, ACHD
has made a determination that the
Liberty Monitor data is unsuitable for
comparison with the NAAQS—a
determination that is contradicted by
the fact that the Liberty Monitor is a
core PM2.5 site (characterized in the
monitoring plan as a ‘‘neighborhood’’
site) that is used to determine
compliance with NAAQS.24
The commenter argues that these
supporting arguments prevent use of an
alternative LAA to ignore the projected
2021 Liberty 12.5 mg/m3 CAMx modeled
design value from the primary analysis
in lieu of the lower 12.0 mg/m3 design
value provided by ACHD’s LAA.
Response 3: The Community Air
Quality Model with Extensions 25 or
CAMx, with a 1.33-kilometer (km) grid,
projected 2021 model results are
summarized in Table 5–4 of Allegheny
County’s main SIP document. Projected
2021 PM2.5 design value concentrations
for all Allegheny County monitors
except for the Liberty Monitor, which
was not included in the table, are below
the 24-hr and annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Results from EPA’s Model Attainment
Test Software (MATS, version 2.6.1) for
all of the Allegheny County monitors
are listed in Appendix I.1 of Allegheny
County’s SIP document. Projected 2021
PM2.5 concentrations are included in
Table 3.6 of Appendix I.1 (for annual
PM2.5 NAAQS) and Table 3.7 of
Appendix I.1 (for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS). Liberty’s CAMx projected
2021 annual PM2.5 design value is 12.5
mg/m3 and its projected 24-hour PM2.5
design value is 38.6 mg/m3, which
exceed both the Annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Allegheny County’s SIP document
outlines several reasons why it believes
CAMx has overstated projected 2021
PM2.5 design values at the Liberty
Monitor (see page 32 of the main SIP
document). These points include overprojections of future SO2 and NOX in
the EGU sector (see EPA’s TSD
regarding PJM Interconnection, LLC
EGU fuel usage and projected year
emission differences within the 4-km
CAMx domain for additional support on
this point), overestimated local primary
PM2.5 emissions, too coarse spatial
resolution of CAMx domain (1.33 km)
24 See ACHD 2020 Air Monitoring Network Plan,
page 33, Section 10.2.
25 CAMx is a state-of-the-science photochemical
grid model that comprises a ‘‘one-atmosphere’’
treatment of tropospheric air pollution over spatial
scales ranging from neighborhoods to continents.
See the CAMx web page, at: www.camx.com/about/
default.aspx.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
26392
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
used in the projected 2021 PM2.5
concentrations, and CAMx’s uniform
treatment of all emissions as emanating
from stack point sources when a
significant number of sources at some of
the larger US Steel plants are better
represented as (fugitive) volume or area
source types. Additional discussion of
these points can be found in Appendix
I.2 and Appendix F.3 of the Allegheny
County Plan SIP.
The commenter offers several points
to counter Pennsylvania’s LAA, but
EPA’s guidance clearly allows an option
to utilize a Gaussian type air-dispersion
model (such as AERMOD) to model the
primary components of PM2.5 (organic
carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC) and
other primary PM2.5 (OPP)) and to
exclude chemically reactive
components of PM2.5 such as sulfate and
nitrate. Per EPA’s ‘‘Modeling Guidance
for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,’’ dated
November 29, 2018, states that, ‘‘local
influences creating large spatial
gradients are likely to consist mostly of
primary PM2.5 (OC, EC, and OPP). These
sources may be point sources, or they
may be nearby roads or other mobile or
area sources.’’ 26
PM2.5 monitor concentrations in
Allegheny County show there is a
significant concentration (spatial)
gradient near the Liberty Monitor site
(see Allegheny County monitor’s current
2017–19 PM2.5 design value maps
contained in the attached technical
support document). Liberty’s current
design values are 16–29% higher on the
annual basis and 34–48% higher on the
24-hour basis than the two nearest PM2.5
monitors (Clairton and North Braddock).
Furthermore, Liberty’s PM2.5 speciation
breakdown from CAMx shows it has
substantially higher values in its OC, EC
and OPP components than the other
monitors in Allegheny County (see
Tables 3.6 and 3.7 in Appendix I.1).
Documentation of high OC, EC and OPP
is needed to justify using the Gaussian
(AERMOD) dispersion model.
EPA’s guidance directs that a grid
model can be run at very high
horizontal resolution (1 or 2 km or finer)
or a Gaussian dispersion model can be
used.27 Grid-based models simulate
chemical transformation and complex
meteorological conditions, while
dispersion models are generally more
simplistic; being limited to a local-scale,
using Gaussian approximations with
little or no chemistry. Therefore, while
dispersion models may not be an
26 See section 4.6.1 of EPA’s ‘‘Modeling Guidance
for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5 and Regional Haze,’’ November 29, 2018.
27 Id. Section 4.6.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
appropriate tool for determining
secondary PM2.5 or ozone
concentrations, they work well for use
in determining local primary PM2.5
impacts.
The commenter asserts that the
Allegheny County Area PM2.5 plan’s
modeling demonstration ‘‘abandons’’
the (1.33 km) CAMx demonstration
results. This significantly
mischaracterizes ACHD’s PM2.5 SIP
modeling demonstration. Allegheny
County indicated that it was using the
LAA for the Liberty Monitor to remodel
the primary (nonreactive) PM2.5
components of its modeling
demonstration, while retaining the
chemically reactive PM2.5 species from
CAMx. In essence, it is removing only
the nonreactive portion of PM2.5
generated by CAMx, in accordance with
EPA guidance, and replacing values
from the nonreactive chemical CAMx
species with results from a Gaussian
dispersion model (AERMOD). This
AERMOD modeling was performed
using the same meteorological Weather
Research and Forecasting (WRF) model
data set via EPA’s Mesoscale Model
Interface Program (MMIF) that was used
in the CAMx modeling.
Allegheny County further justified
developing and using its LAA based on
improved model spatial resolution and
source characterizations available via
this pathway. The CAMx model, while
relative fine-scaled (approximately 1.33
km grid spacing), is still coarse when
considering some of the large primary
PM2.5 emission sources in Allegheny
County. In essence, all emissions are
inserted into CAMx at a horizontal scale
of approximately 1.33 km and within
specified vertical layers within CAMx.
The CAMx model distributes emissions
across the entire grid box in which they
are emitted, and because of this artificial
dilution the distribution of these
emissions in CAMx may be represented
in the model as artificially high outside
of the source plume and artificially low
within the source plume. Such artificial
dilution is not problematic for regional
scale air quality modeling purposes, but
can impact local scale modeling of
plumes, as is the case here. ACHD
pursued plume-in-grid and AERMOD
dispersion modeling to better resolve
the emission sources’ plume transport
and dispersion that were not well
resolved with the base CAMx modeling.
To alleviate this issue, Allegheny
County’s CAMx modeling system
utilized a plume in grid
parameterization that withholds a
portion of emissions from being directly
released across the entire model grid
cell; without plume in grid, CAMx
would instantaneously disperse source
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
emissions across a full grid when in
reality the plume will spread more
slowly from its release point.
Spatial resolution for a Gaussian
dispersion model such as AERMOD is
not limited in scale; and AERMOD can
resolve emissions and processes more
finely than the CAMx model.
Additionally, AERMOD has multiple
source characterizations available while
CAMx can only model stack-like point
source releases. CAMx treats fugitive
emissions using a point source
parameterization that does not resolve
the emissions in sufficient detail to
properly characterize the impacts of
important PM2.5 sources such as fugitive
releases from the US Steel sources in
this nonattainment area modeling
demonstration. Near the Liberty
Monitor, there are prominent fugitive
emission sources that include coke oven
emissions (oven leaks, pushing,
charging, quenching and material
handling). AERMOD can more finely
resolve these fugitive emissions to
ensure better placement of these
emissions into the modeling domain,
resulting in a better prediction of source
impacts in the local area near the source
and a better estimate of the projected
DV. Allegheny County’s SIP followed
EPA guidance in the development,
running and processing of its LAA.
For these reasons, EPA believes
Allegheny County is justified in
conducting a LAA using a Gaussian
dispersion model (AERMOD) to more
accurately project the Liberty Monitor’s
2021 PM2.5 design values. Furthermore,
Allegheny County has fully documented
that it has followed EPA’s guidance in
executing its LAA.
Comment 4: The commenter asserts
that ACHD’s 2021 modeling projection
is flawed and unreasonable because the
selected 2011 base year is
unrepresentative of current and
potential future meteorological
conditions for the area. The commenter
contends that the area experienced an
unusually low number of atmospheric
inversions and higher than normal
annual precipitation in 2011. Given the
importance of meteorological inputs in
modeling, the commenter believes the
2011 meteorological data will result in
lower modeled PM2.5 concentrations for
2021 than modeling using another year’s
meteorological data. As evidence that
2011 is unrepresentative of current and
future meteorological conditions, the
commenter cites ACHD’s meteorological
analysis, which states, ‘‘more recent
years have recorded above normal
average temperatures along with
precipitation amounts substantially
above normal; therefore, the 2011 base
year may well represent these more
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
current conditions.’’ The commenter
contends that while ACHD used the
Weather Research and Forecasting
(WRF) meteorological model for the
Allegheny County domain, stating that
is has been determined to produce
appropriate representative
meteorological conditions to provide
meteorological inputs for the air quality
modeling, they also cautioned that the
accuracy of the modeling is dependent
upon the ‘‘representativeness of the
meteorological dataset.’’
The commenter argues that 2011 had
a lower than average number of
temperature inversions (134 days versus
an average of 157 days with inversions
from 2008 to 2018), and that the
location where temperature inversions
are measured (the Pittsburgh
International Airport) will have not only
fewer temperature inversions in a year
than the low-lying valleys that make up
most of the nonattainment area, but also
that the strength of the inversions will
be greater in the valleys. The commenter
argues that 2012 meteorological data
would be more representative because it
had only one more temperature
inversion than the average from 2008 to
2018.
The commenter argues that with
respect to precipitation, the selected
2011 base year is not representative
because Allegheny County experienced
44.24 inches of precipitation that year,
which is more than six inches greater
than the NWS 30-year mean for the
period 1981–2010 28 and was over fourand-one-half inches greater than the
average between 1991–2019. The
commenter contends that ACHD’s
choice of 2011 precipitation data is a
statistical outlier, exceeded only five
years in the most recent thirty. The
commenter contends that ACHD is
appealing to climate change as a basis
for use of unrepresentative
meteorological conditions in modeling
future year emissions, contrary to EPA
guidance.29 Finally, the commenter
contends that ACHD did not follow
EPA’s guidance by using meteorological
inputs for modeling that are conducive
to elevated PM2.5 concentrations.30
Response 4: Multiple factors are
considered in selecting a base year for
28 See National Weather Service, Pittsburgh
Historical Precipitation Totals 1836 to Current, at:
www.weather.gov/media/pbz/records/hisprec.pdf.
29 See 2019 Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze, Section 2.6.2 (Assessing
Impacts of Future Year Meteorology), page 32, at
www.regulations.gov: Document ID EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0157–0068.
30 See U.S. EPA, Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze, Section 2.3.1 (Choosing Time
Periods to Model), page 20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
modeling purposes. ACHD considered
meteorology, source emissions data, and
monitoring data, and ultimately selected
2011, due to the availability of the 2011
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) as
well as the availability of reasonably
representative monitoring and
meteorological data. In some cases,
choice of available actual data eases the
burden of adjusting or altering the data
to represent other possible base years
(e.g., the availability of 2011 NEI year
data lends itself to selection of a 2011
base year without adjustment).
Allegheny County provided an overview
of its base year selection in several
sections of its SIP documentation,
namely its Problem Statement (Section
2) of the SIP and the CAMx Model
Protocol (Appendix F.2). Estimates of
the effects of climate change over the
short time periods and small spatial
scales (i.e., for the purpose of attainment
of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment
deadline) would be too uncertain to add
value.
EPA reviewed Clean Air Council’s
climatological information for
Pittsburgh International Airport
(temperature and precipitation) and
inversion strength information
generated by the Allegheny County
Health Department (ventilation rate). A
more detailed analysis of Pittsburgh
International Airport’s 30-year
temperature and precipitation as well as
Allegheny County’s inversion strength
summary is included as a separate TSD.
EPA will summarize its findings in the
next several paragraphs.
EPA analyzed daily temperature and
precipitation information collected at
the Pittsburgh International Airport
weather station over a 30-year period
between 1990 to 2019, listed at the
Pennsylvania State Climatological
website.31 EPA focused our review on
the 2011 base year and the other years
that are used to reconstruct the base
year design values. All years that
include 2011 in the Allegheny County
monitoring design values, and that were
used in the model attainment test, were
considered (i.e., the periods 2009–11,
2010–12 and 2011–13). While monthly
and annual average temperatures and
total precipitation values for 2011 do
sometimes vary from the 30-year
averages, they generally fall within 1
standard deviation of the mean. This
means that while temperatures and
precipitation totals may differ from their
30-year means, the differences in
precipitation and temperature would
not be considered statistically
significant outliers in the normal
31 See www.climate.met.psu.edu/data/ida/ for
select FAA daily summaries.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26393
distribution (for example several
standard deviations from the 30-year
means). Additionally, the commenter
has not established that there is a strong
correlation between the meteorological
conditions (i.e., temperature and
precipitation values) at the Pittsburgh
International Airport’s weather station
and the projected PM2.5 design values
for Allegheny County monitors,
especially the Liberty Monitor.
EPA also reviewed and updated the
inversion strength information that is
developed by the Allegheny County
Health Department as part of its
assessment of daily dispersion
characteristics.32 Allegheny County has
identified a correlation with inversions
and elevated PM2.5 concentrations
within the county and has included it
in several sections of its SIP
documentation (problem statement
section of the main SIP and more
thoroughly discussed in Appendices B
and F). EPA’s review of Allegheny
County’s most recent 2019 annual
inversion summary report, available on
Allegheny County’s website, shows that
the 2011 model base year has an
unusually low number of days without
significant inversions and the number of
inversion days in 2011 lies outside 1
standard deviation of the 2008–19
average. EPA’s analysis also shows the
Liberty Monitor’s annual quarterly
means and 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations do appear to
correlate well with Allegheny County’s
inversion day totals; PM2.5
concentrations, both 24-hour and
annual, are higher during years with
more inversion days. EPA therefore
finds merit with the commenter’s point
that Allegheny County’s base year 2011
is unrepresentative of the yearly number
of inversions because it has a
significantly lower number of inversion
days, which could lead the modeling to
skew lower in its PM2.5 concentrations.
While we acknowledge the
commenter’s concern that Allegheny
County’s 2011 meteorological data has a
lower number of inversion days than
other years, EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that Allegheny
County’s selection of 2011 as its base
year will lead to projected 2021 PM2.5
design values that are lower than would
otherwise be projected using other years
of meteorological data. The selection of
a base year with fewer than usual
number of inversion days will be mostly
muted by how the modeled attainment
test is constructed. This is because the
32 See ACHD’s monitoring data web page, at:
www.alleghenycounty.us/Health-Department/
Programs/Air-Quality/Monitored-Data.aspx, under
‘‘Air Dispersion Reports.’’
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
26394
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
PM2.5 model demonstration uses
modeling in a ‘‘relative’’ sense and not
in an absolute sense.33 That is, the
predicted model PM2.5 concentration for
the projected year simulation is not
directly used for attainment
determination purposes, and instead is
used to develop species-by-species
PM2.5 relative reduction factors that are
applied to a weighted base year design
value (for each individual component of
PM2.5). The influence of meteorology on
model PM2.5 concentrations is
dampened because projections are done
using ratios of concentrations based on
the same meteorology; the base-year and
projection-year meteorology are
identical. Furthermore, the weighted
design value concept that EPA’s
guidance utilizes generates a base year
(2011) monitor design value that is
taken from multiple years of monitoring
data. This partially offsets the impacts
of selecting one or more years with
favorable meteorology that may
contribute to lower modeled
concentrations.
Furthermore, the commenter’s
assertion that the selection of a year
with an unrepresentative number of
inversions (2011) as Allegheny County’s
base year would lead to an underestimation of future monitor design
values, and therefore attainment, does
not hold up when Allegheny County’s
final projected 2021 design values are
compared to the most recent (2017–19)
monitor design values. If anything,
Allegheny County’s modeling results are
over-predicting based on current design
values.34 EPA used the modeled base
year and future year design values for
all of the Allegheny County monitors to
calculate linear annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 trend lines, then applied the
model calculated change in PM2.5
concentration per year to generate a
projected 2019 design value
concentration.35 Further information on
EPA’s calculation of the projected 2019
design value calculation is available in
the TSD prepared for this action. These
values could then be compared with the
actual monitor values to see how well
Allegheny County’s modeling
33 See Section 4.1 of EPA’s Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze, November 29, 2018 for
additional discussion on the Model Attainment
Test.
34 EPA’s analysis of modeled and monitored
design values in Allegheny County is more fully
explained in its TSD included as part of this
response.
35 See EPA’s Supplemental TSD, ‘‘Providing
Responses to Comments Regarding the EPA’s
Proposed Approval of the Attainment
Demonstration for the Allegheny County PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, under the 2012 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ prepared October
2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
demonstration could reproduce actual
monitor design values. In nearly every
case, the model projected design values
that were higher than the actual monitor
design values, suggesting that the model
projections are conservative with
respect to actual monitor PM2.5 design
values. The most recent design values
pulled from EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) indicate that only annual PM2.5
design values at the Liberty monitor
exceed the NAAQS; Liberty’s 2017–19
annual design value is 12.4 mg/m3.
Based on Allegheny County’s
modeled yearly emission change (¥0.24
mg/m3 per year), EPA expects Liberty
will achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS by its
projected attainment date of 2021. All
other PM2.5 monitors inside Allegheny
County currently meet the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, two years before the statutory
attainment date. Allegheny County also
included an unmonitored area analysis
(Appendix I.3) to confirm the PM2.5
NAAQS will be met across the entire
(county) nonattainment area.
To summarize, EPA agrees with the
commenter’s point that the selected
2011 base year for the PM2.5 modeling
demonstration has a lower than typical
number of inversion days, but this fact
does not undermine Allegheny County’s
attainment demonstration, because the
model is being used in a relative sense
and not an absolute sense. Lower
modeled PM2.5 generation due to
meteorology in the base year (fewer
inversions) would likely lead to lower
modeled relative reduction factors (that
are applied to a multi-year-weighted
base year design value). Furthermore,
Allegheny County’s projected PM2.5
concentrations appear to be
overpredicting current PM2.5 design
values (2017–19). All current PM2.5
design values in Allegheny County meet
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS except for the
annual PM2.5 design value at Liberty.
Using the Liberty Monitor’s projected
modeled PM2.5 reduction rate, this
monitor is projected to attain the
NAAQS by the area’s December 31,
2021 statutory attainment date. The
CAMx modeling projects that all other
monitors in the area will attain by the
2021 attainment deadline.
Comment 5: The commenter argues
that instead of disregarding the CAMx
modeled attainment year projected
design value of 12.5 mg/m3 at the Liberty
Monitor, ACHD should have focused on
strengthening the emission control
strategy for U.S. Steel facilities in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 nonattainment
area. Instead, the commenter alleges that
during its process to propose the
attainment demonstration, ACHD
claimed that it is not appropriate to
require companies to make emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reductions in the context of preparing
attainment demonstrations. The
commenter argues that section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA directs states to ‘‘include
enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, or techniques
. . . as may be necessary or appropriate
to meet the applicable requirements of
this chapter.’’ The commenter contends
that federal rules, specifically 40 CFR
51.1009(a)(1), require a state to
‘‘identify, adopt, and implement control
measures, including control
technologies, on sources of direct PM2.5
emissions and sources of emissions of
PM2.5 plan precursors,’’ in the
attainment plan control strategy and
that 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(2) requires the
state to ‘‘identify all potential control
measures to reduce emissions from all
sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and all
sources of emissions of PM2.5 plan
precursors in the nonattainment area.’’
In developing a control strategy to
model attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS,
the commenter argues that ACHD
should seek emission reductions from
the largest sources of fine particulates,
which are the three U.S. Steel facilities
that are responsible for over half of all
point source PM2.5 emissions in the
nonattainment area.36 Given the
proximity of these facilities to the
Liberty Monitor in the Mon Valley,
which has typically been the violating
monitor in the area for the PM2.5
NAAQS, the commenter argues that the
PM2.5 plan control strategy does not
adequately focus on reducing emissions
contributions to the Liberty Monitor
from the three U.S. Steel facilities in the
Mon Valley. The commenter states that
there is no change in the annual PM2.5
emissions at the Edgar Thomson facility
in Braddock (633.215 tpy) or the Irvin
facility in West Mifflin (71.936 tpy),
while the Clairton Coke Works will see
a small reduction of 34.63 tpy between
the 2011 base year and the 2021
attainment year inventory—a decrease
of only about six percent over ten
years.37 The commenter points out that
most of the emission reductions
achieved at the Clairton Coke Works
stem from two coking quench tower
36 See ACHD’s September 30, 2019 SIP revision,
Appendix D.1, pp. 10–11 (Table D–2) (identifying
base year emissions of 588.725 tons pr year (tpy),
633.215 tpy, and 71.936 tpy from three U.S. Steel
facilities, which comprise more than half the total
emissions of 2,503 tpy from all point sources). Also,
pp. 14–15 (Table D–3) (identifying future year
emissions of 554.094 tpy, 633.215 tpy, and 71.936
tpy from the three facilities, which exceed half the
total emissions of 2,256 tpy from all point sources).
37 See ACHD’s September 30, 2019 SIP Revision,
Appendix D.1, pp. 10, 14. The Clairton Coke Works
emissions were 588.7 tpy in the 2011 base year
inventory and 554.1 tpy in the 2021 projected
inventory.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
replacements (approximately 117.2
tpy)—with little progress in reducing
emissions (less than one tpy) from coal
handling or other coke manufacturing
operations at that facility. The
commenter notes that upgrades to
Battery C (including tower replacement)
resulted in a net increase in emission of
82.3 tpy—with the new Tower C for C
Battery being installed in 2012,
however, the emission reductions from
the shutdown of the old towers it
replaced occurred prior to the 2011 base
year and are therefore not creditable as
a control strategy in the PM2.5 plan. The
control strategy, including reductions at
the Clairton Coke Works, for the PM2.5
plan period of 2011 to 2021 results in
a reduction of 35.1 tpy.
The commenter suggests that over six
years have passed since the last
significant emissions reduction
measures were enacted at the U.S. Steel
facilities and that additional reductions
should be enacted as part of the
attainment demonstration. The
commenter suggests, among other
things, that Clairton undertake projects
to reduce emissions from leaking doors,
lids, and offtakes from coke oven
batteries, pursuant to the EPA National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for charging,
leaks, and bypass stacks at coke oven
batteries.38
Response 5: As explained in EPA’s
response to Comment 3, ACHD did not
‘‘disregard’’ any modeling results. EPA
believes Allegheny County is justified in
conducting a LAA using a Gaussian
dispersion model (AERMOD) to develop
more accurately the Liberty Monitor
projected 2021 PM2.5 design values.
Furthermore, Allegheny County has
fully documented that it has followed
EPA’s guidance in executing its LAA.
In a moderate area plan, a state is only
obligated to adopt measures adequate to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.
As explained in EPA’s PM
Implementation Rule, if a moderate
area’s attainment demonstration shows
attainment by the 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 1 year earlier
(i.e., ‘advance the attainment date’ by
one year). The EPA has long applied
this particular test to satisfy the
statutory provision related to an area
38 See 40 CFR part 63, subpart L—National
Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
demonstrating attainment ‘as
expeditiously as practicable.’ The EPA
continues to believe that this approach
provides an appropriate degree of
flexibility to a state to tailor the control
strategy in the Plan to the actual
attainment needs of a particular PM2.5
nonattainment area.’’ 39
ACHD’s modeling projects attainment
by the attainment date. The RACM
analysis indicated that no measures
would advance the attainment by 1 year.
Therefore, additional controls at
Clairton Coke Works or any other
facility in the Area are not required to
demonstrate attainment.
Comment 6: EPA should require that
ACHD better substantiate its RACT
evaluation for the U.S. Steel facilities in
the Allegheny County Area, in light of
more recent innovations in emission
control technology. The commenter
states that ACHD asserts that there are
no feasible controls (or combination
thereof) in the Area that would advance
the attainment date by one year or more,
and that already implemented controls
represent reasonably available (or better)
control technology. The commenter
believes that ACHD has not
substantiated the assertion that further
reductions are not reasonably available
from the three Mon Valley U.S. Steel
facilities, which are collectively
projected to emit 1,294 tpy of PM2.5 in
2021 (588.7 tpy from Clairton Coke
Works, 633 tpy from Edgar Thomson,
and 71.9 tpy from Irwin).
The commenter provides multiple
examples of sources at the U.S. Steel
facilities where emissions could be
reduced, for example reduction of
fugitive emissions through improved
coke oven door sealing measures at the
Clairton Coke Works. The commenter
also suggests that ACHD should have
considered potential RACT controls
involving enclosure of emission sources,
where feasible, to fully or partially
capture emissions, citing examples of
this control in use in Japan.40 The
commenter also cites other additional
resources for RACT comparison,
including European Union Best
Available Techniques for the iron and
steel industry 41 and the website of the
39 See
81 FR 58010, 58035 (August 24, 2016).
Clean Air Council Comment letter dated
August 13, 2020, Attachment 8—Okazaki et al.,
Program for Sustainable Development at Nippon
Steel, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 101
(November 2012), at: www.nipponsteel.com/en/
tech/report/nsc/pdf/NSTR101-30_tech_review-51.pdf.
41 See Clean Air Council comment letter dated
August 13, 2020, Attachment 10—JRC Reference
Report, Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference
Document for Iron and Steel Production (2013), at:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/referencereports/best-available-techniques-bat-reference40 See
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26395
Institute for Industrial Productivity,
which provides a list of coke
manufacturing emission control
innovations.42
Response 6: The RACT requirements
under subparts 1 and 4 of the CAA are
focused on measures needed to attain
the NAAQS. A state is not required to
impose all potential emission control
measures if existing measures are
sufficient for the area to attain by the
attainment date. EPA’s PM
Implementation Rule and EPA’s General
Preamble provide that: (i) RACT has
historically been defined as ‘the lowest
emission limit that a source is capable
of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic
feasibility’; (ii) RACT generally applies
to stationary sources, both stack and
fugitive emissions; (iii) major stationary
sources (i.e., sources with potential to
emit 100 tons per year or more of direct
PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor) should be
the minimum starting point for a state’s
RACT analysis, but states are
recommended to evaluate RACT for
smaller stationary sources as needed for
attainment and considering the
feasibility of controls; and (iv) it is
possible that a state could demonstrate
that an existing source in an area should
not be subject to a control technology
especially where such technology is
unreasonable in light of the area’s
attainment needs, or such technology is
infeasible. In such a case, it could be
concluded that no control technology is
‘reasonably available,’ and RACT for the
source could be considered to be no
additional control. Thus, the RACT
requirement under CAA subpart 4 is
primarily focused on stationary sources
and forms of emissions control that are
technology based.43
documentforiron-and-steel-productionindustrialemissions. Specifically, sections relating to Coke
Oven Plants (Chapter 5, pages 205–287), Blast
Furnaces (Chapter 6, pages 289–352), and Basic
Oxygen Steelmaking and Casting (Chapter 7, pages
353–418). Id. Refer also to emerging technologies
for Coke Ovens (Section 11.3, pages 549–553), Blast
Furnaces Section 11.4, pages 554), and BOF and
Casting (Section 11.5, pages 555–558).
42 See Attachment 11—The Institute for Industrial
Productivity, Industrial Efficiency Technology
Database, https://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/cokemaking (coke making); see also Attachment 12—
The Institute for Industrial Productivity, Industrial
Efficiency Technology Database, https://
ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/coke-dry-quenching
(coke dry quenching).
43 See 81 FR 58010, 58034. See also ‘‘General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498
(April 16, 1992). See also ‘‘State Implementation
Plans for Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas:
Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Amendments,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16,
1994).
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
26396
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule
requires that all moderate area plans
contain RACM, which is defined in 40
CFR 51.1000 as any technologically and
economically feasible measure that can
be implemented within 4 years of
designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment
area and that achieves permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions of
PM2.5 and/or PM2.5 precursor emissions.
RACM includes RACT. As stated in the
preamble to the Implementation Rule,
EPA recommends that the state should
follow a process by which it first
identifies all sources of emissions of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the
nonattainment area, and all potential
control measures to reduce emissions
from those source categories. The state
next determines if any of the identified
potential control measures are not
technologically feasible or economically
feasible. The Preamble to the
Implementation Rule also states that
‘‘measures that are not necessary for
attainment need not be considered as
RACM/RACT.’’ In the preamble to the
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA notes
that this has been ‘‘EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of RACM/RACT in CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C),
which were enacted as part of the
amendments to the Act in 1990. Even
prior to the 1990 amendments, EPA
interpreted the statutory term RACM to
encompass only those measures
‘necessary to assure reasonable further
progress and attainment by the required
date.’ ’’ 44 In the 1990 amendments to
the Act, Congress enacted a ‘‘general
savings clause,’’ which states that ‘‘each
regulation, standard, rule, notice, order
and guidance promulgated or issued by
[EPA] under this chapter, as in effect
[before the 1990 Amendments], shall
remain in effect according to its
terms.’’ 45 Since the passage of the 1990
amendments, EPA’s interpretation of
RACM and RACT encompasses only
those measures necessary to advance
attainment has been upheld in multiple
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. See
NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1251–
1253 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v.
EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743– 744 (5th Cir.
2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155,
162 (D.C. Cir. 2002). But cf. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015)
(holding that an area must have subpart
1 RACM/RACT approved into its SIP
prior to redesignation, regardless of
44 Id, at footnote 71, citing 44 FR 20375 (April 4,
1979); see 40 CFR 51.1(o) (1972) (defining RACT in
similar terms); 42 U.S.C. 7502(b)(2) (1988)
(requiring RACM in the precursor to current CAA
section 172(c)(1)).
45 See 42 U.S.C. 7415.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
whether the area is attaining the
NAAQS).
In Appendix J of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan, ACHD explains the
methodology it used for its RACT
analysis. ACHD explains that the first
step was to identify ‘‘all current major
stationary point sources’’ in the
nonattainment area. ACHD included
major sources for PM2.5, SO2, or NOX.
The second step was to identify the
different processes (or process groups)
for the applicable major source
facilities, and then identify current
controls in place for the processes. After
the sources and processes (or process
groups) were identified, ACHD
identified potential RACT alternatives
for the processes.
As stated in Appendix J of the Plan
for examination of reasonable
alternative controls, ACHD used several
EPA resources, including the RACT/
BACT/LAER 46 Clearinghouse (RBLC),47
the Menu of Control Measures (MCM)
for NAAQS Implementation,48 and the
Control Cost Manual.49 ACHD also
examined determinations from the
RBLC over the past 10 years (from
January 1, 2009 through July 1, 2019) for
comparison to existing controls. ACHD
based its economic analysis of
alternatives on estimates of total costs
(capital costs plus operating/indirect
costs) and/or cost effectiveness (ratio of
cost per ton of pollutant). Reasonable
controls considered by ACHD included
operation and work practices and/or
permitted limits for some processes.
ACHD concluded in its RACM/RACT
analysis that other reasonable control
measures it considered but decided not
to implement would not advance the
attainment date by one year. EPA
believes that ACHD’s use of the RBLC,
the MCM, and the Control Cost Manual
comprises a reasonably thorough
approach for evaluating potential RACT
control options for sources in this area.
Furthermore, the modeling
demonstration in ACHD’s Plan shows
attainment by the target attainment date
with the control measures set forth in
the control strategy. EPA agrees with
ACHD’s conclusion that those measures
that were identified and evaluated
under this analysis but that were not
46 BACT = Best Available Control Technology;
LAER = Lowest Achievable Emission Rate.
47 See EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
web page, at https://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/
index.cfm?action=Home.Home&lang=en.
48 See EPA’s Menu of Control Measures for
NAAQS Implementation web page, at: https://
www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/
menu-control-measures-naaqs-implementation.
49 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 6th
Edition: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-costanalysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysismodelstools-air-pollution.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
adopted and implemented in the area
would collectively not advance the
attainment date by more than a year.
Therefore, EPA agrees that ACHD did
not need to adopt and impose additional
controls in the area to meet the RACT
requirement.
Comment 7: The commenter supports
EPA’s determination that two measures
submitted by ACHD as contingency
measures do not meet statutory
requirements for such measures.
However, the commenter objects to
EPA’s proposal to approve these two
measures instead as ‘‘additional control
measures.’’ 50 The two measures at issue
are: (1) Newly installed air curtains and/
or covers on the Battery B Shed at the
US Steel Clairton Coke Works; and (2)
a new combustion (underfire) stack for
Battery 15 at the US Steel Clairton Coke
Works. In particular, the commenter
objects to the approval of the taller
combustion stack not only as a
contingency measure, but as a control
measure appropriate for inclusion in the
SIP for the Allegheny PM2.5 Plan.
The commenter argues that the higher
stack is not a ‘‘control measure’’ at all
because control measures must reduce
emissions, rather than merely disperse
the emissions. Commenter cites 40 CFR
51.1014(b)(1) (‘‘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 . . . .’’ (emphasis
added by commenter)) and 40 CFR
51.100(n) (‘‘Control strategy means a
combination of measures designated to
achieve the aggregate reduction of
emissions necessary for attainment and
maintenance of national standards
. . . .’’) for the proposition that a higher
stack which merely disperses the
emissions.
Response 7: EPA has reevaluated its
proposal to approve the two measures at
the US Steel Clairton Plant coke works
as ‘‘additional measures’’ in light of the
commenter’s objections, and following
further review, it is clear that these
measures are discussed in the Plan
solely in the context of the contingency
measure element of the Plan to address
CAA section 172(c)(9). As such, EPA’s
proposed approval of these two
proposed contingency measures as
‘‘additional measures’’ went beyond
ACHD’s proposal and therefore should
not have been considered by EPA as
anything other than proposed
contingency measures.
50 See EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking, at 85 FR
35871 (col. 3), June 12, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Additional review of ACHD’s SIP
revision shows that the attainment plan
does not rely on any potential emission
reductions from these two projects in
order to show attainment, and modeling
supporting the Plan used neither the
future increased stack height of the
underfire air stack of battery 15 nor the
cover/air curtains on the south side of
Battery B shed in the analysis, as
mention of these two measures was
limited to the contingency measure
section of the Plan. Thus, EPA’s
decision to not approve these as
‘‘additional measures’’ has no impact on
the modeled attainment demonstrations
showing that the other measures in the
control strategy will result in attainment
by the attainment date.
The Plan does not rely on the
emission reductions from the two
measures as part of the control strategy
in the modeled attainment
demonstration for the Allegheny PM2.5
nonattainment area, but rather as early
implemented contingency measures to
be implemented under a settlement
order between US Steel and ACHD.51
EPA reiterates our rejection of these two
measures as contingency measures as
they are both required by a settlement
order and are being implemented
regardless of whether triggered as a
contingency measure.
Comment 8: The commenter also
asserts that ACHD’s future contingency
measures must obtain 34 tons per year
of emissions reductions, which is the
amount representing one year of
areawide reductions necessary under
the reasonable further progress (RFP)
element of the Plan, in order to comply
with long-standing policy of the EPA.52
The commenter believes that ACHD’s
alternative proposal to adopt
contingency measure obtaining
reductions in emissions near the Liberty
Monitor of only 9.4 tons per year is not
in accordance with EPA guidance for
contingency measures and that ACHD
has not sufficiently ‘‘shown its work’’ to
justify why contingency measures
representing less than one year of RFP
reduction for the Area is needed.
Commenter asserts that ACHD’s stated
rationale that additional modeling
shows that the proposed lower level (9.4
tpy) of contingency measures would
lead to a reduction in absolute annual
modeled impacts of 0.10 mg/m3 at the
Liberty Monitor—a level sufficient to
model attainment at that monitor in
51 Settlement Agreement and Order #190604,
between U.S. Steel and ACHD, June 27, 2019.
52 81 FR 58010 and 58068, column 2. See also
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (August
16, 1992), 57 FR 13496, 13543 (column 3) through
13544 (column 1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
2022 (if all other emissions are held
constant at 2021 levels)—is an
inadequate justification for this
departure from EPA’s guidance.
Response 8: EPA agrees with the
commenter that its longstanding
guidance to states with respect to
contingency measures is that such
measures should result in at least one
year’s worth of RFP as determined in
the nonattainment plan for the area at
issue. EPA also agrees that the
determination of what is necessary for
RFP should be based upon the overall
emission reductions necessary for
attainment of the relevant NAAQS in
the area, not based on the premise that
some lesser amount of emissions
reduction from an individual source in
a nonattainment area is sufficient for
this purpose. This is especially the case
for attainment of the PM2.5 or Ozone
NAAQS, where violations of the
NAAQS in a given area are commonly
the result of aggregate emissions from
numerous sources located across the
designated nonattainment area.
Similarly, EPA agrees that for purposes
of supporting a conditional approval of
an element of a nonattainment plan
under section 110(k)(4), the
commitment submitted by a state
should be to adopt and submit
additional specific measures that would
correctly address the deficiency in the
original SIP submission that is the
reason for the conditional approval. In
this instance, the conditional approval
pertains to ACHD’s commitment to
submit adequate contingency measures,
consistent with the requirements of
section 172(c)(9) and with EPA
guidance for those requirements.
EPA disagrees that the ACHD
commitment letter is insufficient to
support conditional approval of the
contingency measures element of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. In its
April 7, 2020 commitment letter, ACHD
committed to adopt specific
contingency measures that would
achieve 34 tons per year for the Area, or
9.4 tons per year of reductions nearby
the Liberty Monitor. The Agency’s June
12, 2020 proposed approval of ACHD’s
SIP revision proposed conditional
approval of the contingency measure
element of the plan on the basis that
ACHD would adopt additional
contingency measures necessary to
satisfy CAA requirements applicable to
contingency measures. EPA’s
longstanding guidance on this is that
contingency measures should achieve
reductions in pollutants from sources
that constitute one year’s worth of RFP
in the area, unless presented with facts
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26397
and circumstances that justify a
different amount.53
EPA is finalizing the conditional
approval based on ACHD’s commitment
to adopt and submit contingency
measures meeting statutory
requirements and consistent with EPA
guidance. In this action, EPA is not
determining definitively whether such
measures must achieve 34 tpy or any
other specific amount of emissions. EPA
is finalizing this conditional approval
based on its expectation that ACHD’s
new contingency measures will obtain
reductions at least equal to one year’s
worth of RFP, i.e., 34 tpy, but notes that
it is neither accepting nor rejecting at
this time the possibility that the state
could submit contingency measures
obtaining some other amount of
reductions and adequately justify this
other amount. When ACHD adopts and
submits the specific control measures to
remedy the current deficiency with
respect to the contingency measure
element of the plan, EPA will review
and take rulemaking action to assess the
necessary levels of emission reductions
for ACHD’s replacement contingency
measures.
Comment 9: The commenter cites
federal court decisions for the
proposition that EPA lacks the authority
to conditionally approve a PM2.5 Plan
that entirely lacks contingency
measures, see Sierra Club v. EPA, 294
F.3d 155, 164 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and that
EPA cannot grant conditional approval
based on a state commitment letter that
does not provide specific enforceable
limits, see Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d
296 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Based on these
cases, the commenter then contends that
ACHD cannot simply identify specific
contingency measures without
establishing that they would be
approvable if implemented. The
commenter cites the second Sierra Club
case for the proposition that the
commitment must be ‘‘something more
than a mere promise to take appropriate
but unidentified measures in the
future,’’ Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d
296, 303, and that this ‘‘requires that the
States complete the analyses necessary
to identify appropriate measures before,
rather than after, conditional approval is
granted.’’ 54 The commenter argues that
because the Department does not
quantify any putative emissions
53 See, for example ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 at 13543 and 13544 (April 16, 1992) and
‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; State Implementation Plan
Requirements; Final Rule,’’ 81 FR 58010 at 58067
(August 24, 2016).
54 Id.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
26398
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
reductions from the ‘‘hypothetical’’
contingency measures set forth in its
commitment letter, it is impossible to
identify appropriate measures before
conditional approval is granted, as the
D.C. Circuit required.55 Therefore, the
commenter states that EPA may not
grant the requested conditional
approval.
Response 9: EPA agrees that in order
to support a conditional approval under
section 110(k)(4), a state must provide a
written commitment to take specific
actions to address the identified
deficiencies in the initial SIP
submission that resulted in the need for
a conditional approval. As explained in
the proposal document, and as
evidenced by the commitment letter in
the docket supporting this final action,
ACHD has made an adequate
commitment to support conditional
approval of the contingency measures
element of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan. Thus, EPA does not agree that the
Sierra Club cases cited by the
commenter preclude this conditional
approval.
The factual circumstances in the 2004
Sierra Club case are different and
therefore distinguishable from the facts
of ACHD’s PM2.5 Plan in several
respects. First, the SIP submission at
issue in the Sierra Club case initially
included nothing addressing three
required elements of that nonattainment
plan: Contingency measures, RACM
analyses and RACM, and a post-1999
Rate of Progress (ROP) plan. Sierra Club
at 301. The Sierra Club court concluded
that it was inappropriate for EPA to
exercise its conditional approval
authority under section 110(k)(4) in a
situation in which the states had
submitted nothing to address these
requirements. Here, ACHD did address
the contingency measures requirement
as an element in its initial
nonattainment plan SIP submission (i.e.,
installation of a new underfire stack on
Battery 15 and installation of a cover or
air curtains on south side of B battery
shed). Although EPA found that these
measures did not meet the statutory
requirements for contingency measures
because a consent order required that
these actions take place regardless of
whether the area failed to attain or
failed to meet its ROP plan, ACHD did
make a good faith effort to submit
contingency measures as part of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, unlike in
the 2004 Sierra Club case cited.
55 See Commitment Letter of the Allegheny
County Health Department, dated April 7, 2020,
available in the docket for this action, Document ID
EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0157–0071.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Second, the commitment letters
subsequently submitted by the states
involved in the 2004 Sierra Club case
were vague and failed to list any
specific, enforceable measures that the
state would adopt as contingency
measures. Citing one state’s
commitment letter, the Court noted that
the commitment letters only promised
to submit ‘‘adopted contingency
measures to be implemented if the DC
Area does not attain the one-hour ozone
NAAQS by November 15, 2005.’’ Id. at
302. Here, ACHD has identified seven
specific contingency measures it will
adopt to obtain an additional 34 tons
per year of direct PM2.5 emission
reductions (or of PM2.5 precursors) or
9.4 tpy in the vicinity of the Liberty
Monitor. ACHD has committed to adopt
contingency measures that will meet
EPA’s requirements for contingency
measures (i.e., adopted measures that
equate to one year’s worth of RFP
reductions, along with the requisite
description of triggering mechanisms for
these measures) and will submit the
contingency measures to EPA within
one year from EPA’s final conditional
approval. EPA notes that it is basing this
approval on the ACHD commitment to
obtain the 34 tpy that would constitute
the one year’s worth of RFP that is
consistent with EPA guidance for the
contingency measures requirement, not
the 9.4 tpy alternative posited by ACHD.
The Sierra Club court found that ‘‘[t]he
statute requires that the States commit
to adopt specific enforceable measures,’’
Sierra Club at 302, but that EPA was
accepting as sufficient a commitment to
adopt what it conceded are unspecified
measures.56 The measures identified by
ACHD are much more specific than
those identified in that case, and are
made more specific by the promise to
adopt some combination of these
measures to achieve the necessary
amount of reductions needed in the
area.
Third, the Sierra Club decision
language cited by the commenter as
requiring state analyses prior to EPA
granting conditional approval can also
be distinguished from the circumstances
in this SIP submission. The 2004 Sierra
Club court was expounding upon its
earlier decision in the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 22 F.
3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In the NRDC
case, the Court was reviewing EPA’s
interpretation of newly created
conditional approval language in
section 110(k)(4) that Congress adopted
in the 1990 CAA amendments. Through
guidance and rulemaking, EPA had
interpreted section 110(k)(4) as allowing
56 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
conditional approval of a ‘‘committal
SIP’’ containing no substantive
provisions, so long as the state
submitted it within one of the deadlines
and the state promised to adopt specific
enforceable measures within a year and
a schedule of interim milestones in the
future adoption process. The NRDC
court concluded that ‘‘the conditional
approval mechanism was intended to
provide the EPA with an alternative to
disapproving substantive, but not
entirely satisfactory, SIPs submitted by
the statutory deadlines and not, as the
EPA has used it, a means of
circumventing those deadlines.’’ NRDC
at 1134–1135. The court then held that
‘‘section 110(k)(4) does not authorize
the EPA to use committal SIPs to
postpone SIP deadlines.’’ Id. at 1135.
That situation is not present here.
Although ACHD submitted its
nonattainment plan SIP submission late,
ACHD did submit a complete
nonattainment plan containing all the
required elements—including the
contingency measures element. Upon
further evaluation of the SIP
submission, EPA determined that the
contingency measures were not
approvable, and therefore based on
ACHD’s commitment has elected to
exercise its authority to provide ACHD
up to one year to remedy the deficiency,
in accordance with section 110(k)(4).
Thus, EPA is not circumventing the
original SIP submission deadline by
granting conditional approval in this
matter, but merely allowing ACHD to
revise these ‘‘substantive, but not
entirely satisfactory, elements of the
SIP.’’ See Id. at 1134–1135. EPA is thus
using its discretionary authority under
section 110(k)(4) in an appropriate way.
Regarding the Clean Air Council’s
claim that ACHD had to do further
analyses of the contingency measures
before EPA could grant conditional
approval, EPA has concluded that
ACHD has done such an analysis by
identifying readily available emission
control contingency measures which, if
triggered, will achieve the necessary
emission reductions in the
nonattainment area. The submitted
emission reduction numbers come from
the analysis contained in the attainment
demonstration and all the elements that
make up the demonstration, such as
emission inventories and modeling. The
34.1 tpy number is one year of emission
reductions derived from ACHD’s
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan,
which was informed by the modeling.
Having completed this analysis, ACHD
then had to analyze where it could
obtain emission reductions equal to this
amount, and that analysis resulted in
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the list of seven specific contingency
measures set forth in the ACHD
commitment letter, which ACHD will
evaluate, adopt, and then submit to EPA
for approval as contingency measures to
meet the requirement of the conditional
approval.
The commenter also claims that this
language from the Sierra Club decision
requires, under these circumstances,
that the SIP submission include
analyses identifying both the specific
contingency measures and the specific
amount of emission reduction obtained
from each measure before EPA can grant
conditional approval. EPA disagrees
with this reading of the court’s ruling.
The 2004 Sierra Club court did not
specifically identify what ‘‘analyses’’
must be done by the state as part of the
conditional approval. In the Sierra Club
case, the three missing statutory
elements of the attainment plan were
contingency measures, RACM analyses,
and Rate of Progress plans. The court
did not address the issue of what
specific analyses the state needed to
perform as part of the submittal of the
contingency measures, because there
were no contingency measures
identified or included in the SIP. In the
absence of specific contingency
measures in that SIP, the court would
only be hypothesizing about what
analysis needed to accompany specific
contingency measures.
The Clean Air Council’s argument
that ACHD must quantify the specific
amount of emission reductions available
from each specified contingency
measure (prior to EPA granting
conditional approval) is also not
supported by the Sierra Club case. In the
2004 Sierra Club matter, the states did
not submit anything to meet the three
required elements of the attainment
plan, including the contingency
measures, so the court had no reason to
opine on what specific analysis should
accompany three entirely missing
elements of the attainment plan. EPA
does not agree that the decision requires
ACHD to identify specific amounts of
emission reductions from these specific
proposed measures prior to conditional
approval, as EPA expects that the state
will provide additional information
supporting the calculation of estimated
emission reductions for all adopted
contingency measures as part of a future
SIP revision to address EPA’s final
conditional approval of the contingency
measure element of the plan. ACHD has
committed to adopt sufficient measures
from the identified list of potential
control measures sufficient to achieve
the necessary one year’s worth of RFP
for this area.
EPA does not agree that ACHD must
precisely calculate how much emission
reduction will be achieved by the
individual measures until ACHD
actually submits the adopted measures
to EPA for evaluation and approval into
the SIP, as appropriate at that time. For
these reasons, EPA does not agree with
the commenter’s claim that case law
prohibits EPA from granting conditional
approval for the contingency measures
under the circumstances of this SIP
submission, and also disagrees that
ACHD’s commitment to adopt
contingency measures must, at this
time, contain specific amounts of
emissions attributable to individual
measures.
IV. Final Action
A. Approval of the Attainment Plan and
Related Elements
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is
approving Pennsylvania’s SIP revisions
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 element of
the plan, which EPA is conditionally
approving. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the following
elements of the Allegheny County PM2.5
plan: The 2011 base year emissions
inventory as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3); the RACM/
RACT demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1)
26399
and 189(a)(1)(C); the attainment
demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(B); the RFP demonstration
as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2); the QM demonstration
as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 189(c); and the MVEB for 2021,
which meets the transportation
conformity related requirements of CAA
section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A.
EPA is approving the 2021 MVEB
element of the Plan in this final action.
EPA has determined that ACHD has
remedied the deficiency with the 2021
MVEB, for which EPA proposed
conditional approval in our June 12,
2020 proposed action. Pennsylvania, in
an April 20, 2020 letter to EPA,
committed to finalize adoption of its
intended 2021 MVEB, which had not
yet been finally adopted or undergone
public participation at the local level.
EPA’s proposed to conditionally
approve the MVEB element of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan,
contingent upon final adoption by
ACHD of the intended 2021 MVEB. On
October 2, 2020, PADEP submitted a SIP
revision (on behalf of ACHD) that
contained the final 2021 MVEB for the
Allegheny County Area, remedying
EPA’s June 12, 2020 proposed condition
upon approval of the MVEB element of
the Plan. This final 2021 MVEB was
unchanged from the intended MVEB
upon which EPA proposed conditional
approval in our June 12, 2020 proposed
action.57 EPA has determined that this
final 2021 MVEB remedies the
deficiency underlying our conditional
approval of the MVEB element of the
plan, as the final MVEB was adopted (as
proposed), satisfies public participation
requirements of EPA’s conformity rule
under 40 CFR 93.118(e), and has been
formally submitted to EPA as a
supplemental SIP revision. The final
2021 MVEB for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including direct PM2.5 and the precursor
NOX, is listed in Table 1,
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
TABLE 1—ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS ATTAINMENT YEAR MVEB FOR DIRECT PM2.5 AND 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
57 See
85 FR 35872, 35873 (June 12, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
26400
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
B. Conditional Approval of the
Contingency Measures Portion of the
Attainment Plan
EPA is conditionally approving the
contingency measures element of the
Allegheny County Plan. In accordance
with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA and
EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
attainment demonstration for a
moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area
must include contingency measures.58
Contingency measures are additional
control measures to be implemented in
the event that the area fails to meet RFP
requirements, fails to submit or meet
quantitative milestones (QM), or EPA
determines that the area fails to attain
by the attainment date.
In order for contingency measures to
be approved 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
Implementation 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 EPA 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 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; (3) the contingency measures shall
consist of control measures not
otherwise included 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. PADEP
submitted a letter to EPA dated April
20, 2020 conveying ACHD’s
commitment to adopt specific
contingency measures, from a list
specified in that letter, that will provide
for a reduction of one year’s worth of
reasonable further progress towards
attainment, or equivalent (up to 34 tons
per year of direct PM2.5 emissions).
Further detail on ACHD’s commitment
and a description of the specific
measures is detailed in EPA’s June 12,
2020 proposed rulemaking for this
action.
After ACHD adopts contingency
measures, in compliance with related
requirements under CAA section
172(c)(9) and the PM2.5 Implementation
Rule (specifically the requirements of 40
58 See 40 CFR 51.1014 and 81 FR 58010, p. 58066
(August 24, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
CFR 51.1003 and 40 CFR 51.1014),
PADEP will submit a SIP revision
containing the adopted contingency
measures, along with a description of
the trigger mechanisms and schedules
for implementation of the contingency
measures. ACHD and PADEP have
committed to submit the contingency
measures SIP revision to EPA within
one year after EPA’s conditional
approval.
If EPA makes a determination that
Pennsylvania has satisfied the approval
condition, EPA shall take action to
remove the condition on its approval of
the contingency measure element of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan,
converting our action to full approval.
Should Pennsylvania fail to remedy the
condition within the one-year deadline
for doing so, this conditional approval
shall automatically convert to a
disapproval and EPA will issue a
finding of disapproval. A finding of
disapproval would start an 18-month
clock to apply sanctions under CAA
section 179(b) and a two-year clock for
a Federal implementation plan under
CAA section 110(c)(1).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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);
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule 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 State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by July 13, 2021. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
26401
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action to approve SIP
revisions consisting of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 30, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.2020
*
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(e)(1) is amended by adding the entry
■
State
submittal
date
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
Applicable
geographic area
*
*
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Demonstration (including 2011 Base Year Emissions
Inventory, Particulate Matter Precursor
Contribution Demonstration, Reasonable
Further Progress Demonstration, Demonstration of Interim Quantitative Milestones to Ensure Timely Attainment. and
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
2021) (excluding Section 8, Contingency
Measures).
*
Allegheny County ..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.2023 is amended by
adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
■
*
09/30/19
10/02/20
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
(n) EPA conditionally approves the
Contingency Measures element (Section
8) of the Attainment Plan (dated
September 12, 2019) for the Allegheny
County Area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
as submitted to EPA as a SIP revision by
Pennsylvania on September 30, 2019.
Pennsylvania shall submit a SIP
revision within one year of EPA’s final
conditional approval to remedy this
condition, which satisfies all related
requirements for contingency measures
under CAA section 172(c)(9) and the
PM2.5 Implementation Rule
(specifically, 40 CFR 51.1003 and 40
CFR 51.1014). Pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(4), this conditional approval is
based upon April 20, 2020 and April 7,
2020 letters from Pennsylvania and
Allegheny County committing to submit
a SIP to EPA to remedy the deficiencies
of this conditional approval within 12
*
*
months of EPA’s conditional approval
action.
[FR Doc. 2021–09565 Filed 5–13–21; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 May 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0434; FRL–10023–
51–Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Data
Determination for the 2010 1-Hour
Primary Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard;
Anderson and Freestone Counties and
Titus County Nonattainment Areas
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is approving a clean data determination
for the Anderson and Freestone
Counties and the Titus County
nonattainment areas, concluding that
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Additional explanation
*
*
*
5/14/21, [INSERT FEDERAL Contingency Measures (SecREGISTER CITATION].
tion 9) portion of the plan
is Conditionally Approved,
until 5/16/22.
See 40 CFR 52.2023(n).
Approval status.
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
EPA approval date
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
§ 52.2023
‘‘2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment
Demonstration (including 2011 Base
Year Emissions Inventory, Particulate
Matter Precursor Contribution
Demonstration, Reasonable Further
Progress Demonstration, Demonstration
of Interim Quantitative Milestones to
Ensure Timely Attainment. and Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets for 2021)
(excluding Section 8, Contingency
Measures)’’ at the end of the table to
read as follows:
*
*
each area is currently in attainment of
the 2010 1-hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(SO2 NAAQS) per the EPA’s Clean Data
Policy. The primary sources of Sulfur
Dioxide emissions in these counties
have permanently shut down and air
quality in these areas is now attaining
the SO2 NAAQS. This final action is
supported by EPA’s evaluation of
available monitoring data, emissions
data, and air quality modeling. This
action suspends the requirements for
these areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures,
and other planning State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS until the area is formally
redesignated, or a violation of the
NAAQS occurs. This action is being
taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0434. All
documents in the docket are listed on
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26388-26401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09565]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157; FRL-10023-27-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most
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 (the ``Allegheny County Area,'' or
``the Area''). The revision constitutes a comprehensive plan to ensure
the Allegheny County Area's timely attainment of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving this revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
A. Approval of the Attainment Plan and Related Elements
B. Conditional Approval of the Contingency Measures Portion of
the Attainment Plan
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated levels of PM2.5 (particulate
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less) and premature mortality.
Other important health effects associated with PM2.5
exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
changes in lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.
Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.\1\
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid
or liquid particle (``primary PM2.5'' or ``direct
PM2.5'') or can be
[[Page 26389]]
formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions
among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX),
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (``secondary
PM2.5'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; (2012) Final Rule (78 FR 3086-3088, January 15, 2013).
\2\ See Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule; Final Rule
(72 FR 20586, 20589, April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA first established annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5
on July 18, 1997.\3\ 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, and 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
monitor within an area.\4\ On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the level
of 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.\5\ On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the annual standard
to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations.\6\ We refer to this standard as the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP submission at issue in this action
pertains to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter (1997); Final Rule (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). The initial
NAAQS for PM2.5 included annual standards of 15.0
[micro]g/m3, based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65
[micro]g/m3, based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile
24-hour concentrations (40 CFR 50.7).
\4\ The primary and secondary standards were set at the same
level for both the 24-hour and the annual PM2.5
standards.
\5\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Final Rule (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).
\6\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Final Rule (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Proposed Action
EPA designated and classified the Allegheny County Area as
``Moderate'' nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ On
September 30, 2019, PADEP submitted the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan SIP revision, on behalf of ACHD, in order to meet
the applicable requirements for Moderate areas and to provide for
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Allegheny County
Area. The SIP revision contains the attainment demonstration for the
Allegheny County Area (also referred to as ``the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``the Plan''). On June 12, 2020 (85 FR
35852), EPA proposed 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) element, the air quality modeling demonstration
supporting attainment by the attainment deadline, the reasonable
further progress (RFP) analysis, and the quantitative milestones to
ensure timely attainment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Air Quality Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS); Final Rule (80 FR 2206, January 15, 2015).
\8\ See Allegheny County Area Attainment Plan for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Proposed
Rulemaking (85 FR 35852, June 12, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having identified deficiencies (and having obtained a commitment to
remedy those deficiencies within one year of final action), EPA
proposed a conditional approval of the contingency measures and the
2021 motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) element of the Allegheny
County PM2.5 Plan. Pennsylvania committed (via an April 20,
2020 letter to EPA) to submit a supplemental SIP revision to remedy
those two elements of the Plan by no later than twelve months after
EPA's final conditional approval action.
As part of our June 12, 2020 proposal, we proposed to find that the
suite of PM2.5 control requirements in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan meets all RACM/RACT requirements for the control
of direct PM2.5 and PM precursors and to approve the
PM2.5 RACM evaluation as meeting the applicable
nonattainment area plan requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 51.1009.
EPA also proposed to find that the attainment demonstration in the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan satisfies the requirements of
sections 189(a)(1)(B) and 172(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1011(a).
In support of this proposal, we found that the ACHD relied upon
acceptable modeling techniques to demonstrate attainment of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Allegheny County Area, and that the Plan
demonstrates attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. We determined that the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan provides a convincing justification that emission
reductions from the control measures listed in the Plan will provide
for timely attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2021 attainment date. Our June 12, 2020 proposed rule
provides a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of the Plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other specific requirements applicable to attainment plans under
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the rationale for EPA's proposed
action are explained in the June 12, 2020 proposed rule, and its
associated technical support documents (TSDs), and will not be restated
here.
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The June 12, 2020 proposed action to approve the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan opened a public comment period, which ended on
July 13, 2020. Following a request for additional time from a public
advocacy group, EPA published a document on July 31, 2020 reopening and
extending the public comment period through August 13, 2020.\10\ EPA
received public comments from several environmental groups and several
individual commenters. The comments received have been placed in the
docket for this action. EPA's summary of the significant adverse
comments received on the proposed action and our responses to those
comments are listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 85 FR 46046, July 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: The commenter requests that EPA consider the lateness of
ACHD submission of the Plan (nearly three years after the due date)
when assessing the ``credibility'' of ACHD's attainment demonstration.
The commenter contends that ACHD's stated reason for being late (i.e.,
the complexity of the plan analysis) is inadequate justification for
the lateness. The commenter states that if ACHD had not submitted a
plan to EPA before the 18-month sanctions clock deadline, the Allegheny
PM2.5 nonattainment area would have been subject to
sanctions, including a more stringent emissions offset ratio
requirement applicable to new and modified major stationary sources.
The commenter posits that the delay in submitting this Plan provides
``context'' for flaws in the submitted plan.
Response 1: Although the Commonwealth submitted the Allegheny
County Plan well after the October 15, 2016 CAA statutory deadline, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's assertion that this delay in submission
must be presumed to result in a flawed Plan. Lateness of the Plan in
and of itself does not interfere with the ability of ACHD to prepare an
attainment plan meeting the CAA and related EPA regulatory
requirements. Section 110(k) requires EPA to evaluate and to act upon
SIP submissions from states. EPA has authority to approve, disapprove,
or conditionally approve a SIP submission, in whole or in part, based
upon whether the submission meets all applicable requirements. Lateness
of a state's submission of the
[[Page 26390]]
Plan to EPA does not affect EPA's obligation to evaluate and act upon
the SIP submission based on its merits, consistent with those
requirements. As explained in the proposed action, EPA has determined
that the SIP submission from ACHD does meet most of the applicable
requirements as submitted. However, EPA is herein requiring that
Pennsylvania meet these applicable requirements when addressing the
conditional approval of the contingency measures' requirement.
Regarding the sanctions process mentioned by the commenter, EPA's
finding of failure to submit deficiency was remedied by EPA's November
1, 2019 letter determining that PADEP's September 30, 2019 SIP
submittal of the Plan was complete.\11\ At that point, sanctions under
section 179 of the CAA for failing to submit the required nonattainment
plan ceased to be applicable. If Pennsylvania fails to remedy the
identified conditions of the conditional approval, converting those
elements of the Plan to a disapproval, then that disapproval would
constitute a new finding under the terms of CAA section 179(a),
beginning a new 18-month period prior to potential application of
sanctions described by CAA section 179(b). EPA's conversion of the
proposed conditional approval into a final conditional approval by this
action will prevent the further imposition of CAA section 179(b)
sanctions unless Pennsylvania does not submit the required elements of
the Plan by the deadline under the final conditional approval, i.e.,
one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Document EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157-0045 in the docket for
this action at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: The commenter states that EPA should require more
rigorous analyses from ACHD for the Plan since it contains air quality
modeling tailored to attaining the NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ precisely,
with no margin of safety. The commenter cites EPA's 2018 ``Guidance for
Attainment Demonstrations for PM2.5,'' which states that
``supplemental evidence should accompany all model attainment
demonstrations'' \12\ and that ``generally, those modeling analyses
that show that attainment will be reached in the future with some
margin of safety will need more limited supporting material,'' \13\ and
goes on to state that ``for other attainment cases in which the
projected future design value is closer to the NAAQS, more rigorous
supporting analyses should be completed.'' \14\ The commenter points
out that ACHD's modeling projects attainment at exactly the level of
the NAAQS (i.e., 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\) and the commenter thus believes EPA
should adhere to its guidance by compelling ACHD to provide more
rigorous analyses to support its attainment demonstration.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See EPA, Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze (November 29,
2018), p. 169, available in the online docket for this action at
www.regulations.gov, Document ID EPA-R03-OAR-2020-1057-0068.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
\15\ See ACHD September 30, 2019 SIP revision Main Document,
(Table 5-5, Base and Future Design Values ([mu]g/m\3\), Liberty), p.
36. Available at www.regulations.gov, Document ID EPA-R03-OAR-2020-
1057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter questions the credibility of ACHD's Plan, given
public statements by ACHD that it is prohibited from developing a
control strategy for NAAQS attainment that reduces emissions to levels
that would result in air quality that is better than the level required
for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter argues
that ACHD's contention in the Plan that they are prevented by state/
local law from adopting a control strategy that exceeds Federal
requirements (i.e., that provides emission reductions resulting in an
attainment year design value below the 12.0 [mu]g/m3 standard) is not
supported by state or local law.
Response 2: EPA acknowledges that its guidance recommends that
modeling demonstrations projecting PM2.5 design value
concentrations that are close to the level of NAAQS (as is the case for
the Liberty Monitor at issue in the Plan) should have more supporting
evidence and analyses. EPA's November 2018 Ozone, PM2.5 and
Regional Haze guidance directs that supplemental evidence should
accompany all model attainment demonstrations and that, generally,
those modeling analyses that show that attainment will be reached in
the future with some margin of safety will need more limited supporting
material. However, for other attainment cases in which the projected
future design value is closer to the NAAQS, more rigorous supporting
analyses should be completed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See EPA's November 2018 Ozone, PM2.5 and
Regional Haze guidance, p. 169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the weight of evidence (WOE)
analysis submitted as part of the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan, including information from the electric grid operator for the
area (PJM Interconnection, LLC), EPA has concluded that Allegheny
County has performed a ``more rigorous supporting analyses'' in support
of its modeling analysis demonstration that meets EPA's guidance. The
Plan projects that all monitors in the Allegheny County
PM2.5 nonattainment area will comply with the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the required 2021 attainment date.\17\ The
commenter did not mention the Plan's WOE analysis or PJM data in its
comment, so it is not clear if the commenter was aware of their
existence. Allegheny County's WOE analysis shows declining
PM2.5 monitor concentrations, additional source emission
reductions not included in the modeling analysis, precursor sulfur
dioxide (SO2) reductions imposed in Allegheny County's 1-
hour SO2 SIP, reductions in emissions due to electric
generating unit (EGU) shutdowns within the PJM Interconnection
territory, a comparison of model SO2/NOX EGU
emissions showing potential excess precursor emissions in the projected
year model inventory (see Appendix K of ACHD`s SIP submittal) which
could lead to a model overprediction bias, overall emission reductions
due to declining local population trends, and additional emission
reductions associated with several local control measures. These
represent additional analyses that would not be necessary if the
modeling projected attainment at a design value below 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
Also, the commenter does not elaborate on why ACHD's analysis is
inadequate, other than to assert that it should be more rigorous.
Finally, the commenter did not provide any additional analyses or
evidence supporting its assertion that Allegheny County's SIP will not
provide for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory
attainment date (see response to comment 4 regarding current
PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County). In the absence of
any contrary evidence, upon EPA's review of the SIP submission
including the modeling and additional evidence supporting the predicted
attainment by the attainment date, EPA concludes that ACHD's Plan will
bring the area into attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Appendix M of ACHD's September 12, 2019 SIP revision,
comments 69 and 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter asserts that there is no legal prohibition at the
state or county level preventing the state or county from requiring a
greater level of emission reductions of direct PM2.5 or
PM2.5 precursors that would allow the Area to model
attainment at a design value below 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. However, the
existence or nonexistence of such a prohibition is not germane to the
task at hand, which is determining whether the submitted Plan will
result in attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Allegheny
County by the attainment date. In this case, the attainment modeling
projecting
[[Page 26391]]
that the design value for this Area will meet the NAAQS limit by the
attainment date is sufficient to demonstrate that the PM2.5
NAAQS will be met, in accordance with CAA requirements.
Comment 3: The commenter claims that EPA's 2018 guidance does not
allow the use of a Local Area Analysis (LAA) in order to disregard a
modeled future (i.e., attainment year) design value that is higher than
the NAAQS. The commenter asserts this is not reasonable because the
purpose of the attainment demonstration analysis is to facilitate a
control strategy, rather than as a substitute for a forecast of
nonattainment. The commenter states that after calculating a future
design value of 12.6 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Liberty monitor using CAMx
modeling, ACHD rejected the result and instead conducted a supplemental
LAA, the results of which ACHD instead used to demonstrate that the
attainment year design value test was met.
The commenter notes that ACHD acknowledges that the CAMx model,
which is EPA's recommended model for PM2.5, can address
local impacts as well as regional impacts by selecting certain
available options within the CAMx model. The commenter also alleges
that despite the fact that the CAMx modeling addressed local impacts,
ACHD ignored those CAMx-derived local impacts in favor of a separate
LAA that used AERMOD to determine those local impacts, which were then
fed back into the CAMx model.\18\ The commenter argues that this
approach is not consistent with EPA's PM2.5 attainment
demonstration guidance. Further, the commenter states that the purpose
of a LAA is not to engineer a design value that will just meet the
NAAQS, but rather to supplement the results of the attainment test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id. See section 5.4.1 [Liberty LAA Methodology], p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter asserts that EPA's 2018 Guidance cites the relative
attainment tests described in sections 4.2, 4.4.2 and 4.5 of the
guidance as the primary modeling tools used in an attainment
demonstration, and that use of a chemical transport grid model on a
regional or local scale is the best tool available to judge the impacts
of changes in future year emissions on concentrations. The commenter
further argues that ``while the Agency contemplates other models, the
purpose is only to `supplement' the results of the modeled attainment
test.'' \19\ The commenter notes that when EPA's guidance indicates
that while use of such models ``may be useful as a supplemental
analysis . . .'' it is speaking to the control strategy rather than to
the attainment demonstration itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. Pp. 171-172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that EPA's guidance does not state that a
supplemental dispersion model could be the basis for the actual
attainment test, which is the result reached by ACHD. The commenter
disagrees (both from a policy and a legal perspective) with ACHD's
rationale, which seeks to characterize the sources contributing to
levels of fine particulates at the Liberty Monitor, based on statements
in ACHD's modeling demonstration that ``Source characterization with
CAMx was likely not fully representative of some sources near Liberty,
specifically for some processes at the USS Clairton Plant,'' and that
``Refined modeling with AERMOD can more accurately account for many
processes with the use of different source types . . .'' The commenter
argues that a question regarding relative contribution among sources is
separate from a question regarding the reliability of modeling results
obtained through the use of CAMx.
The commenter argues that ACHD's other rationales for use of a LAA
are also invalid, surmising that if CAMx were conservative with its EGU
assumptions, that would not make the CAMx modeling flawed.\20\
Similarly, the commenter argues that if ``some local primary
PM2.5 emissions were overestimated with the inventory used
for the CAMx modeling,'' that would not be a justification for
abandoning the CAMx model.\21\ The commenter further argues that
suggestions that the spatial grading in the CAMx model is ``likely too
large to properly simulate localized impacts at Liberty'' or that
``species are not being properly apportioned by the modeled results''
are also not justifiable.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that while EPA guidance contemplates that
PM2.5 measurement data from monitors may not be
representative of ``area-wide'' air quality and therefore not suitable
for comparison with the standard, this statement is limited to ``micro-
scale'' and ``middle-scale'' sites.\23\ The commenter contends that by
preparing a LAA with ``supplemental'' modeling and then using this to
replace the ``primary'' modeling analysis, ACHD has made a
determination that the Liberty Monitor data is unsuitable for
comparison with the NAAQS--a determination that is contradicted by the
fact that the Liberty Monitor is a core PM2.5 site
(characterized in the monitoring plan as a ``neighborhood'' site) that
is used to determine compliance with NAAQS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See EPA ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,'' p. 133, which
states, ``PM2.5 measurement data from monitors that are
not representative of ``area-wide'' air quality, but rather of
relatively unique micro-scale, or localized hot spot, or unique
middle-scale impact sites, are not eligible for comparison to the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.''
\24\ See ACHD 2020 Air Monitoring Network Plan, page 33, Section
10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that these supporting arguments prevent use of
an alternative LAA to ignore the projected 2021 Liberty 12.5 [micro]g/
m\3\ CAMx modeled design value from the primary analysis in lieu of the
lower 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ design value provided by ACHD's LAA.
Response 3: The Community Air Quality Model with Extensions \25\ or
CAMx, with a 1.33-kilometer (km) grid, projected 2021 model results are
summarized in Table 5-4 of Allegheny County's main SIP document.
Projected 2021 PM2.5 design value concentrations for all
Allegheny County monitors except for the Liberty Monitor, which was not
included in the table, are below the 24-hr and annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Results from EPA's Model Attainment Test Software (MATS, version
2.6.1) for all of the Allegheny County monitors are listed in Appendix
I.1 of Allegheny County's SIP document. Projected 2021 PM2.5
concentrations are included in Table 3.6 of Appendix I.1 (for annual
PM2.5 NAAQS) and Table 3.7 of Appendix I.1 (for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS). Liberty's CAMx projected 2021 annual
PM2.5 design value is 12.5 [micro]g/m\3\ and its projected
24-hour PM2.5 design value is 38.6 [micro]g/m\3\, which
exceed both the Annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ CAMx is a state-of-the-science photochemical grid model
that comprises a ``one-atmosphere'' treatment of tropospheric air
pollution over spatial scales ranging from neighborhoods to
continents. See the CAMx web page, at: www.camx.com/about/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County's SIP document outlines several reasons why it
believes CAMx has overstated projected 2021 PM2.5 design
values at the Liberty Monitor (see page 32 of the main SIP document).
These points include over-projections of future SO2 and
NOX in the EGU sector (see EPA's TSD regarding PJM
Interconnection, LLC EGU fuel usage and projected year emission
differences within the 4-km CAMx domain for additional support on this
point), overestimated local primary PM2.5 emissions, too
coarse spatial resolution of CAMx domain (1.33 km)
[[Page 26392]]
used in the projected 2021 PM2.5 concentrations, and CAMx's
uniform treatment of all emissions as emanating from stack point
sources when a significant number of sources at some of the larger US
Steel plants are better represented as (fugitive) volume or area source
types. Additional discussion of these points can be found in Appendix
I.2 and Appendix F.3 of the Allegheny County Plan SIP.
The commenter offers several points to counter Pennsylvania's LAA,
but EPA's guidance clearly allows an option to utilize a Gaussian type
air-dispersion model (such as AERMOD) to model the primary components
of PM2.5 (organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC) and
other primary PM2.5 (OPP)) and to exclude chemically
reactive components of PM2.5 such as sulfate and nitrate.
Per EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,'' dated November 29, 2018,
states that, ``local influences creating large spatial gradients are
likely to consist mostly of primary PM2.5 (OC, EC, and OPP).
These sources may be point sources, or they may be nearby roads or
other mobile or area sources.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See section 4.6.1 of EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and
Regional Haze,'' November 29, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 monitor concentrations in Allegheny County show
there is a significant concentration (spatial) gradient near the
Liberty Monitor site (see Allegheny County monitor's current 2017-19
PM2.5 design value maps contained in the attached technical
support document). Liberty's current design values are 16-29% higher on
the annual basis and 34-48% higher on the 24-hour basis than the two
nearest PM2.5 monitors (Clairton and North Braddock).
Furthermore, Liberty's PM2.5 speciation breakdown from CAMx
shows it has substantially higher values in its OC, EC and OPP
components than the other monitors in Allegheny County (see Tables 3.6
and 3.7 in Appendix I.1). Documentation of high OC, EC and OPP is
needed to justify using the Gaussian (AERMOD) dispersion model.
EPA's guidance directs that a grid model can be run at very high
horizontal resolution (1 or 2 km or finer) or a Gaussian dispersion
model can be used.\27\ Grid-based models simulate chemical
transformation and complex meteorological conditions, while dispersion
models are generally more simplistic; being limited to a local-scale,
using Gaussian approximations with little or no chemistry. Therefore,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id. Section 4.6.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter asserts that the Allegheny County Area
PM2.5 plan's modeling demonstration ``abandons'' the (1.33
km) CAMx demonstration results. This significantly mischaracterizes
ACHD's PM2.5 SIP modeling demonstration. Allegheny County
indicated that it was using the LAA for the Liberty Monitor to remodel
the primary (nonreactive) PM2.5 components of its modeling
demonstration, while retaining the chemically reactive PM2.5
species from CAMx. In essence, it is removing only the nonreactive
portion of PM2.5 generated by CAMx, in accordance with EPA
guidance, and replacing values from the nonreactive chemical CAMx
species with results from a Gaussian dispersion model (AERMOD). This
AERMOD modeling was performed using the same meteorological Weather
Research and Forecasting (WRF) model data set via EPA's Mesoscale Model
Interface Program (MMIF) that was used in the CAMx modeling.
Allegheny County further justified developing and using its LAA
based on improved model spatial resolution and source characterizations
available via this pathway. The CAMx model, while relative fine-scaled
(approximately 1.33 km grid spacing), is still coarse when considering
some of the large primary PM2.5 emission sources in
Allegheny County. In essence, all emissions are inserted into CAMx at a
horizontal scale of approximately 1.33 km and within specified vertical
layers within CAMx. The CAMx model distributes emissions across the
entire grid box in which they are emitted, and because of this
artificial dilution the distribution of these emissions in CAMx may be
represented in the model as artificially high outside of the source
plume and artificially low within the source plume. Such artificial
dilution is not problematic for regional scale air quality modeling
purposes, but can impact local scale modeling of plumes, as is the case
here. ACHD pursued plume-in-grid and AERMOD dispersion modeling to
better resolve the emission sources' plume transport and dispersion
that were not well resolved with the base CAMx modeling. To alleviate
this issue, Allegheny County's CAMx modeling system utilized a plume in
grid parameterization that withholds a portion of emissions from being
directly released across the entire model grid cell; without plume in
grid, CAMx would instantaneously disperse source emissions across a
full grid when in reality the plume will spread more slowly from its
release point.
Spatial resolution for a Gaussian dispersion model such as AERMOD
is not limited in scale; and AERMOD can resolve emissions and processes
more finely than the CAMx model. Additionally, AERMOD has multiple
source characterizations available while CAMx can only model stack-like
point source releases. CAMx treats fugitive emissions using a point
source parameterization that does not resolve the emissions in
sufficient detail to properly characterize the impacts of important
PM2.5 sources such as fugitive releases from the US Steel
sources in this nonattainment area modeling demonstration. Near the
Liberty Monitor, there are prominent fugitive emission sources that
include coke oven emissions (oven leaks, pushing, charging, quenching
and material handling). AERMOD can more finely resolve these fugitive
emissions to ensure better placement of these emissions into the
modeling domain, resulting in a better prediction of source impacts in
the local area near the source and a better estimate of the projected
DV. Allegheny County's SIP followed EPA guidance in the development,
running and processing of its LAA.
For these reasons, EPA believes Allegheny County is justified in
conducting a LAA using a Gaussian dispersion model (AERMOD) to more
accurately project the Liberty Monitor's 2021 PM2.5 design
values. Furthermore, Allegheny County has fully documented that it has
followed EPA's guidance in executing its LAA.
Comment 4: The commenter asserts that ACHD's 2021 modeling
projection is flawed and unreasonable because the selected 2011 base
year is unrepresentative of current and potential future meteorological
conditions for the area. The commenter contends that the area
experienced an unusually low number of atmospheric inversions and
higher than normal annual precipitation in 2011. Given the importance
of meteorological inputs in modeling, the commenter believes the 2011
meteorological data will result in lower modeled PM2.5
concentrations for 2021 than modeling using another year's
meteorological data. As evidence that 2011 is unrepresentative of
current and future meteorological conditions, the commenter cites
ACHD's meteorological analysis, which states, ``more recent years have
recorded above normal average temperatures along with precipitation
amounts substantially above normal; therefore, the 2011 base year may
well represent these more
[[Page 26393]]
current conditions.'' The commenter contends that while ACHD used the
Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) meteorological model for the
Allegheny County domain, stating that is has been determined to produce
appropriate representative meteorological conditions to provide
meteorological inputs for the air quality modeling, they also cautioned
that the accuracy of the modeling is dependent upon the
``representativeness of the meteorological dataset.''
The commenter argues that 2011 had a lower than average number of
temperature inversions (134 days versus an average of 157 days with
inversions from 2008 to 2018), and that the location where temperature
inversions are measured (the Pittsburgh International Airport) will
have not only fewer temperature inversions in a year than the low-lying
valleys that make up most of the nonattainment area, but also that the
strength of the inversions will be greater in the valleys. The
commenter argues that 2012 meteorological data would be more
representative because it had only one more temperature inversion than
the average from 2008 to 2018.
The commenter argues that with respect to precipitation, the
selected 2011 base year is not representative because Allegheny County
experienced 44.24 inches of precipitation that year, which is more than
six inches greater than the NWS 30-year mean for the period 1981-2010
\28\ and was over four-and-one-half inches greater than the average
between 1991-2019. The commenter contends that ACHD's choice of 2011
precipitation data is a statistical outlier, exceeded only five years
in the most recent thirty. The commenter contends that ACHD is
appealing to climate change as a basis for use of unrepresentative
meteorological conditions in modeling future year emissions, contrary
to EPA guidance.\29\ Finally, the commenter contends that ACHD did not
follow EPA's guidance by using meteorological inputs for modeling that
are conducive to elevated PM2.5 concentrations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See National Weather Service, Pittsburgh Historical
Precipitation Totals 1836 to Current, at: www.weather.gov/media/pbz/records/hisprec.pdf.
\29\ See 2019 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, Section 2.6.2
(Assessing Impacts of Future Year Meteorology), page 32, at
www.regulations.gov: Document ID EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157-0068.
\30\ See U.S. EPA, Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, Section
2.3.1 (Choosing Time Periods to Model), page 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 4: Multiple factors are considered in selecting a base
year for modeling purposes. ACHD considered meteorology, source
emissions data, and monitoring data, and ultimately selected 2011, due
to the availability of the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) as
well as the availability of reasonably representative monitoring and
meteorological data. In some cases, choice of available actual data
eases the burden of adjusting or altering the data to represent other
possible base years (e.g., the availability of 2011 NEI year data lends
itself to selection of a 2011 base year without adjustment). Allegheny
County provided an overview of its base year selection in several
sections of its SIP documentation, namely its Problem Statement
(Section 2) of the SIP and the CAMx Model Protocol (Appendix F.2).
Estimates of the effects of climate change over the short time periods
and small spatial scales (i.e., for the purpose of attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment deadline) would be too
uncertain to add value.
EPA reviewed Clean Air Council's climatological information for
Pittsburgh International Airport (temperature and precipitation) and
inversion strength information generated by the Allegheny County Health
Department (ventilation rate). A more detailed analysis of Pittsburgh
International Airport's 30-year temperature and precipitation as well
as Allegheny County's inversion strength summary is included as a
separate TSD. EPA will summarize its findings in the next several
paragraphs.
EPA analyzed daily temperature and precipitation information
collected at the Pittsburgh International Airport weather station over
a 30-year period between 1990 to 2019, listed at the Pennsylvania State
Climatological website.\31\ EPA focused our review on the 2011 base
year and the other years that are used to reconstruct the base year
design values. All years that include 2011 in the Allegheny County
monitoring design values, and that were used in the model attainment
test, were considered (i.e., the periods 2009-11, 2010-12 and 2011-13).
While monthly and annual average temperatures and total precipitation
values for 2011 do sometimes vary from the 30-year averages, they
generally fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. This means that
while temperatures and precipitation totals may differ from their 30-
year means, the differences in precipitation and temperature would not
be considered statistically significant outliers in the normal
distribution (for example several standard deviations from the 30-year
means). Additionally, the commenter has not established that there is a
strong correlation between the meteorological conditions (i.e.,
temperature and precipitation values) at the Pittsburgh International
Airport's weather station and the projected PM2.5 design
values for Allegheny County monitors, especially the Liberty Monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See www.climate.met.psu.edu/data/ida/ for select FAA daily
summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also reviewed and updated the inversion strength information
that is developed by the Allegheny County Health Department as part of
its assessment of daily dispersion characteristics.\32\ Allegheny
County has identified a correlation with inversions and elevated
PM2.5 concentrations within the county and has included it
in several sections of its SIP documentation (problem statement section
of the main SIP and more thoroughly discussed in Appendices B and F).
EPA's review of Allegheny County's most recent 2019 annual inversion
summary report, available on Allegheny County's website, shows that the
2011 model base year has an unusually low number of days without
significant inversions and the number of inversion days in 2011 lies
outside 1 standard deviation of the 2008-19 average. EPA's analysis
also shows the Liberty Monitor's annual quarterly means and 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations do appear to
correlate well with Allegheny County's inversion day totals;
PM2.5 concentrations, both 24-hour and annual, are higher
during years with more inversion days. EPA therefore finds merit with
the commenter's point that Allegheny County's base year 2011 is
unrepresentative of the yearly number of inversions because it has a
significantly lower number of inversion days, which could lead the
modeling to skew lower in its PM2.5 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See ACHD's monitoring data web page, at:
www.alleghenycounty.us/Health-Department/Programs/Air-Quality/
Monitored-Data.aspx, under ``Air Dispersion Reports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we acknowledge the commenter's concern that Allegheny
County's 2011 meteorological data has a lower number of inversion days
than other years, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
Allegheny County's selection of 2011 as its base year will lead to
projected 2021 PM2.5 design values that are lower than would
otherwise be projected using other years of meteorological data. The
selection of a base year with fewer than usual number of inversion days
will be mostly muted by how the modeled attainment test is constructed.
This is because the
[[Page 26394]]
PM2.5 model demonstration uses modeling in a ``relative''
sense and not in an absolute sense.\33\ That is, the predicted model
PM2.5 concentration for the projected year simulation is not
directly used for attainment determination purposes, and instead is
used to develop species-by-species PM2.5 relative reduction
factors that are applied to a weighted base year design value (for each
individual component of PM2.5). The influence of meteorology
on model PM2.5 concentrations is dampened because
projections are done using ratios of concentrations based on the same
meteorology; the base-year and projection-year meteorology are
identical. Furthermore, the weighted design value concept that EPA's
guidance utilizes generates a base year (2011) monitor design value
that is taken from multiple years of monitoring data. This partially
offsets the impacts of selecting one or more years with favorable
meteorology that may contribute to lower modeled concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Section 4.1 of EPA's Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,
November 29, 2018 for additional discussion on the Model Attainment
Test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the commenter's assertion that the selection of a year
with an unrepresentative number of inversions (2011) as Allegheny
County's base year would lead to an under-estimation of future monitor
design values, and therefore attainment, does not hold up when
Allegheny County's final projected 2021 design values are compared to
the most recent (2017-19) monitor design values. If anything, Allegheny
County's modeling results are over-predicting based on current design
values.\34\ EPA used the modeled base year and future year design
values for all of the Allegheny County monitors to calculate linear
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 trend lines, then applied the model
calculated change in PM2.5 concentration per year to
generate a projected 2019 design value concentration.\35\ Further
information on EPA's calculation of the projected 2019 design value
calculation is available in the TSD prepared for this action. These
values could then be compared with the actual monitor values to see how
well Allegheny County's modeling demonstration could reproduce actual
monitor design values. In nearly every case, the model projected design
values that were higher than the actual monitor design values,
suggesting that the model projections are conservative with respect to
actual monitor PM2.5 design values. The most recent design
values pulled from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) indicate that only
annual PM2.5 design values at the Liberty monitor exceed the
NAAQS; Liberty's 2017-19 annual design value is 12.4 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ EPA's analysis of modeled and monitored design values in
Allegheny County is more fully explained in its TSD included as part
of this response.
\35\ See EPA's Supplemental TSD, ``Providing Responses to
Comments Regarding the EPA's Proposed Approval of the Attainment
Demonstration for the Allegheny County PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, under the 2012 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,'' prepared October 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Allegheny County's modeled yearly emission change (-0.24
[micro]g/m\3\ per year), EPA expects Liberty will achieve the
PM2.5 NAAQS by its projected attainment date of 2021. All
other PM2.5 monitors inside Allegheny County currently meet
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, two years before the statutory
attainment date. Allegheny County also included an unmonitored area
analysis (Appendix I.3) to confirm the PM2.5 NAAQS will be
met across the entire (county) nonattainment area.
To summarize, EPA agrees with the commenter's point that the
selected 2011 base year for the PM2.5 modeling demonstration
has a lower than typical number of inversion days, but this fact does
not undermine Allegheny County's attainment demonstration, because the
model is being used in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.
Lower modeled PM2.5 generation due to meteorology in the
base year (fewer inversions) would likely lead to lower modeled
relative reduction factors (that are applied to a multi-year-weighted
base year design value). Furthermore, Allegheny County's projected
PM2.5 concentrations appear to be overpredicting current
PM2.5 design values (2017-19). All current PM2.5
design values in Allegheny County meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
except for the annual PM2.5 design value at Liberty. Using
the Liberty Monitor's projected modeled PM2.5 reduction
rate, this monitor is projected to attain the NAAQS by the area's
December 31, 2021 statutory attainment date. The CAMx modeling projects
that all other monitors in the area will attain by the 2021 attainment
deadline.
Comment 5: The commenter argues that instead of disregarding the
CAMx modeled attainment year projected design value of 12.5 [mu]g/m\3\
at the Liberty Monitor, ACHD should have focused on strengthening the
emission control strategy for U.S. Steel facilities in the Allegheny
County PM2.5 nonattainment area. Instead, the commenter
alleges that during its process to propose the attainment
demonstration, ACHD claimed that it is not appropriate to require
companies to make emissions reductions in the context of preparing
attainment demonstrations. The commenter argues that section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA directs states to ``include enforceable emission limitations
and other control measures, or techniques . . . as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' The
commenter contends that federal rules, specifically 40 CFR
51.1009(a)(1), require a state to ``identify, adopt, and implement
control measures, including control technologies, on sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5
plan precursors,'' in the attainment plan control strategy and that 40
CFR 51.1009(a)(2) requires the state to ``identify all potential
control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions and all sources of emissions of
PM2.5 plan precursors in the nonattainment area.''
In developing a control strategy to model attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the commenter argues that ACHD should seek
emission reductions from the largest sources of fine particulates,
which are the three U.S. Steel facilities that are responsible for over
half of all point source PM2.5 emissions in the
nonattainment area.\36\ Given the proximity of these facilities to the
Liberty Monitor in the Mon Valley, which has typically been the
violating monitor in the area for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
commenter argues that the PM2.5 plan control strategy does
not adequately focus on reducing emissions contributions to the Liberty
Monitor from the three U.S. Steel facilities in the Mon Valley. The
commenter states that there is no change in the annual PM2.5
emissions at the Edgar Thomson facility in Braddock (633.215 tpy) or
the Irvin facility in West Mifflin (71.936 tpy), while the Clairton
Coke Works will see a small reduction of 34.63 tpy between the 2011
base year and the 2021 attainment year inventory--a decrease of only
about six percent over ten years.\37\ The commenter points out that
most of the emission reductions achieved at the Clairton Coke Works
stem from two coking quench tower
[[Page 26395]]
replacements (approximately 117.2 tpy)--with little progress in
reducing emissions (less than one tpy) from coal handling or other coke
manufacturing operations at that facility. The commenter notes that
upgrades to Battery C (including tower replacement) resulted in a net
increase in emission of 82.3 tpy--with the new Tower C for C Battery
being installed in 2012, however, the emission reductions from the
shutdown of the old towers it replaced occurred prior to the 2011 base
year and are therefore not creditable as a control strategy in the
PM2.5 plan. The control strategy, including reductions at
the Clairton Coke Works, for the PM2.5 plan period of 2011
to 2021 results in a reduction of 35.1 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See ACHD's September 30, 2019 SIP revision, Appendix D.1,
pp. 10-11 (Table D-2) (identifying base year emissions of 588.725
tons pr year (tpy), 633.215 tpy, and 71.936 tpy from three U.S.
Steel facilities, which comprise more than half the total emissions
of 2,503 tpy from all point sources). Also, pp. 14-15 (Table D-3)
(identifying future year emissions of 554.094 tpy, 633.215 tpy, and
71.936 tpy from the three facilities, which exceed half the total
emissions of 2,256 tpy from all point sources).
\37\ See ACHD's September 30, 2019 SIP Revision, Appendix D.1,
pp. 10, 14. The Clairton Coke Works emissions were 588.7 tpy in the
2011 base year inventory and 554.1 tpy in the 2021 projected
inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter suggests that over six years have passed since the
last significant emissions reduction measures were enacted at the U.S.
Steel facilities and that additional reductions should be enacted as
part of the attainment demonstration. The commenter suggests, among
other things, that Clairton undertake projects to reduce emissions from
leaking doors, lids, and offtakes from coke oven batteries, pursuant to
the EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for charging, leaks, and bypass stacks at coke oven
batteries.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 40 CFR part 63, subpart L--National Emission Standards
for Coke Oven Batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 5: As explained in EPA's response to Comment 3, ACHD did
not ``disregard'' any modeling results. EPA believes Allegheny County
is justified in conducting a LAA using a Gaussian dispersion model
(AERMOD) to develop more accurately the Liberty Monitor projected 2021
PM2.5 design values. Furthermore, Allegheny County has fully
documented that it has followed EPA's guidance in executing its LAA.
In a moderate area plan, a state is only obligated to adopt
measures adequate to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. As explained
in EPA's PM Implementation Rule, if a moderate area's attainment
demonstration shows attainment by the 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 1 year earlier (i.e., `advance the attainment date'
by one year). The EPA has long applied this particular test to satisfy
the statutory provision related to an area demonstrating attainment `as
expeditiously as practicable.' The EPA continues to believe that this
approach provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to a state to
tailor the control strategy in the Plan to the actual attainment needs
of a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 81 FR 58010, 58035 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACHD's modeling projects attainment by the attainment date. The
RACM analysis indicated that no measures would advance the attainment
by 1 year. Therefore, additional controls at Clairton Coke Works or any
other facility in the Area are not required to demonstrate attainment.
Comment 6: EPA should require that ACHD better substantiate its
RACT evaluation for the U.S. Steel facilities in the Allegheny County
Area, in light of more recent innovations in emission control
technology. The commenter states that ACHD asserts that there are no
feasible controls (or combination thereof) in the Area that would
advance the attainment date by one year or more, and that already
implemented controls represent reasonably available (or better) control
technology. The commenter believes that ACHD has not substantiated the
assertion that further reductions are not reasonably available from the
three Mon Valley U.S. Steel facilities, which are collectively
projected to emit 1,294 tpy of PM2.5 in 2021 (588.7 tpy from
Clairton Coke Works, 633 tpy from Edgar Thomson, and 71.9 tpy from
Irwin).
The commenter provides multiple examples of sources at the U.S.
Steel facilities where emissions could be reduced, for example
reduction of fugitive emissions through improved coke oven door sealing
measures at the Clairton Coke Works. The commenter also suggests that
ACHD should have considered potential RACT controls involving enclosure
of emission sources, where feasible, to fully or partially capture
emissions, citing examples of this control in use in Japan.\40\ The
commenter also cites other additional resources for RACT comparison,
including European Union Best Available Techniques for the iron and
steel industry \41\ and the website of the Institute for Industrial
Productivity, which provides a list of coke manufacturing emission
control innovations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Clean Air Council Comment letter dated August 13, 2020,
Attachment 8--Okazaki et al., Program for Sustainable Development at
Nippon Steel, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 101 (November 2012),
at: www.nipponsteel.com/en/tech/report/nsc/pdf/NSTR101-30_tech_review-5-1.pdf.
\41\ See Clean Air Council comment letter dated August 13, 2020,
Attachment 10--JRC Reference Report, Best Available Techniques (BAT)
Reference Document for Iron and Steel Production (2013), at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/reference-reports/best-available-techniques-bat-reference-documentforiron-and-steel-productionindustrial-emissions. Specifically, sections relating to
Coke Oven Plants (Chapter 5, pages 205-287), Blast Furnaces (Chapter
6, pages 289-352), and Basic Oxygen Steelmaking and Casting (Chapter
7, pages 353-418). Id. Refer also to emerging technologies for Coke
Ovens (Section 11.3, pages 549-553), Blast Furnaces Section 11.4,
pages 554), and BOF and Casting (Section 11.5, pages 555-558).
\42\ See Attachment 11--The Institute for Industrial
Productivity, Industrial Efficiency Technology Database, https://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/coke-making (coke making); see also
Attachment 12--The Institute for Industrial Productivity, Industrial
Efficiency Technology Database, https://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/coke-dry-quenching (coke dry quenching).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 6: The RACT requirements under subparts 1 and 4 of the CAA
are focused on measures needed to attain the NAAQS. A state is not
required to impose all potential emission control measures if existing
measures are sufficient for the area to attain by the attainment date.
EPA's PM Implementation Rule and EPA's General Preamble provide that:
(i) RACT has historically been defined as `the lowest emission limit
that a source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility'; (ii) RACT generally applies to stationary
sources, both stack and fugitive emissions; (iii) major stationary
sources (i.e., sources with potential to emit 100 tons per year or more
of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor) should be
the minimum starting point for a state's RACT analysis, but states are
recommended to evaluate RACT for smaller stationary sources as needed
for attainment and considering the feasibility of controls; and (iv) it
is possible that a state could demonstrate that an existing source in
an area should not be subject to a control technology especially where
such technology is unreasonable in light of the area's attainment
needs, or such technology is infeasible. In such a case, it could be
concluded that no control technology is `reasonably available,' and
RACT for the source could be considered to be no additional control.
Thus, the RACT requirement under CAA subpart 4 is primarily focused on
stationary sources and forms of emissions control that are technology
based.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 81 FR 58010, 58034. See also ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). See also ``State Implementation Plans
for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas: Addendum to the General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Amendments,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26396]]
EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that all
moderate area plans contain RACM, which is defined in 40 CFR 51.1000 as
any technologically and economically feasible measure that can be
implemented within 4 years of designation of a PM2.5
nonattainment area and that achieves permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and/or PM2.5
precursor emissions. RACM includes RACT. As stated in the preamble to
the Implementation Rule, EPA recommends that the state should follow a
process by which it first identifies all sources of emissions of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the nonattainment
area, and all potential control measures to reduce emissions from those
source categories. The state next determines if any of the identified
potential control measures are not technologically feasible or
economically feasible. The Preamble to the Implementation Rule also
states that ``measures that are not necessary for attainment need not
be considered as RACM/RACT.'' In the preamble to the PM2.5
Implementation Rule, EPA notes that this has been ``EPA's longstanding
interpretation of RACM/RACT in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C),
which were enacted as part of the amendments to the Act in 1990. Even
prior to the 1990 amendments, EPA interpreted the statutory term RACM
to encompass only those measures `necessary to assure reasonable
further progress and attainment by the required date.' '' \44\ In the
1990 amendments to the Act, Congress enacted a ``general savings
clause,'' which states that ``each regulation, standard, rule, notice,
order and guidance promulgated or issued by [EPA] under this chapter,
as in effect [before the 1990 Amendments], shall remain in effect
according to its terms.'' \45\ Since the passage of the 1990
amendments, EPA's interpretation of RACM and RACT encompasses only
those measures necessary to advance attainment has been upheld in
multiple U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245, 1251-1253 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735,
743- 744 (5th Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C.
Cir. 2002). But cf. Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015)
(holding that an area must have subpart 1 RACM/RACT approved into its
SIP prior to redesignation, regardless of whether the area is attaining
the NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id, at footnote 71, citing 44 FR 20375 (April 4, 1979); see
40 CFR 51.1(o) (1972) (defining RACT in similar terms); 42 U.S.C.
7502(b)(2) (1988) (requiring RACM in the precursor to current CAA
section 172(c)(1)).
\45\ See 42 U.S.C. 7415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Appendix J of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, ACHD
explains the methodology it used for its RACT analysis. ACHD explains
that the first step was to identify ``all current major stationary
point sources'' in the nonattainment area. ACHD included major sources
for PM2.5, SO2, or NOX. The second
step was to identify the different processes (or process groups) for
the applicable major source facilities, and then identify current
controls in place for the processes. After the sources and processes
(or process groups) were identified, ACHD identified potential RACT
alternatives for the processes.
As stated in Appendix J of the Plan for examination of reasonable
alternative controls, ACHD used several EPA resources, including the
RACT/BACT/LAER \46\ Clearinghouse (RBLC),\47\ the Menu of Control
Measures (MCM) for NAAQS Implementation,\48\ and the Control Cost
Manual.\49\ ACHD also examined determinations from the RBLC over the
past 10 years (from January 1, 2009 through July 1, 2019) for
comparison to existing controls. ACHD based its economic analysis of
alternatives on estimates of total costs (capital costs plus operating/
indirect costs) and/or cost effectiveness (ratio of cost per ton of
pollutant). Reasonable controls considered by ACHD included operation
and work practices and/or permitted limits for some processes. ACHD
concluded in its RACM/RACT analysis that other reasonable control
measures it considered but decided not to implement would not advance
the attainment date by one year. EPA believes that ACHD's use of the
RBLC, the MCM, and the Control Cost Manual comprises a reasonably
thorough approach for evaluating potential RACT control options for
sources in this area. Furthermore, the modeling demonstration in ACHD's
Plan shows attainment by the target attainment date with the control
measures set forth in the control strategy. EPA agrees with ACHD's
conclusion that those measures that were identified and evaluated under
this analysis but that were not adopted and implemented in the area
would collectively not advance the attainment date by more than a year.
Therefore, EPA agrees that ACHD did not need to adopt and impose
additional controls in the area to meet the RACT requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ BACT = Best Available Control Technology; LAER = Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate.
\47\ See EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse web page, at https://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/index.cfm?action=Home.Home&lang=en.
\48\ See EPA's Menu of Control Measures for NAAQS Implementation
web page, at: https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/menu-control-measures-naaqs-implementation.
\49\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 6th Edition: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: The commenter supports EPA's determination that two
measures submitted by ACHD as contingency measures do not meet
statutory requirements for such measures. However, the commenter
objects to EPA's proposal to approve these two measures instead as
``additional control measures.'' \50\ The two measures at issue are:
(1) Newly installed air curtains and/or covers on the Battery B Shed at
the US Steel Clairton Coke Works; and (2) a new combustion (underfire)
stack for Battery 15 at the US Steel Clairton Coke Works. In
particular, the commenter objects to the approval of the taller
combustion stack not only as a contingency measure, but as a control
measure appropriate for inclusion in the SIP for the Allegheny
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See EPA's Proposed Rulemaking, at 85 FR 35871 (col. 3),
June 12, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that the higher stack is not a ``control
measure'' at all because control measures must reduce emissions, rather
than merely disperse the emissions. Commenter cites 40 CFR
51.1014(b)(1) (``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 . . . .'' (emphasis added by commenter))
and 40 CFR 51.100(n) (``Control strategy means a combination of
measures designated to achieve the aggregate reduction of emissions
necessary for attainment and maintenance of national standards . . .
.'') for the proposition that a higher stack which merely disperses the
emissions.
Response 7: EPA has reevaluated its proposal to approve the two
measures at the US Steel Clairton Plant coke works as ``additional
measures'' in light of the commenter's objections, and following
further review, it is clear that these measures are discussed in the
Plan solely in the context of the contingency measure element of the
Plan to address CAA section 172(c)(9). As such, EPA's proposed approval
of these two proposed contingency measures as ``additional measures''
went beyond ACHD's proposal and therefore should not have been
considered by EPA as anything other than proposed contingency measures.
[[Page 26397]]
Additional review of ACHD's SIP revision shows that the attainment
plan does not rely on any potential emission reductions from these two
projects in order to show attainment, and modeling supporting the Plan
used neither the future increased stack height of the underfire air
stack of battery 15 nor the cover/air curtains on the south side of
Battery B shed in the analysis, as mention of these two measures was
limited to the contingency measure section of the Plan. Thus, EPA's
decision to not approve these as ``additional measures'' has no impact
on the modeled attainment demonstrations showing that the other
measures in the control strategy will result in attainment by the
attainment date.
The Plan does not rely on the emission reductions from the two
measures as part of the control strategy in the modeled attainment
demonstration for the Allegheny PM2.5 nonattainment area,
but rather as early implemented contingency measures to be implemented
under a settlement order between US Steel and ACHD.\51\ EPA reiterates
our rejection of these two measures as contingency measures as they are
both required by a settlement order and are being implemented
regardless of whether triggered as a contingency measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Settlement Agreement and Order #190604, between U.S. Steel
and ACHD, June 27, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: The commenter also asserts that ACHD's future
contingency measures must obtain 34 tons per year of emissions
reductions, which is the amount representing one year of areawide
reductions necessary under the reasonable further progress (RFP)
element of the Plan, in order to comply with long-standing policy of
the EPA.\52\ The commenter believes that ACHD's alternative proposal to
adopt contingency measure obtaining reductions in emissions near the
Liberty Monitor of only 9.4 tons per year is not in accordance with EPA
guidance for contingency measures and that ACHD has not sufficiently
``shown its work'' to justify why contingency measures representing
less than one year of RFP reduction for the Area is needed. Commenter
asserts that ACHD's stated rationale that additional modeling shows
that the proposed lower level (9.4 tpy) of contingency measures would
lead to a reduction in absolute annual modeled impacts of 0.10 [mu]g/
m\3\ at the Liberty Monitor--a level sufficient to model attainment at
that monitor in 2022 (if all other emissions are held constant at 2021
levels)--is an inadequate justification for this departure from EPA's
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 81 FR 58010 and 58068, column 2. See also General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (August 16, 1992), 57 FR 13496, 13543 (column 3) through 13544
(column 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 8: EPA agrees with the commenter that its longstanding
guidance to states with respect to contingency measures is that such
measures should result in at least one year's worth of RFP as
determined in the nonattainment plan for the area at issue. EPA also
agrees that the determination of what is necessary for RFP should be
based upon the overall emission reductions necessary for attainment of
the relevant NAAQS in the area, not based on the premise that some
lesser amount of emissions reduction from an individual source in a
nonattainment area is sufficient for this purpose. This is especially
the case for attainment of the PM2.5 or Ozone NAAQS, where
violations of the NAAQS in a given area are commonly the result of
aggregate emissions from numerous sources located across the designated
nonattainment area. Similarly, EPA agrees that for purposes of
supporting a conditional approval of an element of a nonattainment plan
under section 110(k)(4), the commitment submitted by a state should be
to adopt and submit additional specific measures that would correctly
address the deficiency in the original SIP submission that is the
reason for the conditional approval. In this instance, the conditional
approval pertains to ACHD's commitment to submit adequate contingency
measures, consistent with the requirements of section 172(c)(9) and
with EPA guidance for those requirements.
EPA disagrees that the ACHD commitment letter is insufficient to
support conditional approval of the contingency measures element of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. In its April 7, 2020 commitment
letter, ACHD committed to adopt specific contingency measures that
would achieve 34 tons per year for the Area, or 9.4 tons per year of
reductions nearby the Liberty Monitor. The Agency's June 12, 2020
proposed approval of ACHD's SIP revision proposed conditional approval
of the contingency measure element of the plan on the basis that ACHD
would adopt additional contingency measures necessary to satisfy CAA
requirements applicable to contingency measures. EPA's longstanding
guidance on this is that contingency measures should achieve reductions
in pollutants from sources that constitute one year's worth of RFP in
the area, unless presented with facts and circumstances that justify a
different amount.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See, for example ``State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 at 13543 and 13544 (April 16,
1992) and ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards; State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule,'' 81
FR 58010 at 58067 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is finalizing the conditional approval based on ACHD's
commitment to adopt and submit contingency measures meeting statutory
requirements and consistent with EPA guidance. In this action, EPA is
not determining definitively whether such measures must achieve 34 tpy
or any other specific amount of emissions. EPA is finalizing this
conditional approval based on its expectation that ACHD's new
contingency measures will obtain reductions at least equal to one
year's worth of RFP, i.e., 34 tpy, but notes that it is neither
accepting nor rejecting at this time the possibility that the state
could submit contingency measures obtaining some other amount of
reductions and adequately justify this other amount. When ACHD adopts
and submits the specific control measures to remedy the current
deficiency with respect to the contingency measure element of the plan,
EPA will review and take rulemaking action to assess the necessary
levels of emission reductions for ACHD's replacement contingency
measures.
Comment 9: The commenter cites federal court decisions for the
proposition that EPA lacks the authority to conditionally approve a
PM2.5 Plan that entirely lacks contingency measures, see
Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 164 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and that EPA
cannot grant conditional approval based on a state commitment letter
that does not provide specific enforceable limits, see Sierra Club v.
EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Based on these cases, the commenter
then contends that ACHD cannot simply identify specific contingency
measures without establishing that they would be approvable if
implemented. The commenter cites the second Sierra Club case for the
proposition that the commitment must be ``something more than a mere
promise to take appropriate but unidentified measures in the future,''
Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296, 303, and that this ``requires that
the States complete the analyses necessary to identify appropriate
measures before, rather than after, conditional approval is granted.''
\54\ The commenter argues that because the Department does not quantify
any putative emissions
[[Page 26398]]
reductions from the ``hypothetical'' contingency measures set forth in
its commitment letter, it is impossible to identify appropriate
measures before conditional approval is granted, as the D.C. Circuit
required.\55\ Therefore, the commenter states that EPA may not grant
the requested conditional approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id.
\55\ See Commitment Letter of the Allegheny County Health
Department, dated April 7, 2020, available in the docket for this
action, Document ID EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 9: EPA agrees that in order to support a conditional
approval under section 110(k)(4), a state must provide a written
commitment to take specific actions to address the identified
deficiencies in the initial SIP submission that resulted in the need
for a conditional approval. As explained in the proposal document, and
as evidenced by the commitment letter in the docket supporting this
final action, ACHD has made an adequate commitment to support
conditional approval of the contingency measures element of the
Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan. Thus, EPA does not agree that
the Sierra Club cases cited by the commenter preclude this conditional
approval.
The factual circumstances in the 2004 Sierra Club case are
different and therefore distinguishable from the facts of ACHD's
PM2.5 Plan in several respects. First, the SIP submission at
issue in the Sierra Club case initially included nothing addressing
three required elements of that nonattainment plan: Contingency
measures, RACM analyses and RACM, and a post-1999 Rate of Progress
(ROP) plan. Sierra Club at 301. The Sierra Club court concluded that it
was inappropriate for EPA to exercise its conditional approval
authority under section 110(k)(4) in a situation in which the states
had submitted nothing to address these requirements. Here, ACHD did
address the contingency measures requirement as an element in its
initial nonattainment plan SIP submission (i.e., installation of a new
underfire stack on Battery 15 and installation of a cover or air
curtains on south side of B battery shed). Although EPA found that
these measures did not meet the statutory requirements for contingency
measures because a consent order required that these actions take place
regardless of whether the area failed to attain or failed to meet its
ROP plan, ACHD did make a good faith effort to submit contingency
measures as part of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, unlike
in the 2004 Sierra Club case cited.
Second, the commitment letters subsequently submitted by the states
involved in the 2004 Sierra Club case were vague and failed to list any
specific, enforceable measures that the state would adopt as
contingency measures. Citing one state's commitment letter, the Court
noted that the commitment letters only promised to submit ``adopted
contingency measures to be implemented if the DC Area does not attain
the one-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005.'' Id. at 302. Here, ACHD
has identified seven specific contingency measures it will adopt to
obtain an additional 34 tons per year of direct PM2.5
emission reductions (or of PM2.5 precursors) or 9.4 tpy in
the vicinity of the Liberty Monitor. ACHD has committed to adopt
contingency measures that will meet EPA's requirements for contingency
measures (i.e., adopted measures that equate to one year's worth of RFP
reductions, along with the requisite description of triggering
mechanisms for these measures) and will submit the contingency measures
to EPA within one year from EPA's final conditional approval. EPA notes
that it is basing this approval on the ACHD commitment to obtain the 34
tpy that would constitute the one year's worth of RFP that is
consistent with EPA guidance for the contingency measures requirement,
not the 9.4 tpy alternative posited by ACHD. The Sierra Club court
found that ``[t]he statute requires that the States commit to adopt
specific enforceable measures,'' Sierra Club at 302, but that EPA was
accepting as sufficient a commitment to adopt what it conceded are
unspecified measures.\56\ The measures identified by ACHD are much more
specific than those identified in that case, and are made more specific
by the promise to adopt some combination of these measures to achieve
the necessary amount of reductions needed in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Sierra Club decision language cited by the commenter as
requiring state analyses prior to EPA granting conditional approval can
also be distinguished from the circumstances in this SIP submission.
The 2004 Sierra Club court was expounding upon its earlier decision in
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 22 F. 3d 1125
(D.C. Cir. 1994). In the NRDC case, the Court was reviewing EPA's
interpretation of newly created conditional approval language in
section 110(k)(4) that Congress adopted in the 1990 CAA amendments.
Through guidance and rulemaking, EPA had interpreted section 110(k)(4)
as allowing conditional approval of a ``committal SIP'' containing no
substantive provisions, so long as the state submitted it within one of
the deadlines and the state promised to adopt specific enforceable
measures within a year and a schedule of interim milestones in the
future adoption process. The NRDC court concluded that ``the
conditional approval mechanism was intended to provide the EPA with an
alternative to disapproving substantive, but not entirely satisfactory,
SIPs submitted by the statutory deadlines and not, as the EPA has used
it, a means of circumventing those deadlines.'' NRDC at 1134-1135. The
court then held that ``section 110(k)(4) does not authorize the EPA to
use committal SIPs to postpone SIP deadlines.'' Id. at 1135. That
situation is not present here. Although ACHD submitted its
nonattainment plan SIP submission late, ACHD did submit a complete
nonattainment plan containing all the required elements--including the
contingency measures element. Upon further evaluation of the SIP
submission, EPA determined that the contingency measures were not
approvable, and therefore based on ACHD's commitment has elected to
exercise its authority to provide ACHD up to one year to remedy the
deficiency, in accordance with section 110(k)(4). Thus, EPA is not
circumventing the original SIP submission deadline by granting
conditional approval in this matter, but merely allowing ACHD to revise
these ``substantive, but not entirely satisfactory, elements of the
SIP.'' See Id. at 1134-1135. EPA is thus using its discretionary
authority under section 110(k)(4) in an appropriate way.
Regarding the Clean Air Council's claim that ACHD had to do further
analyses of the contingency measures before EPA could grant conditional
approval, EPA has concluded that ACHD has done such an analysis by
identifying readily available emission control contingency measures
which, if triggered, will achieve the necessary emission reductions in
the nonattainment area. The submitted emission reduction numbers come
from the analysis contained in the attainment demonstration and all the
elements that make up the demonstration, such as emission inventories
and modeling. The 34.1 tpy number is one year of emission reductions
derived from ACHD's Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan, which was
informed by the modeling. Having completed this analysis, ACHD then had
to analyze where it could obtain emission reductions equal to this
amount, and that analysis resulted in
[[Page 26399]]
the list of seven specific contingency measures set forth in the ACHD
commitment letter, which ACHD will evaluate, adopt, and then submit to
EPA for approval as contingency measures to meet the requirement of the
conditional approval.
The commenter also claims that this language from the Sierra Club
decision requires, under these circumstances, that the SIP submission
include analyses identifying both the specific contingency measures and
the specific amount of emission reduction obtained from each measure
before EPA can grant conditional approval. EPA disagrees with this
reading of the court's ruling. The 2004 Sierra Club court did not
specifically identify what ``analyses'' must be done by the state as
part of the conditional approval. In the Sierra Club case, the three
missing statutory elements of the attainment plan were contingency
measures, RACM analyses, and Rate of Progress plans. The court did not
address the issue of what specific analyses the state needed to perform
as part of the submittal of the contingency measures, because there
were no contingency measures identified or included in the SIP. In the
absence of specific contingency measures in that SIP, the court would
only be hypothesizing about what analysis needed to accompany specific
contingency measures.
The Clean Air Council's argument that ACHD must quantify the
specific amount of emission reductions available from each specified
contingency measure (prior to EPA granting conditional approval) is
also not supported by the Sierra Club case. In the 2004 Sierra Club
matter, the states did not submit anything to meet the three required
elements of the attainment plan, including the contingency measures, so
the court had no reason to opine on what specific analysis should
accompany three entirely missing elements of the attainment plan. EPA
does not agree that the decision requires ACHD to identify specific
amounts of emission reductions from these specific proposed measures
prior to conditional approval, as EPA expects that the state will
provide additional information supporting the calculation of estimated
emission reductions for all adopted contingency measures as part of a
future SIP revision to address EPA's final conditional approval of the
contingency measure element of the plan. ACHD has committed to adopt
sufficient measures from the identified list of potential control
measures sufficient to achieve the necessary one year's worth of RFP
for this area.
EPA does not agree that ACHD must precisely calculate how much
emission reduction will be achieved by the individual measures until
ACHD actually submits the adopted measures to EPA for evaluation and
approval into the SIP, as appropriate at that time. For these reasons,
EPA does not agree with the commenter's claim that case law prohibits
EPA from granting conditional approval for the contingency measures
under the circumstances of this SIP submission, and also disagrees that
ACHD's commitment to adopt contingency measures must, at this time,
contain specific amounts of emissions attributable to individual
measures.
IV. Final Action
A. Approval of the Attainment Plan and Related Elements
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP
revisions 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 element of the
plan, which EPA is conditionally approving. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the following elements of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 plan: The 2011 base year emissions inventory as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3); the RACM/RACT
demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C); the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(B); the RFP demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); the QM demonstration
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(c); and the MVEB for
2021, which meets the transportation conformity related requirements of
CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
EPA is approving the 2021 MVEB element of the Plan in this final
action. EPA has determined that ACHD has remedied the deficiency with
the 2021 MVEB, for which EPA proposed conditional approval in our June
12, 2020 proposed action. Pennsylvania, in an April 20, 2020 letter to
EPA, committed to finalize adoption of its intended 2021 MVEB, which
had not yet been finally adopted or undergone public participation at
the local level. EPA's proposed to conditionally approve the MVEB
element of the Allegheny County PM2.5 Plan, contingent upon
final adoption by ACHD of the intended 2021 MVEB. On October 2, 2020,
PADEP submitted a SIP revision (on behalf of ACHD) that contained the
final 2021 MVEB for the Allegheny County Area, remedying EPA's June 12,
2020 proposed condition upon approval of the MVEB element of the Plan.
This final 2021 MVEB was unchanged from the intended MVEB upon which
EPA proposed conditional approval in our June 12, 2020 proposed
action.\57\ EPA has determined that this final 2021 MVEB remedies the
deficiency underlying our conditional approval of the MVEB element of
the plan, as the final MVEB was adopted (as proposed), satisfies public
participation requirements of EPA's conformity rule under 40 CFR
93.118(e), and has been formally submitted to EPA as a supplemental SIP
revision. The final 2021 MVEB for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including direct PM2.5 and the precursor NOX, is
listed in Table 1,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 85 FR 35872, 35873 (June 12, 2020).
Table 1--Allegheny County, PA 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Year MVEB for Direct PM2.5 and NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5 on-road emissions (tons per year)
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget year NOX on-road emissions (tons per year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 266 5,708
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26400]]
B. Conditional Approval of the Contingency Measures Portion of the
Attainment Plan
EPA is conditionally approving the contingency measures element of
the Allegheny County Plan. In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA and EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the attainment
demonstration for a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area must
include contingency measures.\58\ Contingency measures are additional
control measures to be implemented in the event that the area fails to
meet RFP requirements, fails to submit or meet quantitative milestones
(QM), or EPA determines that the area fails to attain by the attainment
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 40 CFR 51.1014 and 81 FR 58010, p. 58066 (August 24,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for contingency measures to be approved 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
Implementation 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 EPA 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
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; (3) the contingency measures shall
consist of control measures not otherwise included 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. PADEP submitted a letter to EPA dated
April 20, 2020 conveying ACHD's commitment to adopt specific
contingency measures, from a list specified in that letter, that will
provide for a reduction of one year's worth of reasonable further
progress towards attainment, or equivalent (up to 34 tons per year of
direct PM2.5 emissions). Further detail on ACHD's commitment
and a description of the specific measures is detailed in EPA's June
12, 2020 proposed rulemaking for this action.
After ACHD adopts contingency measures, in compliance with related
requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and the PM2.5
Implementation Rule (specifically the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1003
and 40 CFR 51.1014), PADEP will submit a SIP revision containing the
adopted contingency measures, along with a description of the trigger
mechanisms and schedules for implementation of the contingency
measures. ACHD and PADEP have committed to submit the contingency
measures SIP revision to EPA within one year after EPA's conditional
approval.
If EPA makes a determination that Pennsylvania has satisfied the
approval condition, EPA shall take action to remove the condition on
its approval of the contingency measure element of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan, converting our action to full approval. Should
Pennsylvania fail to remedy the condition within the one-year deadline
for doing so, this conditional approval shall automatically convert to
a disapproval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. A finding of
disapproval would start an 18-month clock to apply sanctions under CAA
section 179(b) and a two-year clock for a Federal implementation plan
under CAA section 110(c)(1).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule 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 State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not
[[Page 26401]]
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to
approve SIP revisions consisting of the Allegheny County
PM2.5 Plan may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 30, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
the entry ``2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Demonstration
(including 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory, Particulate Matter
Precursor Contribution Demonstration, Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration, Demonstration of Interim Quantitative Milestones to
Ensure Timely Attainment. and Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 2021)
(excluding Section 8, Contingency Measures)'' at the end of the table
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic area submittal EPA approval date Additional
revision date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Allegheny County........... 09/30/19 5/14/21, [INSERT Contingency
Demonstration (including 2011 10/02/20 FEDERAL REGISTER Measures
Base Year Emissions Inventory, CITATION]. (Section 9)
Particulate Matter Precursor portion of the
Contribution Demonstration, plan is
Reasonable Further Progress Conditionally
Demonstration, Demonstration Approved, until
of Interim Quantitative 5/16/22.
Milestones to Ensure Timely See 40 CFR
Attainment. and Motor Vehicle 52.2023(n).
Emission Budgets for 2021)
(excluding Section 8,
Contingency Measures).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.2023 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2023 Approval status.
* * * * *
(n) EPA conditionally approves the Contingency Measures element
(Section 8) of the Attainment Plan (dated September 12, 2019) for the
Allegheny County Area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as submitted
to EPA as a SIP revision by Pennsylvania on September 30, 2019.
Pennsylvania shall submit a SIP revision within one year of EPA's final
conditional approval to remedy this condition, which satisfies all
related requirements for contingency measures under CAA section
172(c)(9) and the PM2.5 Implementation Rule (specifically,
40 CFR 51.1003 and 40 CFR 51.1014). Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4),
this conditional approval is based upon April 20, 2020 and April 7,
2020 letters from Pennsylvania and Allegheny County committing to
submit a SIP to EPA to remedy the deficiencies of this conditional
approval within 12 months of EPA's conditional approval action.
[FR Doc. 2021-09565 Filed 5-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
