Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Indiana Nonattainment Area for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 74836-74847 [2024-20598]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
74836
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 12,
2024. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: September 9, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
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.
Subpart EE—New Hampshire
2. Section 52.1519 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1519 Identification of plan-conditional
approval.
(a) * * *
(12) On December 22, 2022, the New
Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES)
submitted a request to amend New
Hampshire’s Env-A 300, ‘‘Ambient Air
Quality Standards’’ regulation, as a
revision to New Hampshire’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP). NHDES
revised this regulation to incorporate
into its SIP revised National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). On
March 6, 2024, EPA strengthened the
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) primary
annual NAAQS. On May 16, 2024, New
Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA
committing to adopt a revised version of
Env-A 300 which includes the current
EPA PM2.5 primary annual NAAQS.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 52.1520(c) the table ‘‘EPAApproved New Hampshire Regulations’’
is amended by revising the existing
entry for ‘‘Env-A 300’’ to read as
follows:
§ 52.1520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
(c) EPA approved regulations.
EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS
State
effective
date
State citation
Title/subject
*
Env-A 300 ..............
*
*
Ambient Air Quality Standards ................
*
*
*
*
5/24/2022
*
EPA approval date 1
Explanations
*
*
7/13/2024 ................................................
[Insert Federal Register citation] ...........
*
..............................
*
*
*
1 In
order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–20721 Filed 9–12–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2024–0024; FRL–11529–
02–R3]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania;
Attainment Plan for the Indiana
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 1Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania or PA). The
revision pertains to the attainment plan
for the Indiana, PA nonattainment area
for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). The EPA is approving these
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
October 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2024–0024. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through www.regulations.gov,
or please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional
availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Goold, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John
F Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone
number is (215) 814–2027. Ms. Goold
can also be reached via electronic mail
at goold.megan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 22, 2010, the EPA published
a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75
parts per billion (ppb) at 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
50.17(a), which is met at an ambient air
quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of
daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb,
as determined in accordance with 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
50 appendix T (75 FR 35520, June 22,
2010). Under CAA section 107(d)(1), the
EPA is required to designate areas as
‘‘nonattainment,’’ ‘‘attainment,’’ or
‘‘unclassifiable’’ within two years of
establishing a new or revising an
existing standard. As part of this
process, states must submit
recommendations for area designations
and boundaries to the EPA within one
year of the effective date of the standard.
Effective on October 4, 2013,1 the
Indiana, PA Nonattainment Area
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Indiana, PA
NAA’’) (which encompasses Indiana
County, and Plumcreek Township,
South Bend Township and Elderton
Borough of Armstrong County) was
designated as nonattainment for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The area
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting
sources: the Keystone Generating
Station (Keystone), Conemaugh
Generating Station (Conemaugh), Homer
City Generating Station (Homer City),
and Seward Generating Station
(Seward). The October 4, 2013, final
designation triggered a requirement for
Pennsylvania to submit by April 4, 2015
(within 18 months per CAA section
191(a)), a SIP revision with an
attainment plan for how the Indiana, PA
NAA would attain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than October 4, 2018, (five
years from the designation per CAA
section 192(a)) in accordance with CAA
sections 110(a), 172(c) and 191–192.
For a number of areas, including the
Indiana, PA NAA, the EPA published a
March 18, 2016 Finding of Failure to
Submit, with an effective date of April
18, 2016, finding that Pennsylvania and
other pertinent states had failed to
submit the required SO2 attainment plan
by this submittal deadline. (See 81 FR
14736, March 18, 2016). This finding
initiated a deadline under CAA section
179(a) for the potential imposition of
new source review and highway
funding sanctions. However, as a result
of Pennsylvania’s October 11, 2017
submittal (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the
2017 SIP submittal’’), and the EPA’s
subsequent October 13, 2017 letter to
Pennsylvania finding the submittal
complete, the CAA section 179(a)
sanctions were not imposed.
Additionally, under CAA section 110(c),
the March 18, 2016, finding triggered a
1 78
2 Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, Case No. 20–3568 (3d
Cir.).
FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
requirement that the EPA promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP)
within two years of the effective date of
the finding unless, by that time, the
state has made the necessary complete
submittal, and the EPA has approved
the submittal as meeting applicable
requirements. The EPA took final action
approving this attainment plan on
October 19, 2020 (85 FR 66240, October
19, 2020), which removed the FIP
obligation.
On December 18, 2020, the Sierra
Club, Clean Air Council, and Citizens
for Pennsylvania’s Future filed a
petition for judicial review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
challenging that final approval.2 On
April 5, 2021, the EPA filed a motion for
voluntary remand without vacatur of its
approval of the Indiana, PA SO2
attainment plan.
On August 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit granted
the EPA’s request for remand without
vacatur of the final approval of
Pennsylvania’s SO2 attainment plan for
the Indiana, PA NAA, and required that
the EPA take final action in response to
the remand no later than one year from
the date of the court’s order.
On August 18, 2022, the EPA revised
and corrected its prior full approval
action (85 FR 66240, October 19, 2020)
without further submission from
Pennsylvania (effective September 19,
2022) (87 FR 50778, August 18, 2022).
Specifically, the EPA retained the
approval of the emissions inventory and
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program requirements, and
disapproved the attainment
demonstration, reasonably available
control measures and reasonably
available control technology (RACM/
RACT) requirements, reasonable further
progress (RFP) requirements, and
contingency measures (hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘2022 Partial
Approval/Partial Disapproval’’) (87 FR
50778, August 18, 2022). The partial
disapproval action initiated a sanctions
clock under CAA section 179, providing
for emission offset sanctions for new
sources if the EPA has not fully
approved a revised attainment plan
within 18 months (March 19, 2024) after
final partial disapproval, and providing
for highway funding sanctions if the
EPA has not fully approved a revised
plan within 6 months thereafter
(September 19, 2024). The sanctions
clock can be stopped only if the
conditions of the EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 52.31 are met. Also, under CAA
section 110(c), the partial disapproval
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74837
action initiated an obligation for the
EPA to promulgate a FIP within two
years unless Pennsylvania has
submitted, and the EPA has fully
approved, a plan addressing the
disapproved attainment planning
requirements.
On October 12, 2023, Pennsylvania
submitted a 2023 SO2 Attainment Plan
SIP Revision for the Indiana, PA NAA
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2023 SIP
submittal’’). The 2023 SIP submittal
addresses the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c), 191 and 192 and the
disapproved attainment planning
requirements in the EPA’s 2022 Partial
Approval/Partial Disapproval.
Specifically, this SIP revision contains a
modified attainment demonstration
using dispersion modeling, evaluates
sources for RACT/RACM purposes,
gives an RFP explanation, provides for
contingency measures, and includes
revised emissions limitations and
control measures.
Nonattainment area SO2 SIPs must
meet the applicable requirements of the
CAA, specifically CAA sections 110,
172, 191 and 192. The EPA’s regulations
governing nonattainment area SIPs are
set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific
procedural requirements and control
strategy requirements residing at
subparts F and G, respectively. Soon
after Congress enacted the 1990
amendments to the CAA, the EPA
issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs
in a document entitled the ‘‘General
Preamble for the Implementation of title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990,’’ published in the Federal
Register at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
(General Preamble). Among other
things, the General Preamble addressed
SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for
SIP control strategies. Id. at 13545–49,
13567–68. On April 23, 2014, the EPA
issued guidance and recommendations
for meeting the statutory requirements
in SO2 SIPs addressing the 2010 primary
NAAQS, in a document entitled,
‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions’’
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance’’).3 In the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the EPA
described the statutory requirements for
a complete nonattainment area SIP,
which include an accurate emissions
inventory of current emissions for all
sources of SO2 within the
nonattainment area; an attainment
demonstration; enforceable emissions
limitations and control measures;
3 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, ‘‘Guidance
for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions’’, April 23, 2014. www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2016-06/documents/
20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74838
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
demonstration of RFP; implementation
of RACM (including RACT);
nonattainment new source review; and
adequate contingency measures for the
affected area.
For the EPA to fully approve a SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 110, 172, 191, and 192 and the
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the
SIP for the affected area needs to
demonstrate to the EPA’s satisfaction
that each of the aforementioned
requirements have been met. Under
CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA
may not approve a SIP that would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning NAAQS
attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement, and no
requirement in effect before November
15, 1990 (or required to be adopted by
an order, settlement, agreement, or plan
in effect before November 15, 1990), in
any area which is a nonattainment area
for any air pollutant, may be modified
in any manner unless it ensures
equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.
CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states
with areas designated as nonattainment
to demonstrate that the submitted plan
provides for attainment of the NAAQS.
40 CFR part 51, subpart G further
delineates the control strategy
requirements that SIPs must meet, and
the EPA has long required that all SIPs
and control strategies reflect the four
fundamental principles of
quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability. See
General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at
13567–68 (April 16, 1992). SO2
attainment plans must consist of two
components: (1) emission limits and
other controls, including measures that
assure implementation of permanent,
enforceable and necessary emission
controls, and (2) a modeling analysis
which meets the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51, appendix W and demonstrates
that these emission limits and control
measures provide for timely attainment
of the primary SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but by no
later than the attainment date for the
affected area. In all cases, the emission
limits and control measures must be
accompanied by appropriate methods
and conditions to determine compliance
with the respective emission limits and
control measures, and must be
quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of
emission reduction can be ascribed to
the measures), fully enforceable
(specifying clear, unambiguous and
measurable requirements for which
compliance can be practicably
determined), replicable (the procedures
for determining compliance are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
SO2 emission spikes in accordance with
good air pollution control practices.
• Conemaugh—Add 3,080 lbs/hr
combined on a 3-hour block average for
Units 1 & 2 (Source IDs 031 & 032).
Other specific requirements of the
Indiana County attainment plan and the
rationale for the EPA’s action are
explained in the NPRM, and its
associated technical support document
(TSD), and will not be restated here.
On June 7, 2024 (89 FR 48523), the
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for Pennsylvania. In
the NPRM, the EPA proposed approval
of a revision to Pennsylvania’s SIP to
demonstrate attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in the Indiana, PA NAA. As
noted, Pennsylvania submitted the
formal SIP revision on October 12, 2023.
This submission includes
Pennsylvania’s attainment
demonstration and other attainment
plan elements required under the CAA,
including the requirement for meeting
RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS,
RACM/RACT, enforceable emission
limitations and control measures, and
contingency measures. Notably, the
submission does not contain
information regarding the required
emissions inventory or the state’s NNSR
program, as these were previously
approved by the EPA (87 FR 50778,
August 18, 2022). In this action, the EPA
is determining that the Pennsylvania 1hour SO2 attainment plan for Indiana,
PA meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements and is thus
approving Pennsylvania’s submission
into its SIP. Also, the EPA is
incorporating the following SO2
emission limits into the source-specific
section of the PA SIP for the Keystone
Plant, Conemaugh Station and Seward
Station (as well as the compliance
strategies listed in the unredacted
portion of the Consent Order and
Agreements (COAs) found in appendix
C of the state submittal):
• Keystone—Remove 9,600 lbs/hr on
a 24-hour (daily) block average and
replace with 8,328 lbs/hr combined
based on a 24-hour block average for
Boiler 1 & Boiler 2 (Source IDs 031 &
032).
• Seward—Remove 3,038.4 lbs/hr
and replace with 2,895 lbs/hr combined
based on a 30-day operating hours
average rolling by one day for Source
IDs 034 & 035. Remove 13,308 tpy and
replace with 12,680 tpy combined for
Source IDs 034 & 035. Add the
requirement to inject limestone into
Source ID 034 and Source ID 035 during
initial firing each time Source ID 034
and Source ID 035 are operated to
reduce the magnitude and frequency of
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
Received
The EPA received four sets of
comments in response to the NPRM.
Two sets of comments were in
opposition to the EPA’s proposed
action. The EPA also received one
comment in support of the EPA’s
proposed action and one that was not
relevant.
Comment 1. The comment asserts that
the EPA’s interpretation of what
contingency measures are permissible in
an SO2 attainment plan is not the ‘‘best
reading’’ of the Clean Air Act. The
comment cites section 172(c)(9),
Contingency Measures, emphasizing
that contingency measures take effect
‘‘without further action by the State or
Administrator.’’ The comment takes
issue with the approach to SO2
contingency measures set forth in the
EPA’s General Preamble, which states
that ‘‘contingency measures’’ mean
‘‘. . . the State agency has a
comprehensive program to identify
sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS
and to undertake an aggressive followup for compliance and enforcement.’’
See 57 FR 13498 at 13547 (April 16,
1992). The comment asserts that an
enforcement action is ‘‘further action,’’
which contradicts section 172(c)(9).
Additionally, the comment claims that
the EPA’s citation to the state’s
authority to enforce its SIP is already
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
and does not necessarily meet the
conditions of an enforcement program,
let alone the contingency measure
requirement, without a schedule and
mechanism requiring action when
violations occur. The comment suggests
alternative contingency measures
including switching to low-sulfur fuel,
limiting operation until the SIP is
revised, or a daily SO2 emission limit.
Lastly, the comment states that the SIP
lacks provisions to ensure ‘‘aggressive
follow-up’’ can and will take place in
the event the area fails to attain the
NAAQS and therefore fails to meet the
requirements of section 172(c)(9).
Response 1. The EPA disagrees with
this comment.
First, as a general matter, the EPA’s
longstanding approach to contingency
sufficiently specific and non-subjective
so that two independent entities
applying the procedures would obtain
the same result), and accountable
(source-specific limits must be
permanent and must reflect the
assumptions used in the SIP
demonstrations).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
74839
Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act
(APCA), 35 P.S. § 4004(27), which
authorizes the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
take any action it deems necessary or
proper for the effective enforcement of
the Act and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder. Such actions
include the issuance of orders (i.e.,
enforcement orders and orders to take
corrective action to address air pollution
or the danger of air pollution from a
source) and the assessment of civil
penalties. Any person in violation of the
APCA, the rules and regulations, any
order of PADEP, or a plan approval or
operating permit conditions could also
be subject to criminal fines upon
conviction under section 9, 35 P.S.
§ 4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S.
§ 4007.1, prohibits PADEP from issuing
plan approvals and operating permits
for any applicant, permittee, or a general
partner, parent or subsidiary
corporation of the applicant or the
permittee that is placed on PADEP’s
Compliance Docket until the violations
are corrected to the satisfaction of
PADEP. Consequently, the EPA
disagrees with the comment’s assertion
that in order to credit PADEP’s
comprehensive enforcement program as
satisfying the CAA section 172(c)(9) SO2
contingency measure requirement, the
program would have to include
elements such as mandatory additional
penalties or elimination of agency
discretion to prosecute violations.
Again, the enforcement process is
more streamlined and targeted
compared to rulemaking or legislation,
which as discussed above, is considered
disallowed ‘‘further action’’ for other
criteria pollutants, and moreover
enforcement is more akin to permissible
implementation steps such as
notification of sources and modification
of permits. Compare 57 FR 13498,
13547 (April 16, 1992) (discussing a
comprehensive program to identify
violations and undertaking aggressive
follow-up for compliance and
enforcement) with 57 FR 13498, 13512
and 13533 (April 16, 1992) (interpreting
‘‘without further action’’ to mean no
further rulemaking or legislation but to
allow implementation steps such as
modification of permits and notification
of sources) and 58 FR 67748, 67752
(December 22, 1993). Thus, enforcement
serves as an appropriate contingency
measure for SO2 nonattainment SIPs.
In addition to having a fully approved
comprehensive enforcement program,
PADEP has included what it refers to as
additional contingency measures that
are automatically triggered based on
varying parameters, as described
Continued
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
measures in SO2 attainment plans,
based on the Agency’s technical
expertise and understanding of control
strategies addressing SO2, has been
consistently applied by the EPA and
states since shortly after the enactment
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
including in the General Preamble,
updated guidance memoranda 4 and
numerous SO2 SIP approval actions.5
Second, in response to the comment’s
specific objection that contingency
measures are to take effect ‘‘without
further action,’’ the EPA has interpreted
‘‘without further action’’ in the ozone,
lead, and carbon monoxide contexts to
mean no further rulemaking or
legislative action, though the EPA
recognized that certain actions such as
notification of sources or modifications
of permits would be needed for effective
implementation. 57 FR 13498, 13512
and 13533 (April 16, 1992), 58 FR
67748, 67752 (December 22, 1993).
Undertaking enforcement against
sources for violations of emission
limitations that were necessary to
provide for SO2 NAAQS attainment is
consistent with the EPA’s longstanding
position across all of the NAAQS that
ministerial actions to effectuate
contingency measures, rather than
additional rulemaking or legislative
action to adopt new contingency
measures, is appropriate to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).
To commence an enforcement action
when an emission limitation violation is
identified, no further administrative or
legislative action is necessary, and the
state can expeditiously proceed to
remedy the violation—even without
needing to wait to determine whether
such violation has caused or contributed
to a violation of the NAAQS in the
nonattainment area.
Contrary to the comment’s suggestion
that Pennsylvania does not have a
comprehensive enforcement program as
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C),
Pennsylvania has such a program as
specified in section 4(27) of the
4 SO Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
2
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994 (1994 SO2
Guideline); Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Stephen D. Page,
April 23, 2014 (2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance).
5 87 FR 61514, 61522–61523 (October 12, 2022);
84 FR 51988, 51994–51995 (October 1, 2019); 84 FR
32672, 32677 (July 9, 2019) (final rule 84 FR 49659
(September 23, 2019); 83 FR 51629, 51632–51633
(October 12, 2018); 83 FR 40487, 40497 (August 15,
2018) (final rules 85 FR 49967 (August 17, 2020)
and 84 FR 10692 (March 22, 2019)); 82 FR 45242,
45251 (September 28, 2017) (final rule 83 FR 25922
(June 5, 2018)); 82 FR 40086, 40097–40098 (August
24, 2017) (final rule 85 FR 73218 (November 17,
2020)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
below.6 First, when any of the four
sources’ emissions in the NAA reach
99% of the SO2 emissions limit for the
facility, within 48 hours the facility is
required to undertake a full system
audit of the SO2 emitting sources and
submit a written report to PADEP
within 15 days, and corrective actions
shall be identified by PADEP as
necessary. Second, if the Strongstown
monitor in the NAA registers a daily
maximum 1-hour average concentration
exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify
the facilities in the NAA, and each
facility is required to identify whether
any of its SO2-emitting sources were
running at the time of the exceedance,
and within a reasonable time period
leading up to the exceedance, not to
exceed 24 hours. If any of the SO2emitting sources were running at the
time of the exceedance, the facility must
then analyze the meteorological data on
the day the hourly exceedance occurred
to ensure that the exceedance was not
due to SO2 emissions from the
respective facility. The facility’s
findings must be submitted to PADEP
within 30 days of being notified of the
exceedance.7 These emissionsthreshold-activated and exceedanceactivated measures further ensure that
‘‘aggressive follow-up’’ will occur
without further regulatory steps taken
by the state. They also further reduce
the likelihood of a violation of the
emission limits or NAAQS. These
measures are in line with the additional
contingency measures the EPA
mentions in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance and in the
General Preamble and are included in
the Pennsylvania SIP.8 The most recent
6 These measures enhance Pennsylvania’s fully
approved enforcement program that serves to meet
the contingency measure requirement, are not
necessary to meet applicable requirements of the
CAA under section 110(a)(2)(A), and are already
included in the SIP.
7 Note the daily maximum 1-hour average
concentration can be above 75 ppb multiple times
in one year and still not violate the NAAQS due to
the statistical nature of the design values. Therefore,
this measure could be triggered multiple times
before a design value of 75 ppb, and therefore a
NAAQS violation, ever occurs.
8 These exceedance-activated and emissionsthreshold-activated measures were retained in the
SIP, as explained in the partial disapproval, 87 FR
15166, 15177 (March 17, 2022) (final rule published
87 FR 50778 (August 18, 2022)), and the 2023 SIP
submittal’s attainment plan reiterates these
requirements and the plan will be included in the
SIP. For the sake of clarity and consistency,
Keystone’s COA will be removed from the SIP
because the state has requested the removal of the
9600 lb/hr 24-hr SO2 emission limit which was
approved into the SIP via a source-specific SIP
revision based on the COA; included in that COA
is the emissions-threshold activated measure which
in the COA is based on the previously disapproved
emissions limit. With the approval of the 2023
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74840
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
design values at the Strongstown
monitor in the NAA are 19 ppb in 2022,
22 ppb in 2021, and 25 ppb in 2020,
which are well below the 1-hour
primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb.
The proactive nature of PADEP’s
emissions-threshold-activated and
exceedance-activated measures, as well
as the direct quantifiable impact of the
SO2 control measures and the current
design values in the NAA, make it very
unlikely that a NAAQS violation could
occur in this area while the sources are
complying with their emission limits.
The comment listed several options
for contingency measures that the
comment suggests should be included
in the SIP. The EPA acknowledges that
one or more of these options may be
appropriate in a specific situation, and
for a specific source, if the area fails to
achieve RFP or fails to attain the
NAAQS by the statutory attainment
date. However, because Indiana, PA is a
multisource area with several emission
units per facility, requiring one or more
of these measures may not be
appropriate depending on the cause of
the potential violations of the SO2
standard, which would need to be
evaluated at the time of occurrence. For
example, triggering a fuel-switch at one
facility may not bring the area into
attainment if the issue is caused by
another facility violating its limit.
Similarly, limiting operation of one
facility may be appropriate if the subject
facility is the cause of the problem, but
requiring further measures at other
facilities may not be warranted where
the cause of the NAAQS violation was
non-compliance with emission limits by
a different facility and where the
NAAQS violation can be most
efficiently remedied by bringing that
source into compliance with its
established emission limits. Likewise,
limiting operations at all SO2-emitting
facilities in the area may not
appropriately address the issue due to
the localized nature of SO2 emissions
and possible direct link between
ambient concentrations and emissions
from a specific facility. Similarly,
changing the limits at all facilities, for
example from a longer-term limit to a
shorter-term limit, may appropriately
address the problem, but it also may
not, and the state would evaluate
appropriate measures if and when an
issue arises. These are illustrative
examples, and while not exhaustive,
they highlight the need for the state to
be able to respond appropriately in a
particular scenario due to the localized
nature of SO2 impacts.
In summary, the EPA’s longstanding
approach to implementing the section
172(c)(9) contingency measures
requirement in SO2 attainment plans via
comprehensive enforcement programs is
appropriate. This approach is based
upon the EPA’s technical expertise and
in-depth understanding of SO2 control
strategies and is consistent with the
approaches undertaken for other criteria
pollutants that have distinguished
acceptable ministerial steps from
regulatory or legislative action in
satisfying the Act’s requirement that
contingency measures take effect
‘‘without further action.’’ Accordingly,
in this case, Pennsylvania’s fully
approved comprehensive enforcement
program, and as bolstered by the state’s
aforementioned requirements that are
triggered automatically when emissions
thresholds are reached or NAAQS
exceedances are recorded, is approved
as meeting the CAA section 172(c)(9)
contingency measure requirement.
Comment 2. A comment takes issue
with the EPA’s approach to attainment
determinations when an area initially
fails to attain by the attainment date.
The comment cites the requirement for
the EPA to determine within six months
of the attainment date whether the
standard has been attained for a given
area. Section 179(c)(1) of the Clean Air
Act further states that if the
Administrator has found that the area
did not attain, the EPA ‘‘may revise or
supplement such determination at any
time based on more complete
information or analysis concerning the
area’s air quality as of the attainment
date.’’ The comment notes that the
EPA’s 1996 SO2 Memorandum 9 and
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance do
not require a new SIP submittal and
further modeling is not required if the
source characteristics are ‘‘still
reasonably represented.’’ The comment
claims that the EPA ought to require
states to submit a demonstration that
modeling assumptions have not
changed. The comment states that
because neither the EPA nor the state
are reevaluating modeling assumptions,
there is an added responsibility on the
public to comment on the record on
proposed attainment determinations.
Lastly, the comment notes that this
issue is magnified by the improper use
of 30-day rolling averages as emission
limits, further complicating compliance.
attainment plan into the SIP, the emissionsthreshold activated measure and the exceedanceactivated measure for Keystone are still included in
the SIP.
9 Memorandum from Sally L. Shaver,
‘‘Attainment Determination Policy for Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Areas’’, January 26, 1996
(1996 SO2 Memorandum).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Response 2. This comment is outside
the scope of this action and does not
require a response. The EPA notes that
in this action, it is not implementing
CAA section 179(c) or making a
determination of attainment by the
attainment date. To the extent the
comment relates to objections to the
emission limits adopted in the
attainment plan, as explained
elsewhere, the EPA concludes that the
plan will provide for attainment,
accounting for worst-case allowable
emissions and meteorology.
Comment 3. The comment asserts that
the EPA’s approach to reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) in the context of SO2 attainment
plans is not the ‘‘best reading’’ of the
Clean Air Act. The comment cites the
EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, stating that the requirement
to implement all RACM is fulfilled if a
plan provides for attainment of the SO2
standards. The comment then cites
requirements for attainment plans, 42
U.S.C. 7502(c)(1) (emphasis added):
Such plan provisions shall provide for the
implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as
practicable (including such reductions in
emissions from existing sources in the area
as may be obtained through the adoption, at
a minimum, of reasonably available control
technology) and shall provide for attainment
of the national primary ambient air quality
standards.
In interpreting the provision, the
comment highlights the word ‘‘and’’ in
these nonattainment plan provisions,
stating that the requirement for all
RACM and RACT must be fulfilled and
the requirement for attainment must
also be met. The comment also states
that the EPA must give effect to every
word and phrase in a statutory
provision and that the EPA has failed to
give effect to the requirement that all
RACM/RACT be implemented. Next, the
comment claims that the EPA fails to
consider the plain meaning of statutory
terms in reference to ‘‘available’’ control
options. The comment claims that the
EPA’s proposal fails to determine
whether additional controls are needed
and is lacking an analysis of control
efficiencies for existing and potential
controls, as well as costs for upgrades.
Response 3. In identifying the ‘‘best
reading’’ of a statutory requirement, the
EPA has considered the overall and
specific purpose of the requirement, the
technical context in which it is
imposed, and the most reasonable
manner in which its obligations may be
fulfilled. The Clean Air Act
nonattainment planning requirements in
section 172(c) applicable to states are set
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
in place to provide for attainment and
subsequent maintenance of the NAAQS
in a designated nonattainment area—
i.e., an area which the EPA has
previously determined is not meeting
the NAAQS. All section 172(c)
requirements are targeted to remedy that
NAAQS-violating occurrence. As the
comment referenced, RACM/RACT is
required under Clean Air Act section
172(c)(1) for nonattainment areas.
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires
the implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of RACT) and shall provide
for attainment of the NAAQS.
The comment suggests that the
RACM/RACT requirement of section
172(c)(1) requires a state to assess and
adopt measures that go further than
what is necessary to attain the SO2
NAAQS in the nonattainment area, but
such an approach undercuts the
purpose of this provision as applied in
the SO2 nonattainment plan context. At
its core, this RACM/RACT requirement
serves to remedy the status quo
situation of an area not meeting the
NAAQS, in order to prospectively
achieve NAAQS attainment. This is
clear from the requirement’s placement
within one of the two paragraphs in
section 172(c)—along with section
172(c)(6)’s requirement that the plan
include emissions limitations as
necessary to provide for NAAQS
attainment—that specify enumerated
remedial measures that are not
otherwise required absent an area’s
being designated nonattainment.
Moreover, when applied in the SO2
nonattainment plan context, these
provisions of section 172(c) must be
read in concert with the other
applicable statutory provision that
Congress enacted in 1990 specifically
governing SO2 plans, section 192(a), that
similarly stressed the need for remedial
implementation plans to provide for
NAAQS attainment. As explained
elsewhere and further below, for SO2
the EPA has long taken the technical
view that this source-oriented pollutant,
compared to more regional pollutants
like ozone and particulate matter, can be
addressed via identification of necessary
emission limits, and the control
measures needed to meet them, that will
provide for attaining air quality. When
that analysis has been undertaken and
appropriate attainment-providing
emission limits have been devised, the
central purpose of the section 172(c)
attainment planning requirements will
have been fulfilled, and it is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
necessary to require additional controls.
Consequently, the EPA does not
consider that it would be the ‘‘best
reading’’ of the RACM/RACT
requirement to interpret ‘‘reasonably’’ in
section 172(c)(1), when applied in the
SO2 SIP context, as requiring imposition
of additional controls when those that
are necessary to provide for NAAQS
attainment have already been identified
and required.
For decades, the EPA has consistently
defined RACT for SO2 as that control
technology that will achieve the
NAAQS within statutory timeframes.
See, e.g., General Preamble, 57 FR
13498, 13547 (April 16, 1992), which
was published soon after the enactment
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments;
see also, 1994 SO2 Guideline at 6–39.
RACT for certain other criteria
pollutants is control technology that is
reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility
(see December 9, 1976 memorandum
from Roger Strelow, ‘‘Guidance for
Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas’’).
The EPA’s definition of RACT for SO2,
as that control technology which is
necessary to achieve the NAAQS (40
CFR 51.100 (o)),10 is based on the
specific characteristics of SO2. Since
SO2 RACT is already defined as the
technology necessary to achieve the SO2
NAAQS, control technology that failed
to achieve the NAAQS would fail to be
SO2 RACT, and control technology
beyond what is necessary to attain the
SO2 NAAQS would be beyond the
central purpose of the nonattainment
planning requirements of section 172(c).
When determining RACT for SO2, it is
appropriate to take into account the
necessity of the control in meeting the
standard. As noted, the EPA’s definition
of RACT in the SO2 nonattainment
context accounts for the characteristics
of the specific pollutant. For a pollutant
such as SO2, the relationship between
an individual source’s emissions and
the overall air quality can be explicitly
quantified, and the emission reductions
necessary to attain the NAAQS are
based on a limited number of sources in
a NAA.11 Therefore, a state can
10 RACT means devices, systems, process
modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that
are reasonably available taking into account: (1) The
necessity of imposing such controls in order to
attain and maintain a national ambient air quality
standard; (2) The social, environmental, and
economic impact of such controls; and (3)
Alternative means of providing for attainment and
maintenance of such standard. (This provision
defines RACT for the purposes of 40 CFR 51.341(b)
only.)
11 For reference, in the Indiana, PA NAA, 99.6%
of the area’s SO2 emissions inventory comes from
the four facilities controlled in the attainment plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74841
explicitly calculate the emission
reductions necessary to provide for
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS, and it is
appropriate not to require states to
impose control measures requiring
further reductions beyond what is
necessary to achieve attainment.
For the Indiana, PA NAA, PADEP
provided the necessary modeling, which
demonstrated the specific hourly
emission limits (and comparably
stringent longer-term limits) that are
required to provide for attainment of the
standard. The EPA reviewed this
modeling and determined it comports
with the EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality
Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W)
and the EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. Therefore, the EPA
concluded that the emission limits
established as RACM were shown to
provide for attainment and thus met the
longstanding definition of RACT for
SO2. PADEP implemented these
emission limits as expeditiously as
practicable (with Keystone’s and
Conemaugh’s limits effective
immediately after August 15, 2023, and
Seward’s limits effective immediately
after August 17, 2023 via Consent
Orders and Agreements).
While the comment disagrees with the
EPA’s approach to RACM/RACT for SO2
and characterizes its version as a better
reading of the Act, the comment does
not explain why its reading of the Act
is a better reading specific to the SO2
NAAQS. The comment does not address
the specific characteristics of the
pollutant, characteristics that the EPA
has considered while it has consistently
defined RACT for SO2.12
As discussed above, this has been the
EPA’s longstanding definition and
approach for SO2 RACT since the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. The EPA
has consistently applied this definition
of SO2 RACT and promulgated
numerous implementation plan
approvals using this approach.13
Consequently, the EPA disagrees with
the comment’s assertion that its
approach does not reflect the ‘‘best
12 The comment refers to the visibility program’s
method of determining retrofit controls. However,
the visibility program operates under a different
statutory and regulatory framework, and SO2 is one
of many visibility impairing pollutants.
13 87 FR 61514, 61520–61521 (October 12, 2022);
84 FR 32672, 32676–32677 (July 9, 2019) (final rule
84 FR 49659 (September 23, 2019); 83 FR 50314,
50321–50324 (October 5, 2018) (final rule 84 FR
51988 (October 1, 2019)); 83 FR 12516, 12519–
12520 (March 22, 2018) (final rule 83 FR 51629
(October 12, 2018); 83 FR 40487, 40497 (August 15,
2018) (final rules 85 FR 49967 (August 17, 2020)
and 84 FR 10692 (March 22, 2019)); 82 FR 45242,
45250–45251 (September 28, 2017) (final rule 83 FR
25922 (June 5, 2018)); 82 FR 40086, 40096–40097
(August 24, 2017) (final rule 85 FR 73218
(November 17, 2020)).
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74842
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
reading’’ of Clean Air Act section
172(c)(1) for SO2 implementation plans.
Comment 4. Two comments claim
that longer-term emission limits do not
support attainment of the 1-hour SO2
standard. One comment states that the
EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance 14 allows the use of 30-day
emission limits as long as hourly
emissions above the critical emission
value 15 (CEV) are rare and if the
magnitude of emissions do not
significantly exceed the CEV. The
comment further states that the EPA
justified 30-day emission limits to allow
for operational flexibility at sources.
Next, the comment claims that the
EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance highlights the value of
supplemental limits, e.g., caps on the
frequency or magnitude of elevated
emissions, but fails to explain and
justify approving longer-term emission
limits in the absence of supplemental
limits. Further, the comment states that
the EPA’s recognition of the value of
supplemental limits in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance demonstrates
that 30-day rolling averages, when used
without supplemental limits,
insufficiently protect the NAAQS.
The second comment states that the
SO2 limit was set as a 1-hour standard
to protect human health from harmful,
short-term exposures of SO2 and that
Seward’s and Keystone’s emission
limits are not protective under that
standard. The comment claims that the
Seward and Keystone generating
stations ‘‘regularly and frequently’’
exceed their hourly CEV. Citing data
from January 1, 2018 through March 31,
2024, the comment asserts that Keystone
exceeded the 9,718 lbs/hr CEV on 532
occasions and that Seward exceeded the
3,830 lbs/hr CEV on 349 occasions,
which occurred on 28 separate days in
2018, 7 days in 2019, 13 days in 2020,
31 days in 2021, 58 days in 2022, 40
days in 2023, and 16 days in 2024. The
comment claims that the PADEP
justification for disregarding these
exceedances, i.e., because they
‘‘occurred over a large number of
possible operating hours per year,’’ is
dismissive of the fact that the SO2
standard is a short-term standard and
that just four hours on four days with
SO2 concentrations over 75 ppb will
lead to nonattainment of the NAAQS.
Response 4. The EPA disagrees with
the assertion that longer-term limits
14 www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/
documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_
sip.pdf.
15 The maximum modeled emission rate
expressed as a 1-hour average that results in
attainment is labeled the ‘‘critical emissions value’’
or CEV.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
cannot be protective of a 1-hour SO2
standard. As explained in the NPRM for
this action, and in the EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, the EPA
believes that appropriately set longerterm limits can be protective of the 1hour SO2 NAAQS.
The EPA acknowledges the concern
that longer-term emission limits can
allow short periods with emissions
above the CEV, which, if coincident
with meteorological conditions
conducive to high SO2 concentrations,
could in turn create the possibility of an
hourly NAAQS exceedance occurring
on a day when an exceedance would not
have occurred if emissions were
continuously controlled at the level
corresponding to the CEV. However, for
several reasons, the EPA believes that
the approach recommended in its
guidance document suitably addresses
this concern.
First, from a practical perspective, the
EPA expects the actual emission profile
of a source subject to an appropriately
set longer-term average limit to be
similar to the emission profile of a
source subject to an analogous 1-hour
average limit. The EPA expects this
similarity because it has recommended
that the longer-term average limit be set
at a level that is comparably stringent to
the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit
(reflecting a downward adjustment from
the CEV) and that takes the source’s
emissions profile (and inherent level of
emissions variability) into account. This
downward adjustment of the limit is to
compensate for the loss of stringency
inherent in applying a longer-term
average limit, by requiring most values
to be lower than they are required to be
with a 1-hour limit at the CEV. As a
result, the EPA expects either form of
emission limit to yield comparable air
quality.
Second, from a more theoretical
perspective, the EPA has compared the
likely air quality with a source having
maximum allowable emissions under an
appropriately set longer-term limit, to
the likely air quality with the source
having maximum allowable emissions
under the comparable 1-hour limit. In
this comparison, in the 1-hour average
limit scenario, the source is presumed at
all times to emit at the CEV, and in the
longer-term average limit scenario, the
source is presumed occasionally to emit
more than the CEV, but on average, and
presumably at most times, to emit well
below the CEV. In an ‘‘average year,’’ 16
16 An ‘‘average year’’ is used to mean a year with
average air quality. While 40 CFR part 50, appendix
T, provides for averaging three years of annual 99th
percentile daily maximum hourly values (e.g., the
fourth highest maximum daily hourly concentration
in a year with 365 days with valid data), this
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
compliance with the 1-hour limit is
expected to result in three exceedance
days (i.e., three days with maximum
hourly values above 75 ppb) and a
fourth day with a maximum hourly
value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with
the source complying with a longer-term
limit, it is possible that additional
hourly exceedances would occur that
would not occur in the 1-hour limit
scenario (if emissions exceed the CEV at
times when meteorology is conducive to
poor air quality). However, this
comparison must also factor in the
likelihood that exceedances that would
be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario
would not occur in the longer-term limit
scenario. This result arises because the
longer-term limit requires lower
emissions most of the time (because the
limit is set below the CEV), so a source
complying with an appropriately set
longer-term limit is likely to have lower
emissions at critical times than would
be the case if the source were emitting
as allowed with a 1-hour limit.
To illustrate this point, the EPA
conducted a statistical analysis using a
range of scenarios using actual plant
data. The analysis is described in
appendix B of the EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. Based on the
analysis described in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, the EPA
expects that an emission profile with
maximum allowable emissions under an
appropriately set, comparably stringent
30-day average limit is likely to have the
net effect of having a lower number of
hourly exceedances and better air
quality than an emission profile with
maximum allowable emissions under a
1-hour emission limit at the CEV. This
result provides a compelling policy
rationale for allowing the use of a longer
averaging period in appropriate
circumstances where the facts indicate
this result can be expected to occur.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance offers specific
recommendations for determining an
appropriate longer-term average limit.
PADEP correctly followed the
recommendations in devising the
longer-term limits for Seward and
Keystone. The 24-hour average limit of
8,328 lbs/hr went into effect for
Keystone on August 15, 2023, and the
30-day average limit of 2,895 lbs/hr
went into effect for Seward on August
17, 2023. The EPA reviewed the
comment’s hourly data files for Seward
and Keystone from January 1, 2018
through March 31, 2024, in which the
CEV at Keystone was exceeded on 532
discussion and an example below uses a single
‘‘average year’’ to simplify the illustration of
relevant principles.
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
separate occasions, and the CEV at
Seward was exceeded on 349 separate
occasions. During the majority of this
time period, the sources were not
subject to the new limits developed for
this attainment plan. Additionally, the
stated number of occasions over the
CEV for Seward and Keystone during
the six and one quarter years of data
equate to less than one percent of the
hours for each source, which EPA
considers to be a minimal amount of
occasions over the CEV. The EPA
disagrees with the comment on the air
quality consequences of these occasions
of elevated emissions. While there were
times after the new 30-day limit went
into effect where hourly emissions were
above the CEV, there is no evidence that
these emissions caused an exceedance
of the NAAQS. The EPA believes that a
full analysis of the air quality impact of
Pennsylvania’s limits must consider
these hours of elevated emissions in
conjunction with the far greater number
of hours when emissions are required to
be well below the level that would
model violations (i.e., the CEV). The
comment provided no modeling
analysis that incorporated both the
hours of emissions above the CEV and
the hours below. For reasons described
in more detail in the EPA’s guidance,
the NPRM and the EPA’s Technical
Support Document: Critical Emission
Value Modeling Analysis for the
Indiana, PA 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area (EPA Modeling TSD) for this
action, the EPA believes that the net
effect of these compensating factors is
that PADEP’s limits provide adequate
assurance that the area will attain the
SO2 standard.
The EPA disagrees with the
comment’s assertion that supplemental
limits must be required to limit the
magnitude of emissions spikes when a
longer-term limit is established. As
explained in detail above, a comparably
stringent longer-term limit can provide
for protection of the NAAQS, even
without supplemental limits. In any
event, PADEP exercised additional
options for restricting the frequency and
magnitude of occurrences of elevated
emissions per the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance,17 such as
17 According to the 2014 SO Nonattainment
2
Guidance, p. 34, states have several additional
options for restricting the frequency and magnitude
of occurrences of elevated emissions. First, states
may apply shorter averaging times, such as 24
hours, which provide less allowance of emission
spikes than would longer averaging times, such as
30 days. Second, for sources that are or will be
operating emission control equipment, states may
establish requirements for the operation of this
control equipment. For such sources, a substantial
component of the variability in emissions often
arises from variations in the operation of the control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
setting averaging times shorter than
thirty days or analyzing emissions
data 18 to determine when to target
emission episodes using supplemental
limits. For Keystone, PADEP applied a
shorter averaging time of 24 hours. For
Seward, which has a 30-day limit,
PADEP included a supplemental limit
in the form of a work practice
requirement of injecting limestone into
the combustor during initial firing
which was deemed appropriate due to
specific emissions data patterns
experienced during those periods.
Comment 5. The comment states that
the CEVs set for each stationary SO2
source impacting nonattainment in
Indiana County are not protective of the
NAAQS. The comment cites an
assessment of the EPA’s modeling
analysis which asserts that the CEVs
yield peak concentrations
approximately 50 micrograms per cubic
meter above the NAAQS. Steven Klafka,
Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone and
Seward Generating Stations Indiana
County, Pennsylvania Evaluation of
Compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS for
SO2, (Wingra Engineering July 8, 2024).
Response 5: The EPA has reviewed
the July 8, 2024 modeling analysis
prepared for the Sierra Club by Wingra
Engineering (July 2024 Wingra Analysis)
and found several deficiencies with it.
These include the choice of
meteorological data and the combining
of emission sources across an
amalgamated modeling domain. The
July 2024 Wingra Analysis otherwise
utilizes the same modeling system
components (receptor grid locations/
elevations/hill-height scales, building
downwash parameters, surface
characteristics, etc.) as those used in the
modeling analysis performed by
Pennsylvania and reviewed by the EPA.
For consistency purposes, the
comment’s July 2024 Wingra Analysis
utilized the same versions of the
AERMOD platform used by
Pennsylvania.
As described in section 6 of PADEP’s
Air Dispersion Modeling Technical
Support Document (Docket file EPA–
R03–OAR–2024–0024–0003_
attachment_9) the air dispersion
modeling for the Indiana, PA NAA
utilized representative meteorological
equipment, perhaps including operating the source
when the control equipment is not operating. States
have multiple options for requiring less variability
in control equipment operation. One option would
be a direct work practice requirement for operation
of the control equipment, perhaps specifying some
minimum level of control efficiency and associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
18 If this type of information on historic emission
patterns is not available, it may be difficult to
determine supplemental limits.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74843
datasets from two sites. Data from the
Johnstown-Cambria County Airport
(KJST) meteorological site represented
atmospheric conditions in the vicinity
of Keystone and Homer City power
plants. The KJST meteorological site is
approximately 58 kilometers southeast
of Keystone and approximately 38
kilometers southeast of Homer City.
Data from the Ash Site #1
meteorological site represented
atmospheric conditions in the vicinity
of Conemaugh and Seward. The
Conemaugh-Seward (Ash Site #1)
meteorological site is located between
the two power plants, approximately 1.9
kilometers northeast of the Conemaugh
power plant and approximately 1.7
kilometers south-southwest of the
Seward power plant.
Based on the EPA’s Guideline on Air
Quality Models (40 CFR part 51,
appendix W), meteorological data used
as input to a dispersion model should
be selected on the basis of spatial and
climatological (temporal)
representativeness as well as the ability
of the individual parameters selected to
characterize the transport and
dispersion conditions in the area of
concern. Representativeness of the
meteorological data is dependent on
numerous factors. These factors include
but are not limited to: (1) the proximity
of the meteorological monitoring site to
the area under consideration; (2) the
complexity of the terrain; (3) the
exposure of the meteorological
monitoring site; and (4) the period of
time during which data are collected.
Both meteorological data sets used in
Pennsylvania’s modeling analysis meet
applicable completeness requirements.
While the July 2024 Wingra Analysis
claims that the Ash Site #1 is
representative of impacts from
emissions released by all four plants,
the EPA disagrees because of the
difference in local topography around
the modeled sources. The decision to
utilize the KJST meteorological site for
the Homer City and Keystone power
plants and the Ash Site #1 for the
Conemaugh and Seward power plants
was largely based on the modeled
sources’ topographical settings (terrain
features). Each of the meteorological
sites were best suited to capture the
proper boundary layer characteristics
for their respective sources.
The Indiana, PA NAA sits along the
Allegheny Plateau physiographic
province of the Appalachian Mountains
system west of the eastern continental
divide. Maps depicting topographical
elevations in the vicinity of the Indiana,
PA NAA showing the locations of the
Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone and
Seward power plants and the KJST and
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74844
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Ash Site #1 meteorological sites can be
found in the EPA’s technical support
document that is part of the public
record in the docket for this action
(Figures 1 and 2 of the EPA Modeling
TSD). Relatively flat terrain resides in
the western portion of the
nonattainment area where the Homer
City and Keystone power plants are
located. Both power plants sit at
significantly lower elevations than the
KJST site. Furthermore, the KJST site is
located on some of the highest terrain in
western Pennsylvania and no
topographic features between the KJST
site and Homer City and Keystone
would unduly influence the wind fields
at the KJST site. In contrast, the
Conemaugh and Seward power plants
are located along the Conemaugh River
in the southeastern part of the Indiana,
PA NAA between the Chestnut (west)
and Laurel (east) ridges that define the
northern terminus of the Ligonier
Valley. The latter two power plants
reside within a valley marked by higher
terrain to the east and west. This valley
impacts local meteorological parameters
such as wind fields and atmospheric
stability. Air flow can become
channeled within valley features, and
topography can influence vertical
atmospheric stability, especially at
night, setting up potentially strong
vertical temperature inversions.
The July 2024 Wingra Analysis
amalgamates all of the model receptors
Pennsylvania utilized in its three
modeling domains covering the entire
Indiana, PA NAA. The rationale for
dividing the Indiana, PA NAA into three
separate modeling domains (with
different sources and meteorological
data) was explained in the Air
Dispersion Modeling Technical Support
Document from PADEP (pages 6–8 to 6–
9, 6–15 to 6–17, and 8–1 to 8–3) and in
the EPA Modeling TSD (pages 63 and
70) that are part of the public docket for
this action.
No rationale was provided in the July
2024 Wingra Analysis submitted during
the public comment period to support
combining the three modeling domains
utilized in PADEP’s SIP modeling
demonstration. Additionally, no
rationale was provided to refute the
division of the Indiana, PA NAA into
three distinct modeling domains. The
EPA believes, therefore, that Wingra
Engineering’s modeling analysis erred
on its modeling domain setup by
combining all sources into one
amalgamated receptor domain.
Noting the deficiencies in the July
2024 Wingra Analysis, the EPA
concludes that the modeling analysis
presented by PADEP demonstrates the
validity of the CEVs established for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone and
Seward power plants.
Comment 6. The comment states that
the adjustment factor of 0.756, used to
convert the Seward generating station’s
CEV to a 30-day rolling average, is too
high. The comment claims that
Pennsylvania’s proposed adjustment
factor results in 20% higher emission
limits when compared to emission
limits calculated with the EPA’s
adjustment factor of 0.63. The comment
states that if the January 2019 through
March 2023 dataset is used instead of
the 2018–2021 dataset used by PADEP,
the Seward adjustment factor would be
reduced to 0.712. Next, the comment
provided seven different adjustment
factors calculated based on differing
historic data periods. Additionally, the
comment asserts that Seward’s SO2
emissions have increased since 2013,
and the proposed 30-day limit increases
the likelihood of continued
nonattainment if emission reductions
are not established.
Response 6. The spreadsheet
submitted as Attachment C to the
comment, included incorrect
calculations for the 30-day average
values. As specified in the state
submittal, the 30-day rolling average for
Seward should be calculated for each
operating day, by calculating the
average of all the hourly emission data,
using only hours during which fuel is
combusted from the preceding 30
operating days. In the spreadsheet
calculations, the comment always
averaged the previous 30-days using 720
hours (total number of hours in 30 days)
as opposed to the number of hours
when fuel was actually burned. In the
SIP submittal, PADEP correctly
calculated the 30-day average emission
values in developing the adjustment
factors for Seward. PADEP also justified
the period of time used for the
calculations by explaining that, in line
with the EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, PADEP used data from years
of stable operation. As PADEP
described, when the SIP analysis began
in 2022, it initially considered emission
data for years 2017 through 2021.
However, in 2017, there was an
operational change at Seward 19 that
could have affected the emission
variability. Because of operational
changes at Seward in 2017 and in an
effort to have one consistent emission
dataset for all three facilities with
longer-term SO2 emission limits, PADEP
calculated the adjustment factors using
19 After a change of ownership in December 2016,
Seward implemented a startup operational change,
which is the addition of limestone to the combustor
during initial firing to reduce SO2 emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
emission data for years 2018 through
2021. The EPA believes this is
consistent with the recommendation on
emission data use in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, pages 29–30.
Also, the comment appears to
misunderstand the adjustment factor of
0.63 included in table 1 of appendix B
of the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. The EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance did not
calculate nor provide source-specific
adjustment factors for Seward, but
rather, calculated the average
adjustment factor for 90 sources
equipped with a dry scrubber. The EPA
believes that if continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMs) data is
available for a source, it is most
appropriate to use that data for
developing adjustment factors, as long
as it continues to represent the
distribution of emissions that is
expected once the attainment plan is
implemented. This was the case with
Seward. The EPA concludes that the
adjustment factor of 0.756 calculated for
Seward is more appropriate because it is
source-specific, based on CEMS data
and provides for a comparably stringent
30-day average emission limit.
Regarding the comment about the
annual SO2 emissions increases since
2013, the EPA reviewed the data and
notes that SO2 emissions increased from
2013–2018. However, after that period
the emissions remained in a similar
range. Additionally, annual emissions
are not a direct indicator of compliance
with the NAAQS nor with the 30-day
emission limit which the EPA is
approving as providing for attainment in
this plan.
Comment 7. The comment claims that
the EPA ignores the ongoing negative
impacts of Indiana County’s major SO2
sources on neighboring Westmoreland
and Cambria counties. The comment
states that Pennsylvania has failed to
meaningfully address SO2 sources in
Indiana County and that the EPA should
encourage Pennsylvania to implement
more protective SO2 limits to wholly
address nonattainment caused by these
sources and to be protective of
vulnerable populations in Indiana
County and neighboring areas.
Response 7. The comment’s concern
regarding negative impacts outside of
the Indiana, PA NAA boundaries from
the Indiana County SO2 sources is
beyond the scope of this action.
Section 171(2) of the CAA defines
nonattainment area to mean for any air
pollutant, an area which is designated
‘‘nonattainment’’ with respect to that
pollutant within the meaning of section
107(d) of this title. In an earlier, separate
action, the boundaries of the Indiana,
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
PA NAA were set and finalized in
August 2013 in ‘‘Round One’’ of EPA’s
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
under section 107(d) of the CAA, and
these boundaries were not challenged.20
Westmoreland and Cambria counties are
not included within those boundaries.
Pennsylvania’s obligation under
section 110(a) of the CAA is to submit
‘‘ . . . a plan which provides for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such primary standard
in each air quality control region (or
portion thereof) within such State.’’
CAA section 110(a)(1). Section 110
further provides that ‘‘[i]n the case of a
plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area, [the
plan shall] meet the applicable
requirements of part D of this
subchapter (relating to nonattainment
areas).’’ CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).
Section 172(c)(6) then requires the SIP
for a nonattainment area to include
enforceable emission limitations and
control measures as necessary or
appropriate to provide for NAAQS
attainment ‘‘in such area.’’ In this case,
Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the
Indiana, PA NAA includes limits on
SO2 sources and a modeling
demonstration showing that SO2
concentrations throughout the
nonattainment area are at or below the
NAAQS.
Further, the EPA’s role is limited to
determining whether the submitted SIP
meets the requirements of the CAA, see
section 110(k)—in this action,
Pennsylvania’s 2023 SIP submittal does
not address areas outside the defined
nonattainment area. Absent a clear
requirement that Pennsylvania must
include model receptors outside of the
nonattainment area in its submission,
the EPA will confine its analysis to
whether the attainment SIP
demonstrates attainment within the
designated nonattainment area.
On February 12, 2024, EPA published
notice in a separate action of its intent
to redesignate portions of Cambria and
Westmoreland Counties 21 to
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(89 FR 9815). The CAA provides the
EPA with the authority to revise
designations of, or ‘‘redesignate,’’ areas
under CAA section 107(d)(3). Such
redesignations can originate as requests
by states (per CAA section 107(d)(3)(D)),
and the EPA can also notify a state at
20 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013); www.epa.gov/
sulfur-dioxide-designations/so2-designations-statedesignations-round-1.
21 EPA designated Cambria County unclassifiable
and Westmoreland County attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
effective April 9, 2018. 83 FR 1098 (January 9,
2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
any time that a designation of any area
or portion of an area should be revised,
on the basis of air quality data, planning
and control considerations, or any other
air quality-related considerations the
EPA Administrator deems appropriate.
If finalized, the nonattainment
designation for these counties will
require the state to submit
nonattainment area requirements per
CAA section 172.
Comment 8. The comment states that
the SIP should incorporate the closure
of the Homer City generating station, as
well as the projected 2028 retirements of
the Keystone and Conemaugh
generating stations. Further, the
comment asserts that the SIP should not
be approvable until the SO2 emission
limits for these plants are removed.
Response 8. The EPA disagrees with
the comment. CAA section 172(c)(6)
requires the SIP for a nonattainment
area to include enforceable emission
limitations and control measures as
necessary or appropriate to provide for
NAAQS attainment in the area. With
this action, the EPA is approving the
emission limits for the four sources in
the Indiana, PA NAA as meeting this
requirement. As such, it is not necessary
to include the Homer City retirement
nor the projected retirements of
Keystone and Conemaugh in the SIP as
enforceable measures. And as explained
in the NPRM, as the EPA is not aware
of PADEP rescinding Homer City’s
operating permit, Homer City ceasing
operations does not guarantee that the
units are permanently and enforceably
shutdown. 89 FR 48523, 48528 (June 7,
2024). Nor did PADEP’s 2023 SIP
submittal request to incorporate the
pending closure of Homer City into the
SIP. Similarly for Keystone and
Conemaugh, the EPA is not aware of
PADEP rescinding the permits for these
two sources nor did PADEP’s 2023 SIP
submittal request their projected
retirements be included in the SIP. The
approval of this attainment plan is thus
properly based on Homer City’s possible
continued operation, as well as
Keystone’s and Conemaugh’s continued
operations.
IV. Final Action
The EPA is approving the attainment
plan for the Indiana, PA NAA for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which
Pennsylvania submitted on October 12,
2023, as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. Specifically, the EPA is approving
the attainment demonstration, RACM/
RACT requirements, RFP requirements,
and contingency measures of the
attainment plan. The EPA previously
approved the emissions inventory and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74845
NNSR program elements of the
attainment plan.
This approval terminates the highway
funding sanction and FIP clocks started
under CAA sections 179 and 110,
respectively, resulting from EPA’s
partial disapproval of the prior SIP
submittal. It also removes the permitting
offset sanction that has been in place
since March 19, 2024.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of SO2 emission limits and
compliance parameters established in
(the unredacted portions of) the COAs
for the Seward, Conemaugh and
Keystone facilities, as discussed in
section II of this preamble and described
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by the EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by the EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of the EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.22
VI. 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, the
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);
22 62
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
13SER1
74846
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
• 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); and
• 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.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
PADEP did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in
this action. Due to the nature of the
action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required
as part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, this final rule approving
Pennsylvania’s Indiana, PA NAA SO2
attainment plan 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 the 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. The 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 November 12, 2024. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
approving the Indiana, PA attainment
plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
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,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Adam Ortiz,
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.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020:
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d)(3)
by:
■ i. Adding entries for ‘‘Keystone
Generating Station’’, ‘‘Conemaugh
Generating Station’’, and ‘‘Seward
Generating Station’’ at the end of the
table; and
■ ii. Removing the first entry for
‘‘Seward Station’’; and the entry for
‘‘Keystone Plant’’.
■ b. Adding in paragraph (e)(1) table the
entry ‘‘Attainment Plan for the Indiana
County, Pennsylvania Nonattainment
Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Name of source
Permit No.
EPA
approval date
Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation
*
*
9/13/2024, [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
*
*
For Source IDs 031 and 032: Combined
SO2 emission limit; CEMS monitoring;
definition of ‘‘24-hour block’’; Quarterly
emission reporting requirement; and reporting of hourly SO2 lbs/hr emission
averages.
For Source IDs 031 and 032: Combined
SO2 emission limit; CEMS monitoring;
definition of ‘‘3-hour block’’; Quarterly
emission reporting requirement; and reporting of hourly SO2 lbs/hr emission
averages.
For Source IDs 034 and 035: Combined
SO2 emission limit; CEMS monitoring;
definition of ‘‘operating day’’; reporting of
hourly SO2 lbs/hr emission rate; injection
of limestone during initial firing; and quarterly submission of ‘‘Hourly Injection Reports.’’
*
Keystone Generating Station.
*
*
Consent Order
Armstrong ...
and Agreement.
Conemaugh Generating Station.
Consent Order
Indiana ........
and Agreement.
08/15/23
9/13/2024, [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
Seward Generating Station.
Consent Order
Indiana ........
and Agreement.
08/17/23
9/13/2024, [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
*
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
08/15/23
(1) * * *
State
submittal
date
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
Applicable geographic area
*
*
Attainment Plan for the Indiana,
Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area
for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
*
*
Indiana County and portions of Armstrong County (Plumcreek Township, South Bend Township, and
Elderton Borough).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 52.2033
*
*
*
*
(g) EPA approves the Attainment Plan
for the Indiana, PA Nonattainment Area
for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
on October 12, 2023. EPA approves the
attainment demonstration and other
attainment plan elements, including
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)/Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)
determination, Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) requirements, and
contingency measures.
[FR Doc. 2024–20598 Filed 9–12–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Sep 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
*
*
9/13/2024, [INSERT Federal ...........
Register CITATION] ........................
40 CFR Part 52
Control strategy: Sulfur oxides.
*
10/12/23
EPA
approval date
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
3. Amend § 52.2033 by adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
State
effective
date
County
74847
[EPA–R04–OAR–2023–0277; FRL–12065–
02–R4]
Air Plan Approval; Tennessee;
Nitrogen Oxides SIP Call Alternative
Monitoring and Domtar Paper
Company, LLC
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC),
on June 26, 2023. The June 26, 2023, SIP
revision specifies monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for large industrial nonelectricity generating units (EGUs)
subject to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) SIP
Call that are permissible as alternatives
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Additional
explanation
*
52.2033(g).
to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part
75. The SIP revision also establishes
source-specific alternative monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements under the NOX SIP Call for
Domtar Paper Company, LLC (Domtar).
DATES: This rule is effective October 15,
2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2023–0277. All documents in the docket
are listed on the regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information 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 either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74836-74847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20598]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0024; FRL-11529-02-R3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Indiana
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania or PA). The revision pertains to the
attainment plan for the Indiana, PA nonattainment area for the 2010 1-
hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). The EPA is approving these revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0024. All documents in the docket are listed on
the 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
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1600 John F Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2027. Ms. Goold
can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 22, 2010, the EPA published a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) at 40 CFR
[[Page 74837]]
50.17(a), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when
the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-
hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50 appendix T
(75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). Under CAA section 107(d)(1), the EPA is
required to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' within two years of establishing a new or revising
an existing standard. As part of this process, states must submit
recommendations for area designations and boundaries to the EPA within
one year of the effective date of the standard. Effective on October 4,
2013,\1\ the Indiana, PA Nonattainment Area (hereafter referred to as
``the Indiana, PA NAA'') (which encompasses Indiana County, and
Plumcreek Township, South Bend Township and Elderton Borough of
Armstrong County) was designated as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. The area encompasses the primary SO2
emitting sources: the Keystone Generating Station (Keystone), Conemaugh
Generating Station (Conemaugh), Homer City Generating Station (Homer
City), and Seward Generating Station (Seward). The October 4, 2013,
final designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit by
April 4, 2015 (within 18 months per CAA section 191(a)), a SIP revision
with an attainment plan for how the Indiana, PA NAA would attain the
2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than October 4, 2018, (five years from the designation per CAA section
192(a)) in accordance with CAA sections 110(a), 172(c) and 191-192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a number of areas, including the Indiana, PA NAA, the EPA
published a March 18, 2016 Finding of Failure to Submit, with an
effective date of April 18, 2016, finding that Pennsylvania and other
pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO2
attainment plan by this submittal deadline. (See 81 FR 14736, March 18,
2016). This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding
sanctions. However, as a result of Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017
submittal (hereafter referred to as ``the 2017 SIP submittal''), and
the EPA's subsequent October 13, 2017 letter to Pennsylvania finding
the submittal complete, the CAA section 179(a) sanctions were not
imposed. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016,
finding triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the
finding unless, by that time, the state has made the necessary complete
submittal, and the EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable
requirements. The EPA took final action approving this attainment plan
on October 19, 2020 (85 FR 66240, October 19, 2020), which removed the
FIP obligation.
On December 18, 2020, the Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, and
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future filed a petition for judicial review
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging that
final approval.\2\ On April 5, 2021, the EPA filed a motion for
voluntary remand without vacatur of its approval of the Indiana, PA
SO2 attainment plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, Case No. 20-3568 (3d Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the EPA's request for remand without vacatur of the final
approval of Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan for the
Indiana, PA NAA, and required that the EPA take final action in
response to the remand no later than one year from the date of the
court's order.
On August 18, 2022, the EPA revised and corrected its prior full
approval action (85 FR 66240, October 19, 2020) without further
submission from Pennsylvania (effective September 19, 2022) (87 FR
50778, August 18, 2022). Specifically, the EPA retained the approval of
the emissions inventory and nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
program requirements, and disapproved the attainment demonstration,
reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT) requirements, reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirements, and contingency measures (hereafter referred to as the
``2022 Partial Approval/Partial Disapproval'') (87 FR 50778, August 18,
2022). The partial disapproval action initiated a sanctions clock under
CAA section 179, providing for emission offset sanctions for new
sources if the EPA has not fully approved a revised attainment plan
within 18 months (March 19, 2024) after final partial disapproval, and
providing for highway funding sanctions if the EPA has not fully
approved a revised plan within 6 months thereafter (September 19,
2024). The sanctions clock can be stopped only if the conditions of the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.31 are met. Also, under CAA section
110(c), the partial disapproval action initiated an obligation for the
EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years unless Pennsylvania has
submitted, and the EPA has fully approved, a plan addressing the
disapproved attainment planning requirements.
On October 12, 2023, Pennsylvania submitted a 2023 SO2
Attainment Plan SIP Revision for the Indiana, PA NAA (hereafter
referred to as the ``2023 SIP submittal''). The 2023 SIP submittal
addresses the requirements of CAA sections 172(c), 191 and 192 and the
disapproved attainment planning requirements in the EPA's 2022 Partial
Approval/Partial Disapproval. Specifically, this SIP revision contains
a modified attainment demonstration using dispersion modeling,
evaluates sources for RACT/RACM purposes, gives an RFP explanation,
provides for contingency measures, and includes revised emissions
limitations and control measures.
Nonattainment area SO2 SIPs must meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA, specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and
192. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment area SIPs are set
forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and
control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G,
respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, the EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs in a document
entitled the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published in the Federal
Register at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among
other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and
fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. Id. at 13545-49,
13567-68. On April 23, 2014, the EPA issued guidance and
recommendations for meeting the statutory requirements in
SO2 SIPs addressing the 2010 primary NAAQS, in a document
entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (hereafter referred to as ``2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance'').\3\ In the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, the EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete
nonattainment area SIP, which include an accurate emissions inventory
of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the
nonattainment area; an attainment demonstration; enforceable emissions
limitations and control measures;
[[Page 74838]]
demonstration of RFP; implementation of RACM (including RACT);
nonattainment new source review; and adequate contingency measures for
the affected area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions'', April 23, 2014.
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192 and the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to the
EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have
been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a
SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no
requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before
November 15, 1990), in any area which is a nonattainment area for any
air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it ensures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as
nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates
the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and the EPA has
long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect the four
fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability. See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at
13567-68 (April 16, 1992). SO2 attainment plans must consist
of two components: (1) emission limits and other controls, including
measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and
necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and demonstrates that
these emission limits and control measures provide for timely
attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but by no later than the attainment date for the affected
area. In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be
accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine
compliance with the respective emission limits and control measures,
and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction
can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear,
unambiguous and measurable requirements for which compliance can be
practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining
compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two
independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same
result), and accountable (source-specific limits must be permanent and
must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
On June 7, 2024 (89 FR 48523), the EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, the EPA
proposed approval of a revision to Pennsylvania's SIP to demonstrate
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the Indiana, PA NAA. As
noted, Pennsylvania submitted the formal SIP revision on October 12,
2023. This submission includes Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration
and other attainment plan elements required under the CAA, including
the requirement for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/
RACT, enforceable emission limitations and control measures, and
contingency measures. Notably, the submission does not contain
information regarding the required emissions inventory or the state's
NNSR program, as these were previously approved by the EPA (87 FR
50778, August 18, 2022). In this action, the EPA is determining that
the Pennsylvania 1-hour SO2 attainment plan for Indiana, PA
meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus
approving Pennsylvania's submission into its SIP. Also, the EPA is
incorporating the following SO2 emission limits into the
source-specific section of the PA SIP for the Keystone Plant, Conemaugh
Station and Seward Station (as well as the compliance strategies listed
in the unredacted portion of the Consent Order and Agreements (COAs)
found in appendix C of the state submittal):
Keystone--Remove 9,600 lbs/hr on a 24-hour (daily) block
average and replace with 8,328 lbs/hr combined based on a 24-hour block
average for Boiler 1 & Boiler 2 (Source IDs 031 & 032).
Seward--Remove 3,038.4 lbs/hr and replace with 2,895 lbs/
hr combined based on a 30-day operating hours average rolling by one
day for Source IDs 034 & 035. Remove 13,308 tpy and replace with 12,680
tpy combined for Source IDs 034 & 035. Add the requirement to inject
limestone into Source ID 034 and Source ID 035 during initial firing
each time Source ID 034 and Source ID 035 are operated to reduce the
magnitude and frequency of SO2 emission spikes in accordance
with good air pollution control practices.
Conemaugh--Add 3,080 lbs/hr combined on a 3-hour block
average for Units 1 & 2 (Source IDs 031 & 032).
Other specific requirements of the Indiana County attainment plan
and the rationale for the EPA's action are explained in the NPRM, and
its associated technical support document (TSD), and will not be
restated here.
III. EPA's Response to Comments Received
The EPA received four sets of comments in response to the NPRM. Two
sets of comments were in opposition to the EPA's proposed action. The
EPA also received one comment in support of the EPA's proposed action
and one that was not relevant.
Comment 1. The comment asserts that the EPA's interpretation of
what contingency measures are permissible in an SO2
attainment plan is not the ``best reading'' of the Clean Air Act. The
comment cites section 172(c)(9), Contingency Measures, emphasizing that
contingency measures take effect ``without further action by the State
or Administrator.'' The comment takes issue with the approach to
SO2 contingency measures set forth in the EPA's General
Preamble, which states that ``contingency measures'' mean ``. . . the
State agency has a comprehensive program to identify sources of
violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive
follow-up for compliance and enforcement.'' See 57 FR 13498 at 13547
(April 16, 1992). The comment asserts that an enforcement action is
``further action,'' which contradicts section 172(c)(9). Additionally,
the comment claims that the EPA's citation to the state's authority to
enforce its SIP is already required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and
does not necessarily meet the conditions of an enforcement program, let
alone the contingency measure requirement, without a schedule and
mechanism requiring action when violations occur. The comment suggests
alternative contingency measures including switching to low-sulfur
fuel, limiting operation until the SIP is revised, or a daily
SO2 emission limit. Lastly, the comment states that the SIP
lacks provisions to ensure ``aggressive follow-up'' can and will take
place in the event the area fails to attain the NAAQS and therefore
fails to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9).
Response 1. The EPA disagrees with this comment.
First, as a general matter, the EPA's longstanding approach to
contingency
[[Page 74839]]
measures in SO2 attainment plans, based on the Agency's
technical expertise and understanding of control strategies addressing
SO2, has been consistently applied by the EPA and states
since shortly after the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
including in the General Preamble, updated guidance memoranda \4\ and
numerous SO2 SIP approval actions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994
(1994 SO2 Guideline); Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Stephen D. Page, April 23, 2014 (2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance).
\5\ 87 FR 61514, 61522-61523 (October 12, 2022); 84 FR 51988,
51994-51995 (October 1, 2019); 84 FR 32672, 32677 (July 9, 2019)
(final rule 84 FR 49659 (September 23, 2019); 83 FR 51629, 51632-
51633 (October 12, 2018); 83 FR 40487, 40497 (August 15, 2018)
(final rules 85 FR 49967 (August 17, 2020) and 84 FR 10692 (March
22, 2019)); 82 FR 45242, 45251 (September 28, 2017) (final rule 83
FR 25922 (June 5, 2018)); 82 FR 40086, 40097-40098 (August 24, 2017)
(final rule 85 FR 73218 (November 17, 2020)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in response to the comment's specific objection that
contingency measures are to take effect ``without further action,'' the
EPA has interpreted ``without further action'' in the ozone, lead, and
carbon monoxide contexts to mean no further rulemaking or legislative
action, though the EPA recognized that certain actions such as
notification of sources or modifications of permits would be needed for
effective implementation. 57 FR 13498, 13512 and 13533 (April 16,
1992), 58 FR 67748, 67752 (December 22, 1993). Undertaking enforcement
against sources for violations of emission limitations that were
necessary to provide for SO2 NAAQS attainment is consistent
with the EPA's longstanding position across all of the NAAQS that
ministerial actions to effectuate contingency measures, rather than
additional rulemaking or legislative action to adopt new contingency
measures, is appropriate to meet the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9). To commence an enforcement action when an emission
limitation violation is identified, no further administrative or
legislative action is necessary, and the state can expeditiously
proceed to remedy the violation--even without needing to wait to
determine whether such violation has caused or contributed to a
violation of the NAAQS in the nonattainment area.
Contrary to the comment's suggestion that Pennsylvania does not
have a comprehensive enforcement program as required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(C), Pennsylvania has such a program as specified in section
4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S.
Sec. 4004(27), which authorizes the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to take any action it deems necessary
or proper for the effective enforcement of the Act and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder. Such actions include the issuance
of orders (i.e., enforcement orders and orders to take corrective
action to address air pollution or the danger of air pollution from a
source) and the assessment of civil penalties. Any person in violation
of the APCA, the rules and regulations, any order of PADEP, or a plan
approval or operating permit conditions could also be subject to
criminal fines upon conviction under section 9, 35 P.S. Sec. 4009.
Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. Sec. 4007.1, prohibits PADEP from
issuing plan approvals and operating permits for any applicant,
permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary corporation of
the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP's Compliance
Docket until the violations are corrected to the satisfaction of PADEP.
Consequently, the EPA disagrees with the comment's assertion that in
order to credit PADEP's comprehensive enforcement program as satisfying
the CAA section 172(c)(9) SO2 contingency measure
requirement, the program would have to include elements such as
mandatory additional penalties or elimination of agency discretion to
prosecute violations.
Again, the enforcement process is more streamlined and targeted
compared to rulemaking or legislation, which as discussed above, is
considered disallowed ``further action'' for other criteria pollutants,
and moreover enforcement is more akin to permissible implementation
steps such as notification of sources and modification of permits.
Compare 57 FR 13498, 13547 (April 16, 1992) (discussing a comprehensive
program to identify violations and undertaking aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement) with 57 FR 13498, 13512 and 13533 (April
16, 1992) (interpreting ``without further action'' to mean no further
rulemaking or legislation but to allow implementation steps such as
modification of permits and notification of sources) and 58 FR 67748,
67752 (December 22, 1993). Thus, enforcement serves as an appropriate
contingency measure for SO2 nonattainment SIPs.
In addition to having a fully approved comprehensive enforcement
program, PADEP has included what it refers to as additional contingency
measures that are automatically triggered based on varying parameters,
as described below.\6\ First, when any of the four sources' emissions
in the NAA reach 99% of the SO2 emissions limit for the
facility, within 48 hours the facility is required to undertake a full
system audit of the SO2 emitting sources and submit a
written report to PADEP within 15 days, and corrective actions shall be
identified by PADEP as necessary. Second, if the Strongstown monitor in
the NAA registers a daily maximum 1-hour average concentration
exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify the facilities in the NAA, and each
facility is required to identify whether any of its SO2-
emitting sources were running at the time of the exceedance, and within
a reasonable time period leading up to the exceedance, not to exceed 24
hours. If any of the SO2-emitting sources were running at
the time of the exceedance, the facility must then analyze the
meteorological data on the day the hourly exceedance occurred to ensure
that the exceedance was not due to SO2 emissions from the
respective facility. The facility's findings must be submitted to PADEP
within 30 days of being notified of the exceedance.\7\ These emissions-
threshold-activated and exceedance-activated measures further ensure
that ``aggressive follow-up'' will occur without further regulatory
steps taken by the state. They also further reduce the likelihood of a
violation of the emission limits or NAAQS. These measures are in line
with the additional contingency measures the EPA mentions in the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and in the General Preamble and
are included in the Pennsylvania SIP.\8\ The most recent
[[Page 74840]]
design values at the Strongstown monitor in the NAA are 19 ppb in 2022,
22 ppb in 2021, and 25 ppb in 2020, which are well below the 1-hour
primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. The proactive nature of
PADEP's emissions-threshold-activated and exceedance-activated
measures, as well as the direct quantifiable impact of the
SO2 control measures and the current design values in the
NAA, make it very unlikely that a NAAQS violation could occur in this
area while the sources are complying with their emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These measures enhance Pennsylvania's fully approved
enforcement program that serves to meet the contingency measure
requirement, are not necessary to meet applicable requirements of
the CAA under section 110(a)(2)(A), and are already included in the
SIP.
\7\ Note the daily maximum 1-hour average concentration can be
above 75 ppb multiple times in one year and still not violate the
NAAQS due to the statistical nature of the design values. Therefore,
this measure could be triggered multiple times before a design value
of 75 ppb, and therefore a NAAQS violation, ever occurs.
\8\ These exceedance-activated and emissions-threshold-activated
measures were retained in the SIP, as explained in the partial
disapproval, 87 FR 15166, 15177 (March 17, 2022) (final rule
published 87 FR 50778 (August 18, 2022)), and the 2023 SIP
submittal's attainment plan reiterates these requirements and the
plan will be included in the SIP. For the sake of clarity and
consistency, Keystone's COA will be removed from the SIP because the
state has requested the removal of the 9600 lb/hr 24-hr
SO2 emission limit which was approved into the SIP via a
source-specific SIP revision based on the COA; included in that COA
is the emissions-threshold activated measure which in the COA is
based on the previously disapproved emissions limit. With the
approval of the 2023 attainment plan into the SIP, the emissions-
threshold activated measure and the exceedance-activated measure for
Keystone are still included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment listed several options for contingency measures that
the comment suggests should be included in the SIP. The EPA
acknowledges that one or more of these options may be appropriate in a
specific situation, and for a specific source, if the area fails to
achieve RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment
date. However, because Indiana, PA is a multisource area with several
emission units per facility, requiring one or more of these measures
may not be appropriate depending on the cause of the potential
violations of the SO2 standard, which would need to be
evaluated at the time of occurrence. For example, triggering a fuel-
switch at one facility may not bring the area into attainment if the
issue is caused by another facility violating its limit. Similarly,
limiting operation of one facility may be appropriate if the subject
facility is the cause of the problem, but requiring further measures at
other facilities may not be warranted where the cause of the NAAQS
violation was non-compliance with emission limits by a different
facility and where the NAAQS violation can be most efficiently remedied
by bringing that source into compliance with its established emission
limits. Likewise, limiting operations at all SO2-emitting
facilities in the area may not appropriately address the issue due to
the localized nature of SO2 emissions and possible direct
link between ambient concentrations and emissions from a specific
facility. Similarly, changing the limits at all facilities, for example
from a longer-term limit to a shorter-term limit, may appropriately
address the problem, but it also may not, and the state would evaluate
appropriate measures if and when an issue arises. These are
illustrative examples, and while not exhaustive, they highlight the
need for the state to be able to respond appropriately in a particular
scenario due to the localized nature of SO2 impacts.
In summary, the EPA's longstanding approach to implementing the
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures requirement in SO2
attainment plans via comprehensive enforcement programs is appropriate.
This approach is based upon the EPA's technical expertise and in-depth
understanding of SO2 control strategies and is consistent
with the approaches undertaken for other criteria pollutants that have
distinguished acceptable ministerial steps from regulatory or
legislative action in satisfying the Act's requirement that contingency
measures take effect ``without further action.'' Accordingly, in this
case, Pennsylvania's fully approved comprehensive enforcement program,
and as bolstered by the state's aforementioned requirements that are
triggered automatically when emissions thresholds are reached or NAAQS
exceedances are recorded, is approved as meeting the CAA section
172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement.
Comment 2. A comment takes issue with the EPA's approach to
attainment determinations when an area initially fails to attain by the
attainment date. The comment cites the requirement for the EPA to
determine within six months of the attainment date whether the standard
has been attained for a given area. Section 179(c)(1) of the Clean Air
Act further states that if the Administrator has found that the area
did not attain, the EPA ``may revise or supplement such determination
at any time based on more complete information or analysis concerning
the area's air quality as of the attainment date.'' The comment notes
that the EPA's 1996 SO2 Memorandum \9\ and 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance do not require a new SIP
submittal and further modeling is not required if the source
characteristics are ``still reasonably represented.'' The comment
claims that the EPA ought to require states to submit a demonstration
that modeling assumptions have not changed. The comment states that
because neither the EPA nor the state are reevaluating modeling
assumptions, there is an added responsibility on the public to comment
on the record on proposed attainment determinations. Lastly, the
comment notes that this issue is magnified by the improper use of 30-
day rolling averages as emission limits, further complicating
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Memorandum from Sally L. Shaver, ``Attainment Determination
Policy for Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas'', January 26, 1996
(1996 SO2 Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2. This comment is outside the scope of this action and
does not require a response. The EPA notes that in this action, it is
not implementing CAA section 179(c) or making a determination of
attainment by the attainment date. To the extent the comment relates to
objections to the emission limits adopted in the attainment plan, as
explained elsewhere, the EPA concludes that the plan will provide for
attainment, accounting for worst-case allowable emissions and
meteorology.
Comment 3. The comment asserts that the EPA's approach to
reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available
control technology (RACT) in the context of SO2 attainment
plans is not the ``best reading'' of the Clean Air Act. The comment
cites the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, stating
that the requirement to implement all RACM is fulfilled if a plan
provides for attainment of the SO2 standards. The comment
then cites requirements for attainment plans, 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1)
(emphasis added):
Such plan provisions shall provide for the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as
practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall
provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality
standards.
In interpreting the provision, the comment highlights the word
``and'' in these nonattainment plan provisions, stating that the
requirement for all RACM and RACT must be fulfilled and the requirement
for attainment must also be met. The comment also states that the EPA
must give effect to every word and phrase in a statutory provision and
that the EPA has failed to give effect to the requirement that all
RACM/RACT be implemented. Next, the comment claims that the EPA fails
to consider the plain meaning of statutory terms in reference to
``available'' control options. The comment claims that the EPA's
proposal fails to determine whether additional controls are needed and
is lacking an analysis of control efficiencies for existing and
potential controls, as well as costs for upgrades.
Response 3. In identifying the ``best reading'' of a statutory
requirement, the EPA has considered the overall and specific purpose of
the requirement, the technical context in which it is imposed, and the
most reasonable manner in which its obligations may be fulfilled. The
Clean Air Act nonattainment planning requirements in section 172(c)
applicable to states are set
[[Page 74841]]
in place to provide for attainment and subsequent maintenance of the
NAAQS in a designated nonattainment area--i.e., an area which the EPA
has previously determined is not meeting the NAAQS. All section 172(c)
requirements are targeted to remedy that NAAQS-violating occurrence. As
the comment referenced, RACM/RACT is required under Clean Air Act
section 172(c)(1) for nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA
requires the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of RACT)
and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
The comment suggests that the RACM/RACT requirement of section
172(c)(1) requires a state to assess and adopt measures that go further
than what is necessary to attain the SO2 NAAQS in the
nonattainment area, but such an approach undercuts the purpose of this
provision as applied in the SO2 nonattainment plan context.
At its core, this RACM/RACT requirement serves to remedy the status quo
situation of an area not meeting the NAAQS, in order to prospectively
achieve NAAQS attainment. This is clear from the requirement's
placement within one of the two paragraphs in section 172(c)--along
with section 172(c)(6)'s requirement that the plan include emissions
limitations as necessary to provide for NAAQS attainment--that specify
enumerated remedial measures that are not otherwise required absent an
area's being designated nonattainment. Moreover, when applied in the
SO2 nonattainment plan context, these provisions of section
172(c) must be read in concert with the other applicable statutory
provision that Congress enacted in 1990 specifically governing
SO2 plans, section 192(a), that similarly stressed the need
for remedial implementation plans to provide for NAAQS attainment. As
explained elsewhere and further below, for SO2 the EPA has
long taken the technical view that this source-oriented pollutant,
compared to more regional pollutants like ozone and particulate matter,
can be addressed via identification of necessary emission limits, and
the control measures needed to meet them, that will provide for
attaining air quality. When that analysis has been undertaken and
appropriate attainment-providing emission limits have been devised, the
central purpose of the section 172(c) attainment planning requirements
will have been fulfilled, and it is not necessary to require additional
controls. Consequently, the EPA does not consider that it would be the
``best reading'' of the RACM/RACT requirement to interpret
``reasonably'' in section 172(c)(1), when applied in the SO2
SIP context, as requiring imposition of additional controls when those
that are necessary to provide for NAAQS attainment have already been
identified and required.
For decades, the EPA has consistently defined RACT for
SO2 as that control technology that will achieve the NAAQS
within statutory timeframes. See, e.g., General Preamble, 57 FR 13498,
13547 (April 16, 1992), which was published soon after the enactment of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments; see also, 1994 SO2
Guideline at 6-39. RACT for certain other criteria pollutants is
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility (see December 9, 1976 memorandum
from Roger Strelow, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas''). The EPA's definition of RACT
for SO2, as that control technology which is necessary to
achieve the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.100 (o)),\10\ is based on the specific
characteristics of SO2. Since SO2 RACT is already
defined as the technology necessary to achieve the SO2
NAAQS, control technology that failed to achieve the NAAQS would fail
to be SO2 RACT, and control technology beyond what is
necessary to attain the SO2 NAAQS would be beyond the
central purpose of the nonattainment planning requirements of section
172(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ RACT means devices, systems, process modifications, or
other apparatus or techniques that are reasonably available taking
into account: (1) The necessity of imposing such controls in order
to attain and maintain a national ambient air quality standard; (2)
The social, environmental, and economic impact of such controls; and
(3) Alternative means of providing for attainment and maintenance of
such standard. (This provision defines RACT for the purposes of 40
CFR 51.341(b) only.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When determining RACT for SO2, it is appropriate to take
into account the necessity of the control in meeting the standard. As
noted, the EPA's definition of RACT in the SO2 nonattainment
context accounts for the characteristics of the specific pollutant. For
a pollutant such as SO2, the relationship between an
individual source's emissions and the overall air quality can be
explicitly quantified, and the emission reductions necessary to attain
the NAAQS are based on a limited number of sources in a NAA.\11\
Therefore, a state can explicitly calculate the emission reductions
necessary to provide for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS, and it
is appropriate not to require states to impose control measures
requiring further reductions beyond what is necessary to achieve
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For reference, in the Indiana, PA NAA, 99.6% of the area's
SO2 emissions inventory comes from the four facilities
controlled in the attainment plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Indiana, PA NAA, PADEP provided the necessary modeling,
which demonstrated the specific hourly emission limits (and comparably
stringent longer-term limits) that are required to provide for
attainment of the standard. The EPA reviewed this modeling and
determined it comports with the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(40 CFR part 51, appendix W) and the EPA's 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. Therefore, the EPA concluded that the emission
limits established as RACM were shown to provide for attainment and
thus met the longstanding definition of RACT for SO2. PADEP
implemented these emission limits as expeditiously as practicable (with
Keystone's and Conemaugh's limits effective immediately after August
15, 2023, and Seward's limits effective immediately after August 17,
2023 via Consent Orders and Agreements).
While the comment disagrees with the EPA's approach to RACM/RACT
for SO2 and characterizes its version as a better reading of
the Act, the comment does not explain why its reading of the Act is a
better reading specific to the SO2 NAAQS. The comment does
not address the specific characteristics of the pollutant,
characteristics that the EPA has considered while it has consistently
defined RACT for SO2.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The comment refers to the visibility program's method of
determining retrofit controls. However, the visibility program
operates under a different statutory and regulatory framework, and
SO2 is one of many visibility impairing pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, this has been the EPA's longstanding definition
and approach for SO2 RACT since the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. The EPA has consistently applied this definition of
SO2 RACT and promulgated numerous implementation plan
approvals using this approach.\13\ Consequently, the EPA disagrees with
the comment's assertion that its approach does not reflect the ``best
[[Page 74842]]
reading'' of Clean Air Act section 172(c)(1) for SO2
implementation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 87 FR 61514, 61520-61521 (October 12, 2022); 84 FR 32672,
32676-32677 (July 9, 2019) (final rule 84 FR 49659 (September 23,
2019); 83 FR 50314, 50321-50324 (October 5, 2018) (final rule 84 FR
51988 (October 1, 2019)); 83 FR 12516, 12519-12520 (March 22, 2018)
(final rule 83 FR 51629 (October 12, 2018); 83 FR 40487, 40497
(August 15, 2018) (final rules 85 FR 49967 (August 17, 2020) and 84
FR 10692 (March 22, 2019)); 82 FR 45242, 45250-45251 (September 28,
2017) (final rule 83 FR 25922 (June 5, 2018)); 82 FR 40086, 40096-
40097 (August 24, 2017) (final rule 85 FR 73218 (November 17,
2020)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4. Two comments claim that longer-term emission limits do
not support attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard. One
comment states that the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance \14\ allows the use of 30-day emission limits as long as
hourly emissions above the critical emission value \15\ (CEV) are rare
and if the magnitude of emissions do not significantly exceed the CEV.
The comment further states that the EPA justified 30-day emission
limits to allow for operational flexibility at sources. Next, the
comment claims that the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance highlights the value of supplemental limits, e.g., caps on the
frequency or magnitude of elevated emissions, but fails to explain and
justify approving longer-term emission limits in the absence of
supplemental limits. Further, the comment states that the EPA's
recognition of the value of supplemental limits in the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance demonstrates that 30-day rolling
averages, when used without supplemental limits, insufficiently protect
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
\15\ The maximum modeled emission rate expressed as a 1-hour
average that results in attainment is labeled the ``critical
emissions value'' or CEV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second comment states that the SO2 limit was set as
a 1-hour standard to protect human health from harmful, short-term
exposures of SO2 and that Seward's and Keystone's emission
limits are not protective under that standard. The comment claims that
the Seward and Keystone generating stations ``regularly and
frequently'' exceed their hourly CEV. Citing data from January 1, 2018
through March 31, 2024, the comment asserts that Keystone exceeded the
9,718 lbs/hr CEV on 532 occasions and that Seward exceeded the 3,830
lbs/hr CEV on 349 occasions, which occurred on 28 separate days in
2018, 7 days in 2019, 13 days in 2020, 31 days in 2021, 58 days in
2022, 40 days in 2023, and 16 days in 2024. The comment claims that the
PADEP justification for disregarding these exceedances, i.e., because
they ``occurred over a large number of possible operating hours per
year,'' is dismissive of the fact that the SO2 standard is a
short-term standard and that just four hours on four days with
SO2 concentrations over 75 ppb will lead to nonattainment of
the NAAQS.
Response 4. The EPA disagrees with the assertion that longer-term
limits cannot be protective of a 1-hour SO2 standard. As
explained in the NPRM for this action, and in the EPA's 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the EPA believes that
appropriately set longer-term limits can be protective of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
The EPA acknowledges the concern that longer-term emission limits
can allow short periods with emissions above the CEV, which, if
coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high
SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of
an hourly NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would
not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the
level corresponding to the CEV. However, for several reasons, the EPA
believes that the approach recommended in its guidance document
suitably addresses this concern.
First, from a practical perspective, the EPA expects the actual
emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer-
term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source
subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. The EPA expects this
similarity because it has recommended that the longer-term average
limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise
applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the CEV)
and that takes the source's emissions profile (and inherent level of
emissions variability) into account. This downward adjustment of the
limit is to compensate for the loss of stringency inherent in applying
a longer-term average limit, by requiring most values to be lower than
they are required to be with a 1-hour limit at the CEV. As a result,
the EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air
quality.
Second, from a more theoretical perspective, the EPA has compared
the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions
under an appropriately set longer-term limit, to the likely air quality
with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable
1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario,
the source is presumed at all times to emit at the CEV, and in the
longer-term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally
to emit more than the CEV, but on average, and presumably at most
times, to emit well below the CEV. In an ``average year,'' \16\
compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three
exceedance days (i.e., three days with maximum hourly values above 75
ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By
comparison, with the source complying with a longer-term limit, it is
possible that additional hourly exceedances would occur that would not
occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed the CEV at
times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this
comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that
would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the
longer-term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer-term
limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is
set below the CEV), so a source complying with an appropriately set
longer-term limit is likely to have lower emissions at critical times
than would be the case if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-
hour limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air
quality. While 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, provides for averaging
three years of annual 99th percentile daily maximum hourly values
(e.g., the fourth highest maximum daily hourly concentration in a
year with 365 days with valid data), this discussion and an example
below uses a single ``average year'' to simplify the illustration of
relevant principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate this point, the EPA conducted a statistical analysis
using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. The analysis is
described in appendix B of the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. Based on the analysis described in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, the EPA expects that an emission profile with
maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set, comparably
stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of
having a lower number of hourly exceedances and better air quality than
an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour
emission limit at the CEV. This result provides a compelling policy
rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period in
appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be
expected to occur.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific
recommendations for determining an appropriate longer-term average
limit. PADEP correctly followed the recommendations in devising the
longer-term limits for Seward and Keystone. The 24-hour average limit
of 8,328 lbs/hr went into effect for Keystone on August 15, 2023, and
the 30-day average limit of 2,895 lbs/hr went into effect for Seward on
August 17, 2023. The EPA reviewed the comment's hourly data files for
Seward and Keystone from January 1, 2018 through March 31, 2024, in
which the CEV at Keystone was exceeded on 532
[[Page 74843]]
separate occasions, and the CEV at Seward was exceeded on 349 separate
occasions. During the majority of this time period, the sources were
not subject to the new limits developed for this attainment plan.
Additionally, the stated number of occasions over the CEV for Seward
and Keystone during the six and one quarter years of data equate to
less than one percent of the hours for each source, which EPA considers
to be a minimal amount of occasions over the CEV. The EPA disagrees
with the comment on the air quality consequences of these occasions of
elevated emissions. While there were times after the new 30-day limit
went into effect where hourly emissions were above the CEV, there is no
evidence that these emissions caused an exceedance of the NAAQS. The
EPA believes that a full analysis of the air quality impact of
Pennsylvania's limits must consider these hours of elevated emissions
in conjunction with the far greater number of hours when emissions are
required to be well below the level that would model violations (i.e.,
the CEV). The comment provided no modeling analysis that incorporated
both the hours of emissions above the CEV and the hours below. For
reasons described in more detail in the EPA's guidance, the NPRM and
the EPA's Technical Support Document: Critical Emission Value Modeling
Analysis for the Indiana, PA 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
(EPA Modeling TSD) for this action, the EPA believes that the net
effect of these compensating factors is that PADEP's limits provide
adequate assurance that the area will attain the SO2
standard.
The EPA disagrees with the comment's assertion that supplemental
limits must be required to limit the magnitude of emissions spikes when
a longer-term limit is established. As explained in detail above, a
comparably stringent longer-term limit can provide for protection of
the NAAQS, even without supplemental limits. In any event, PADEP
exercised additional options for restricting the frequency and
magnitude of occurrences of elevated emissions per the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance,\17\ such as setting averaging
times shorter than thirty days or analyzing emissions data \18\ to
determine when to target emission episodes using supplemental limits.
For Keystone, PADEP applied a shorter averaging time of 24 hours. For
Seward, which has a 30-day limit, PADEP included a supplemental limit
in the form of a work practice requirement of injecting limestone into
the combustor during initial firing which was deemed appropriate due to
specific emissions data patterns experienced during those periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ According to the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, p. 34, states have several additional options for
restricting the frequency and magnitude of occurrences of elevated
emissions. First, states may apply shorter averaging times, such as
24 hours, which provide less allowance of emission spikes than would
longer averaging times, such as 30 days. Second, for sources that
are or will be operating emission control equipment, states may
establish requirements for the operation of this control equipment.
For such sources, a substantial component of the variability in
emissions often arises from variations in the operation of the
control equipment, perhaps including operating the source when the
control equipment is not operating. States have multiple options for
requiring less variability in control equipment operation. One
option would be a direct work practice requirement for operation of
the control equipment, perhaps specifying some minimum level of
control efficiency and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.
\18\ If this type of information on historic emission patterns
is not available, it may be difficult to determine supplemental
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5. The comment states that the CEVs set for each stationary
SO2 source impacting nonattainment in Indiana County are not
protective of the NAAQS. The comment cites an assessment of the EPA's
modeling analysis which asserts that the CEVs yield peak concentrations
approximately 50 micrograms per cubic meter above the NAAQS. Steven
Klafka, Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone and Seward Generating Stations
Indiana County, Pennsylvania Evaluation of Compliance with the 1-hour
NAAQS for SO2, (Wingra Engineering July 8, 2024).
Response 5: The EPA has reviewed the July 8, 2024 modeling analysis
prepared for the Sierra Club by Wingra Engineering (July 2024 Wingra
Analysis) and found several deficiencies with it. These include the
choice of meteorological data and the combining of emission sources
across an amalgamated modeling domain. The July 2024 Wingra Analysis
otherwise utilizes the same modeling system components (receptor grid
locations/elevations/hill-height scales, building downwash parameters,
surface characteristics, etc.) as those used in the modeling analysis
performed by Pennsylvania and reviewed by the EPA. For consistency
purposes, the comment's July 2024 Wingra Analysis utilized the same
versions of the AERMOD platform used by Pennsylvania.
As described in section 6 of PADEP's Air Dispersion Modeling
Technical Support Document (Docket file EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0024-
0003_attachment_9) the air dispersion modeling for the Indiana, PA NAA
utilized representative meteorological datasets from two sites. Data
from the Johnstown-Cambria County Airport (KJST) meteorological site
represented atmospheric conditions in the vicinity of Keystone and
Homer City power plants. The KJST meteorological site is approximately
58 kilometers southeast of Keystone and approximately 38 kilometers
southeast of Homer City. Data from the Ash Site #1 meteorological site
represented atmospheric conditions in the vicinity of Conemaugh and
Seward. The Conemaugh-Seward (Ash Site #1) meteorological site is
located between the two power plants, approximately 1.9 kilometers
northeast of the Conemaugh power plant and approximately 1.7 kilometers
south-southwest of the Seward power plant.
Based on the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51,
appendix W), meteorological data used as input to a dispersion model
should be selected on the basis of spatial and climatological
(temporal) representativeness as well as the ability of the individual
parameters selected to characterize the transport and dispersion
conditions in the area of concern. Representativeness of the
meteorological data is dependent on numerous factors. These factors
include but are not limited to: (1) the proximity of the meteorological
monitoring site to the area under consideration; (2) the complexity of
the terrain; (3) the exposure of the meteorological monitoring site;
and (4) the period of time during which data are collected. Both
meteorological data sets used in Pennsylvania's modeling analysis meet
applicable completeness requirements.
While the July 2024 Wingra Analysis claims that the Ash Site #1 is
representative of impacts from emissions released by all four plants,
the EPA disagrees because of the difference in local topography around
the modeled sources. The decision to utilize the KJST meteorological
site for the Homer City and Keystone power plants and the Ash Site #1
for the Conemaugh and Seward power plants was largely based on the
modeled sources' topographical settings (terrain features). Each of the
meteorological sites were best suited to capture the proper boundary
layer characteristics for their respective sources.
The Indiana, PA NAA sits along the Allegheny Plateau physiographic
province of the Appalachian Mountains system west of the eastern
continental divide. Maps depicting topographical elevations in the
vicinity of the Indiana, PA NAA showing the locations of the Conemaugh,
Homer City, Keystone and Seward power plants and the KJST and
[[Page 74844]]
Ash Site #1 meteorological sites can be found in the EPA's technical
support document that is part of the public record in the docket for
this action (Figures 1 and 2 of the EPA Modeling TSD). Relatively flat
terrain resides in the western portion of the nonattainment area where
the Homer City and Keystone power plants are located. Both power plants
sit at significantly lower elevations than the KJST site. Furthermore,
the KJST site is located on some of the highest terrain in western
Pennsylvania and no topographic features between the KJST site and
Homer City and Keystone would unduly influence the wind fields at the
KJST site. In contrast, the Conemaugh and Seward power plants are
located along the Conemaugh River in the southeastern part of the
Indiana, PA NAA between the Chestnut (west) and Laurel (east) ridges
that define the northern terminus of the Ligonier Valley. The latter
two power plants reside within a valley marked by higher terrain to the
east and west. This valley impacts local meteorological parameters such
as wind fields and atmospheric stability. Air flow can become channeled
within valley features, and topography can influence vertical
atmospheric stability, especially at night, setting up potentially
strong vertical temperature inversions.
The July 2024 Wingra Analysis amalgamates all of the model
receptors Pennsylvania utilized in its three modeling domains covering
the entire Indiana, PA NAA. The rationale for dividing the Indiana, PA
NAA into three separate modeling domains (with different sources and
meteorological data) was explained in the Air Dispersion Modeling
Technical Support Document from PADEP (pages 6-8 to 6-9, 6-15 to 6-17,
and 8-1 to 8-3) and in the EPA Modeling TSD (pages 63 and 70) that are
part of the public docket for this action.
No rationale was provided in the July 2024 Wingra Analysis
submitted during the public comment period to support combining the
three modeling domains utilized in PADEP's SIP modeling demonstration.
Additionally, no rationale was provided to refute the division of the
Indiana, PA NAA into three distinct modeling domains. The EPA believes,
therefore, that Wingra Engineering's modeling analysis erred on its
modeling domain setup by combining all sources into one amalgamated
receptor domain.
Noting the deficiencies in the July 2024 Wingra Analysis, the EPA
concludes that the modeling analysis presented by PADEP demonstrates
the validity of the CEVs established for the Conemaugh, Homer City,
Keystone and Seward power plants.
Comment 6. The comment states that the adjustment factor of 0.756,
used to convert the Seward generating station's CEV to a 30-day rolling
average, is too high. The comment claims that Pennsylvania's proposed
adjustment factor results in 20% higher emission limits when compared
to emission limits calculated with the EPA's adjustment factor of 0.63.
The comment states that if the January 2019 through March 2023 dataset
is used instead of the 2018-2021 dataset used by PADEP, the Seward
adjustment factor would be reduced to 0.712. Next, the comment provided
seven different adjustment factors calculated based on differing
historic data periods. Additionally, the comment asserts that Seward's
SO2 emissions have increased since 2013, and the proposed
30-day limit increases the likelihood of continued nonattainment if
emission reductions are not established.
Response 6. The spreadsheet submitted as Attachment C to the
comment, included incorrect calculations for the 30-day average values.
As specified in the state submittal, the 30-day rolling average for
Seward should be calculated for each operating day, by calculating the
average of all the hourly emission data, using only hours during which
fuel is combusted from the preceding 30 operating days. In the
spreadsheet calculations, the comment always averaged the previous 30-
days using 720 hours (total number of hours in 30 days) as opposed to
the number of hours when fuel was actually burned. In the SIP
submittal, PADEP correctly calculated the 30-day average emission
values in developing the adjustment factors for Seward. PADEP also
justified the period of time used for the calculations by explaining
that, in line with the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, PADEP used data from years of stable operation. As PADEP
described, when the SIP analysis began in 2022, it initially considered
emission data for years 2017 through 2021. However, in 2017, there was
an operational change at Seward \19\ that could have affected the
emission variability. Because of operational changes at Seward in 2017
and in an effort to have one consistent emission dataset for all three
facilities with longer-term SO2 emission limits, PADEP
calculated the adjustment factors using emission data for years 2018
through 2021. The EPA believes this is consistent with the
recommendation on emission data use in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, pages 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ After a change of ownership in December 2016, Seward
implemented a startup operational change, which is the addition of
limestone to the combustor during initial firing to reduce
SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the comment appears to misunderstand the adjustment factor of
0.63 included in table 1 of appendix B of the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. The EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance did not calculate nor provide source-specific adjustment
factors for Seward, but rather, calculated the average adjustment
factor for 90 sources equipped with a dry scrubber. The EPA believes
that if continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMs) data is
available for a source, it is most appropriate to use that data for
developing adjustment factors, as long as it continues to represent the
distribution of emissions that is expected once the attainment plan is
implemented. This was the case with Seward. The EPA concludes that the
adjustment factor of 0.756 calculated for Seward is more appropriate
because it is source-specific, based on CEMS data and provides for a
comparably stringent 30-day average emission limit.
Regarding the comment about the annual SO2 emissions
increases since 2013, the EPA reviewed the data and notes that
SO2 emissions increased from 2013-2018. However, after that
period the emissions remained in a similar range. Additionally, annual
emissions are not a direct indicator of compliance with the NAAQS nor
with the 30-day emission limit which the EPA is approving as providing
for attainment in this plan.
Comment 7. The comment claims that the EPA ignores the ongoing
negative impacts of Indiana County's major SO2 sources on
neighboring Westmoreland and Cambria counties. The comment states that
Pennsylvania has failed to meaningfully address SO2 sources
in Indiana County and that the EPA should encourage Pennsylvania to
implement more protective SO2 limits to wholly address
nonattainment caused by these sources and to be protective of
vulnerable populations in Indiana County and neighboring areas.
Response 7. The comment's concern regarding negative impacts
outside of the Indiana, PA NAA boundaries from the Indiana County
SO2 sources is beyond the scope of this action.
Section 171(2) of the CAA defines nonattainment area to mean for
any air pollutant, an area which is designated ``nonattainment'' with
respect to that pollutant within the meaning of section 107(d) of this
title. In an earlier, separate action, the boundaries of the Indiana,
[[Page 74845]]
PA NAA were set and finalized in August 2013 in ``Round One'' of EPA's
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS under section 107(d) of
the CAA, and these boundaries were not challenged.\20\ Westmoreland and
Cambria counties are not included within those boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013); www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/so2-designations-state-designations-round-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania's obligation under section 110(a) of the CAA is to
submit `` . . . a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such primary standard in each air quality control
region (or portion thereof) within such State.'' CAA section 110(a)(1).
Section 110 further provides that ``[i]n the case of a plan or plan
revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area, [the plan
shall] meet the applicable requirements of part D of this subchapter
(relating to nonattainment areas).'' CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Section
172(c)(6) then requires the SIP for a nonattainment area to include
enforceable emission limitations and control measures as necessary or
appropriate to provide for NAAQS attainment ``in such area.'' In this
case, Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Indiana, PA NAA includes
limits on SO2 sources and a modeling demonstration showing
that SO2 concentrations throughout the nonattainment area
are at or below the NAAQS.
Further, the EPA's role is limited to determining whether the
submitted SIP meets the requirements of the CAA, see section 110(k)--in
this action, Pennsylvania's 2023 SIP submittal does not address areas
outside the defined nonattainment area. Absent a clear requirement that
Pennsylvania must include model receptors outside of the nonattainment
area in its submission, the EPA will confine its analysis to whether
the attainment SIP demonstrates attainment within the designated
nonattainment area.
On February 12, 2024, EPA published notice in a separate action of
its intent to redesignate portions of Cambria and Westmoreland Counties
\21\ to nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (89 FR 9815).
The CAA provides the EPA with the authority to revise designations of,
or ``redesignate,'' areas under CAA section 107(d)(3). Such
redesignations can originate as requests by states (per CAA section
107(d)(3)(D)), and the EPA can also notify a state at any time that a
designation of any area or portion of an area should be revised, on the
basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any
other air quality-related considerations the EPA Administrator deems
appropriate. If finalized, the nonattainment designation for these
counties will require the state to submit nonattainment area
requirements per CAA section 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA designated Cambria County unclassifiable and
Westmoreland County attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS effective April 9, 2018. 83 FR 1098 (January 9,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8. The comment states that the SIP should incorporate the
closure of the Homer City generating station, as well as the projected
2028 retirements of the Keystone and Conemaugh generating stations.
Further, the comment asserts that the SIP should not be approvable
until the SO2 emission limits for these plants are removed.
Response 8. The EPA disagrees with the comment. CAA section
172(c)(6) requires the SIP for a nonattainment area to include
enforceable emission limitations and control measures as necessary or
appropriate to provide for NAAQS attainment in the area. With this
action, the EPA is approving the emission limits for the four sources
in the Indiana, PA NAA as meeting this requirement. As such, it is not
necessary to include the Homer City retirement nor the projected
retirements of Keystone and Conemaugh in the SIP as enforceable
measures. And as explained in the NPRM, as the EPA is not aware of
PADEP rescinding Homer City's operating permit, Homer City ceasing
operations does not guarantee that the units are permanently and
enforceably shutdown. 89 FR 48523, 48528 (June 7, 2024). Nor did
PADEP's 2023 SIP submittal request to incorporate the pending closure
of Homer City into the SIP. Similarly for Keystone and Conemaugh, the
EPA is not aware of PADEP rescinding the permits for these two sources
nor did PADEP's 2023 SIP submittal request their projected retirements
be included in the SIP. The approval of this attainment plan is thus
properly based on Homer City's possible continued operation, as well as
Keystone's and Conemaugh's continued operations.
IV. Final Action
The EPA is approving the attainment plan for the Indiana, PA NAA
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which Pennsylvania submitted
on October 12, 2023, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
Specifically, the EPA is approving the attainment demonstration, RACM/
RACT requirements, RFP requirements, and contingency measures of the
attainment plan. The EPA previously approved the emissions inventory
and NNSR program elements of the attainment plan.
This approval terminates the highway funding sanction and FIP
clocks started under CAA sections 179 and 110, respectively, resulting
from EPA's partial disapproval of the prior SIP submittal. It also
removes the permitting offset sanction that has been in place since
March 19, 2024.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters established in
(the unredacted portions of) the COAs for the Seward, Conemaugh and
Keystone facilities, as discussed in section II of this preamble and
described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and
will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. 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, the 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);
[[Page 74846]]
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); and
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.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
PADEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part
of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not
perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to
the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to
have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color,
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, this final rule approving Pennsylvania's Indiana, PA
NAA SO2 attainment plan 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 the 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. The 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 November 12, 2024. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving the Indiana, PA attainment plan for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Adam Ortiz,
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:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d)(3) by:
0
i. Adding entries for ``Keystone Generating Station'', ``Conemaugh
Generating Station'', and ``Seward Generating Station'' at the end of
the table; and
0
ii. Removing the first entry for ``Seward Station''; and the entry for
``Keystone Plant''.
0
b. Adding in paragraph (e)(1) table the entry ``Attainment Plan for the
Indiana County, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of
the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
[[Page 74847]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
State EPA approval explanation/
Name of source Permit No. County effective date Sec. 52.2063
date citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Keystone Generating Station.. Consent Order Armstrong........ 08/15/23 9/13/2024, For Source IDs
and Agreement. [INSERT 031 and 032:
Federal Combined SO2
Register emission
CITATION]. limit; CEMS
monitoring;
definition of
``24-hour
block'';
Quarterly
emission
reporting
requirement;
and reporting
of hourly SO2
lbs/hr
emission
averages.
Conemaugh Generating Station. Consent Order Indiana.......... 08/15/23 9/13/2024, For Source IDs
and Agreement. [INSERT 031 and 032:
Federal Combined SO2
Register emission
CITATION]. limit; CEMS
monitoring;
definition of
``3-hour
block'';
Quarterly
emission
reporting
requirement;
and reporting
of hourly SO2
lbs/hr
emission
averages.
Seward Generating Station.... Consent Order Indiana.......... 08/17/23 9/13/2024, For Source IDs
and Agreement. [INSERT 034 and 035:
Federal Combined SO2
Register emission
CITATION]. limit; CEMS
monitoring;
definition of
``operating
day'';
reporting of
hourly SO2 lbs/
hr emission
rate;
injection of
limestone
during initial
firing; and
quarterly
submission of
``Hourly
Injection
Reports.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation
revision geographic area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Attainment Plan for the Indiana, Indiana County and 10/12/23 9/13/2024, [INSERT 52.2033(g).
Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area portions of Federal.
for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Armstrong County Register CITATION].
Primary National Ambient Air (Plumcreek
Quality Standard. Township, South
Bend Township, and
Elderton Borough).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.2033 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2033 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides.
* * * * *
(g) EPA approves the Attainment Plan for the Indiana, PA
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection on October 12, 2023. EPA approves the
attainment demonstration and other attainment plan elements, including
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) determination, Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) requirements, and contingency measures.
[FR Doc. 2024-20598 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
