Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65901 

1 In the TSD, EPA stated that the SIP revision 

would reduce emissions of fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) from OWBs which would promote benefits 

such as improved visibility. 

section 1908(b) of the Act To Prevent 

Pollution From Ships (‘‘APPS’’), as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1908(b)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 22.3, paragraph (a), is 

amended by revising the definition for 

‘‘Clerk of the Board’’ to read as follows: 

§ 22.3 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

Clerk of the Board means an 

individual duly authorized to serve as 

Clerk of the Environmental Appeals 

Board. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 22.5, paragraph (a)(1), is 

amended by revising the third sentence 

to read as follows: 

§ 22.5 Filing, service, and form of all filed 

documents; business confidentiality claims. 

(a) Filing of documents. (1) * * * 

Documents filed in proceedings before 

the Environmental Appeals Board shall 

be sent to the Clerk of the Board either 

by U.S. Mail (except by U.S. Express 

Mail) to U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail 

Code 1103M, Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; or delivered by hand or courier 

(including deliveries by U.S. Express 

Mail or by a commercial delivery 

service) to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Environmental 

Appeals Board, 1201 Constitution 

Avenue NW., WJC East, Room 3332, 

Washington, DC 20004.* * * 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—Appeals and 

Administrative Review 

■ 5. Section 22.30, paragraph (a)(1), is 

amended by revising the first sentence 

to read as follows: 

§ 22.30 Appeal from or review of initial 

decision. 

(a) Notice of appeal. (1) Within 30 

days after the initial decision is served, 

any party may appeal any adverse order 

or ruling of the Presiding Officer by 

filing an original and one copy of a 

notice of appeal and an accompanying 

appellate brief with the Environmental 

Appeals Board as set forth in 

§ 22.5(a).* * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–26321 Filed 11–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0169; FRL–9918–73– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Allegheny County; 

Control of Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers 

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 pertaining to the control 

of particulate matter (PM) emissions 

from the operation of outdoor woodfired boilers (OWBs) in Allegheny 

County. EPA is approving this revision 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0169. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the Commonwealth’s 

submittal are available at the Allegheny 

County Health Department, Bureau of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 5, 2014, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

proposing approval of a revision to the 

Allegheny County portion of the 

Pennsylvania SIP for the control of PM 

from the operation of OWBs in 

Allegheny County. 79 FR 45395. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted on 

January 15, 2014 by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) on behalf of Allegheny County. 

In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of 

the SIP revision because EPA’s review 

of the revision indicated that the 

regulations submitted would reduce 

problems associated with the operation 

of OWBs, including smoke and burning 

prohibited fuels, including garbage, 

tires, and hazardous waste. Id. at 45396. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision consists of: (1) 

adding Section 2104.09 (Outdoor WoodFired Boiler) to Article XXI, ‘‘Air 

Pollution Control Rules and 

Regulations’’; and (2) adding new 

related definitions to Section 2101.20 

(Definitions) of Article XXI. Section 

2104.09 contains the requirements 

pertaining to the sale, manufacture, 

installation, and operation of OWBs in 

Allegheny County. The specific 

requirements pertaining to the 

regulation of OWBs in Allegheny 

County, as well as EPA’s rationale for 

approving these changes, are explained 

in the NPR and the accompanying 

Technical Support Document (TSD) and 

will not be restated here. These 

documents are contained in the 

electronic docket available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0169.1

III. Public Comments 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on the August 5, 2014 NPR proposing 

approval of Allegheny County’s January 

15, 2014 SIP submission for control of 

OWBs in the County. A full set of 

comments is provided in the docket for 

this final rulemaking action. A summary 

of each comment and EPA’s response is 

provided in this section. 

A. Clean Air Council Comments 

Comment: Clean Air Council (CAC) 

urges EPA to disapprove the proposed 

SIP revision based on several factors 

and states that an outright ban on OWBs 

in Allegheny County is appropriate 

asserting, ‘‘greater action is necessary to 

sufficiently protect residents from 

harmful wood smoke’’ from OWBs. 

Specifically, CAC states that an outright 

ban of OWBs in Allegheny County is 

appropriate given the local terrain, 

proximity of neighbors, and magnitude 

of other emissions in the Allegheny 

County airshed. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
65902 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2CAC notes a portion of Beaver County is also 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

3 In the 2014 NSPS proposal, EPA stated, ‘‘our 

BSER [Best System of Emission Reduction] 

determination rests on: (1) the achievability of the 

proposed emission levels (i.e., the fact that topperforming models for each appliance type are 

already achieving the proposed emission levels); 

and (2) the cost effectiveness of the proposed 

standards when considering the design life span 

and the emitting life span of the appliances in 

residences.’’ 79 FR at 6354. 

To support this argument, CAC cites 

a study which indicates setback 

regulations and stack height 

requirements for OWBs are insufficient 

to protect public health. CAC also 

mentions that EPA’s proposed 

residential wood heater new source 

performance standards (NSPS) point to 

site-specific criteria that states have 

considered in the past when developing 

rules for OWBs including: (1) local 

terrain; (2) proximity of neighbors; and 

(3) magnitude of other emissions in the 

airshed. Regarding terrain, CAC states 

the Allegheny County terrain is such 

that emissions are frequently ‘‘trapped’’ 

which contributes to poor air quality 

events and states the area is prone to 

temperature inversions which prevent 

air movement and leads to stagnation. 

CAC contends inversions typically 

occur during cooler months when 

OWBs would likely be used more often 

which would lead to potentially 

dangerous periods of high PM levels in 

the County. In addition, CAC refers to 

Allegheny County’s population density 

as more dense than the average density 

for Pennsylvania and compares it to the 

density for the State of Washington 

which banned OWBs. 

Finally, CAC asserts concerns with 

the magnitude of emissions in the 

Allegheny County airshed and refers to 

the County as downwind of West 

Virginia nonattainment areas for PM2.5

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and of a 

maintenance area for ozone. CAC notes 

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area is also 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS while 

Allegheny County and Beaver County 

are designated nonattainment for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS.2 Finally, CAC cites 

to the recent, proposed designation of 

Allegheny County as nonattainment for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAC states 

EPA’s proposed designation found 

Allegheny County has high emissions of 

PM-precursor pollutants, including 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), ammonia, and SO2, 

and states EPA identified nine major 

sources of PM-precursor pollutants. 

Overall, CAC claims continued 

operation of OWBs in the County will 

only ‘‘exacerbate’’ the County’s struggle 

to attain the NAAQS and requested EPA 

disapprove the proposed SIP revision as 

CAC believes only a complete ban on 

OWBs can protect County residents 

given these factors. 

Response: EPA appreciates CAC’s 

concern regarding Allegheny County’s 

air quality and CAC’s suggestion for a 

ban on OWBs. Present laws and 

regulations in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania and in Allegheny County 

specifically permit operation and use of 

OWBs with certain conditions. This SIP 

revision includes regulations from the 

Allegheny County Health Department 

(ACHD) providing additional 

restrictions on operation and use of 

OWBs within the County which EPA 

believes will reduce smoke and PM 

emissions therefore also improving 

visibility. EPA believes approving 

ACHD’s regulations into the Allegheny 

County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP 

will strengthen the SIP through 

pollution reductions within the County. 

Section 110 of the CAA provides the 

statutory framework for approval and 

disapproval of SIP revisions. Under the 

CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for 

certain pollutants. The CAA establishes 

a joint Federal and state program to 

control air pollution and protect the 

public health. States are required to 

prepare SIPs for each designated ‘‘air 

quality region’’ within their borders. 

The SIP must specify emission limits 

and other measures necessary for that 

area to attain and maintain the required 

NAAQS. Pursuant to section 107(a) of 

the CAA, the states have the primary 

responsibility to assure air quality 

within the state by submitting a SIP to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each 

SIP must be submitted to the EPA for its 

review and approval; in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices provided the SIP revision 

is found to meet the minimum 

requirements of the CAA or any 

applicable EPA regulations. See section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA; see also Union 

Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265 

(1976). 

EPA’s authority to approve SIP 

revisions is governed by CAA section 

110(k). EPA does not have authority 

under the CAA to condition (or 

otherwise require) as a prerequisite for 

approval of a state’s SIP submittal the 

adoption of the most stringent or most 

protective control measure possible for 

achieving the NAAQS within the state 

as long as the SIP meets the minimum 

requirements of the CAA or its 

implementing regulations. See 

Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. 

EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 

1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 

1123 (D.C. Cir.1995)). EPA cannot 

condition approval of Pennsylvania’s 

SIP submission of ACHD’s regulations 

upon inclusion of a particular emission 

reduction program such as banning 

OWBs as long as the SIP otherwise 

meets the requirements of the CAA. As 

explained in the NPR and the TSD, 

ACHD’s regulations should reduce 

emissions of PM and PM2.5 and should 

improve visibility within the County 

which should aid in the County’s 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

believes including ACHD’s regulations 

within the Pennsylvania SIP will 

strengthen the SIP and believes the SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

CAA including section 110 of the CAA. 

Thus, EPA disagrees that the submitted 

SIP revision should be disapproved for 

not including in the regulations more 

stringent provisions. 

Regarding EPA’s 2014 proposed NSPS 

for OWBs, EPA stated in the proposed 

residential heater NSPS, which EPA 

proposed pursuant to section 111 of the 

CAA, that additional actions may be 

needed by local regulatory authorities in 

addressing impacts from residential 

heaters due to site-specific concerns, 

such as local terrain, meteorology, 

proximity of neighbors and other 

exposed individuals. 79 FR 6330, 6336 

(February 3, 2014). Thus, in keeping 

with Congressional intent for states to 

design emission reduction programs 

within their states for SIPs in 

accordance with sections 107(a) and 

110, local and state regulatory 

authorities may consider requirements 

for residential wood heaters for SIPs 

which are beyond the requirements EPA 

has proposed for the NSPS and may 

consider such factors as local terrain, 

meteorology, proximity of neighbors 

and other exposed individuals. These 

factors are not mandatory for states to 

consider for emission reduction 

measures for SIPs and were not used by 

EPA in developing the 2014 NSPS 

proposal; they are also not mandatory 

minimum requirements in the CAA for 

approvability of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

revision to include ACHD’s regulations 

for OWBs.3

EPA also notes that CAC correctly 

indicated the attainment status of 

several areas in West Virginia as well as 

in Allegheny County. However, EPA is 

approving this SIP revision pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA as the PM 

reductions and visibility improvement 

from ACHD’s regulations will 

strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. 

Pennsylvania did not submit this SIP 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65903 

4As part of the SIP submittal, Pennsylvania 

included ACHD’s response to comments received 

during ACHD’s public comment process on these 

OWB regulations. In the responses, ACHD stated it 

regularly implements effective enforcement of all 

Article XXI regulations and expects to do the same 

with the proposed new OWB regulations. 

5See 77 FR 58955 (approving Pennsylvania’s 

infrastructure SIPs as meeting requirements in CAA 

section 110(a)(2) including 110(a)(2)(A) and (E) for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS). 

6 ‘‘Air Quality Action Day’’ is clearly defined in 

section 2101.20 of ACHD’s Article XXI to mean ‘‘a 

day for which a forecast has been issued by the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, the Allegheny County Health 

Department or the Southwest Pennsylvania Air 

Quality Partnership indicating that ambient 

concentrations of ozone, particulate matter, carbon 

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide might 

reach unhealthful levels or exceed the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

revision as an attainment plan for any 

NAAQS, thus, no provisions in part D, 

Title I of the CAA, relating to attainment 

planning, are applicable to this 

rulemaking action. EPA notes that when 

Pennsylvania develops any required 

attainment plans for Allegheny County 

for any NAAQS it could consider 

whether a total ban on OWBs might be 

appropriate to demonstrate timely 

attainment or represent reasonably 

available control measures, and EPA 

would consider the potential 

availability of such controls in 

reviewing any attainment SIPs for 

Allegheny County. 

In summary, nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to consider the terrain, 

proximity of neighbors, or magnitude of 

other emissions in the airshed before 

determining the approvability of a 

particular regulation for a SIP revision. 

EPA finds the SIP revision to include 

ACHD’s regulations for OWBs 

strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP with 

pollution reduction requirements, 

particularly for PM, and therefore meets 

the requirements for SIP approval in 

section 110 of the CAA. 

Comment: CAC also claims that the 

enforceability of ACHD’s prohibition on 

the use of OWBs during air quality 

action days (in Section 2104.09(h) of 

Article XXI, Rules and Regulations of 

the ACHD) is ‘‘dubious at best’’ as it will 

be difficult for ACHD to assess 

compliance and take corrective action 

when needed. CAC claims an outright 

ban of OWBs is therefore appropriate for 

Allegheny County. 

Response: EPA appreciates CAC’s 

concern with the enforceability of 

ACHD’s regulation; however, EPA 

disagrees that CAC’s concern with 

enforceability of the regulation impacts 

our ability to approve this SIP revision.4

EPA is approving ACHD’s OWB 

regulations for inclusion in the 

Pennsylvania SIP because the 

regulations will reduce PM and improve 

visibility within Allegheny County, and 

therefore the SIP revision meets 

requirements in CAA section 110 as the 

revision strengthens the Pennsylvania 

SIP. CAC has presented no factual or 

legal argument supporting its concern 

for the enforceability of ACHD’s OWB 

regulations. EPA has previously 

concluded the Pennsylvania SIP 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations and control measures and 

provides necessary assurances that 

Pennsylvania has adequate personnel, 

funding and authority to implement the 

Pennsylvania SIP. 5 CAC provides no 

factual or legal argument to challenge 

our prior conclusions. EPA believes 

ACHD’s regulations include clear and 

practically enforceable terms for fuel 

requirements for OWBs and for sale, 

distribution and operation of OWBs, 

including a prohibition on OWB 

operation on Air Quality Action Days in 

Allegheny County.6 As EPA has 

previously concluded Pennsylvania has 

adequate funding and other tools such 

as personnel to implement its SIP, EPA 

disagrees with CAC that its 

unsubstantiated concerns with 

enforceability of ACHD’s OWB 

regulations lead to any conclusion that 

a ban on OWBs is appropriate or 

required instead of approval of this SIP 

revision. In addition, including the 

OWB regulations in the Pennsylvania 

SIP ensures Federal enforceability of the 

regulations providing additional 

assurance the SIP will be implemented. 

See section 113(a) of the CAA. 

Comment: CAC cites to a 2010 study 

by Environment and Human Health, Inc. 

(EHHI) that indicates setback 

regulations and stack height 

requirements for OWBs have been 

insufficient to protect human health. 

CAC asserts the study concluded OWBs 

should be banned as no regulations put 

in place protect neighboring properties 

or health of families in homes on those 

properties. CAC requests that EPA 

disapprove the proposed SIP revision in 

light of the study. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

CAC that EPA should disapprove the 

SIP revision for ACHD’s regulations on 

OWBs based on this EHHI study. The 

2010 EHHI study investigated how 

homes are affected by neighboring 

OWBs and the health implications for 

the families living inside homes 

impacted by wood smoke. The EHHI 

study measured indoor PM (PM2.5 and 

even finer particulate matter less than 

0.5 micrometers (PM0.5)) inside homes 

varying in distance from an operating 

OWB in the State of Connecticut over 

the course of three days. The proposed 

SIP revision from ACHD is intended to 

reduce outdoor air pollution. As 

discussed previously, EPA is approving 

this SIP revision because it strengthens 

the SIP and will provide benefits by 

reducing PM and PM2.5 emissions from 

OWBs overall and improving visibility. 

Congress did not design the CAA 

(including the SIP process, NAAQS 

pollutants, or area nonattainment 

designations) to have any effect on 

indoor air pollution. Even though 

concentrations of PM from OWBs may 

enter nearby resident’s homes, the CAA 

does not require states to control 

outdoor pollution based on indoor 

impacts. The CAC has not articulated 

any legal argument regarding why a 

study of indoor PM impacts EPA’s 

ability to approve a SIP revision which 

EPA finds benefits emissions of PM2.5 to 

outdoor air. EPA recognizes that there 

may be ancillary health benefits in a 

community that coincide with OWB 

programs. As mentioned in the TSD 

accompanying our NPR, EPA noted the 

ACHD regulations for OWBs, which are 

in addition to Pennsylvania’s 

requirements for OWBs in 25 Pa. Code 

123.14, should provide further 

protections to the residents of Allegheny 

County. However, as previously 

discussed, states have primary 

responsibility for deciding how to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. Under the 

CAA, the sole issue for EPA’s 

consideration in this rulemaking action 

is whether ACHD’s OWB regulations, as 

an additional PM control measure for 

the Pennsylvania SIP, would be 

consistent with CAA provisions. EPA is 

approving the inclusion of ACHD’s 

OWB regulations into the SIP because 

the approval is consistent with the 

requirements of section 110 of the CAA, 

including attainment and maintenance 

of the NAAQS, including the PM 

NAAQS. CAC’s request for a ban on 

OWBs in Allegheny County based on 

health concerns, particularly concerns 

for indoor air pollution, may be 

considered and implemented at the 

local level without EPA’s review or 

approval. See 77 FR 1414 (January 10, 

2012) (final action approving revisions 

to the Alaska SIP relating to removing 

the motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program for control of 

carbon monoxide in Anchorage). 

B. American Lung Association 

Comments 

The American Lung Association 

(ALA) provides several comments in 

order to ‘‘amplify’’ comments received 

from CAC. 

Comment: With respect to the issue of 

proximity of neighbors, ALA 

emphasizes that this factor renders 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
65904 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7The SIP submittal is available in the electronic 

docket online at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0169. 

OWBs problematic for the City of 

Pittsburgh and the remainder of 

Allegheny County, which has a 

population density nearly five times 

that of the state average. ALA states the 

areas of the County beyond the City of 

Pittsburgh are also at increased risk 

from OWBs. ALA asserts that any rule 

regulating any air pollution source 

should address the issue from the macro 

scale of air pollution inventories and 

that source’s impacts on ambient air 

quality for the region as a whole, and 

should not institutionalize highly 

localized adverse air pollution impacts. 

ALA asserts it could support a rule for 

OWBs if ACHD could demonstrate 

widespread use of OWBs (operating 

with the local topographic variations 

and uneven compliance with rules for 

feedstock quality and operating 

conditions) would not produce 

significantly elevated concentrations of 

air pollutants in neighboring properties. 

ALA claims evidence it has seen shows 

such a rule is unlikely to be so effective. 

ALA also asserts any rule on OWBs 

must not only be workable for the 

current locations and prevalence of 

these units but should be forwardlooking and able to handle possible 

future expansions of this source. ALA 

claims the regulatory burden of 

managing emissions from a much larger 

local inventory of OWBs, along with all 

of the issues related to cumulative 

adverse effects of individually, 

apparently ‘‘well-controlled’’ sources, 

and even neighbor-versus-neighbor 

disputes, should not be regarded as 

inconsiderable. ALA claims once OWBs 

are widely used it will be difficult to 

return to non-use. 

Finally, ALA notes studies done in 

southwestern Pennsylvania and in 

Allegheny County in particular show 

evidence that current levels of air 

pollution and emissions of carcinogens 

already pose higher risks to health and 

lives of regional and county residents. 

ALA claims such a situation does not 

support taking less than a strict healthprotective approach with respect to 

sources of air pollution that are already 

problematic, both in terms of emission 

factors, and in terms of the necessary 

surveillance and enforcement resources 

to control them properly. 

Response: EPA appreciates the healthbased concerns expressed by ALA. EPA 

notes that it considers health based 

impacts when setting the NAAQS, 

including in particular the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA sets the NAAQS to protect 

public health with an adequate margin 

of safety. As previously discussed, 

Congress placed the role of 

implementing the NAAQS and devising 

measures to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS with the states. See section 

107(a) of CAA. EPA’s role is to approve 

SIP submittals that meet minimum 

criteria in the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. EPA believes 

ACHD’s OWB regulations strengthen the 

Pennsylvania SIP as the regulations 

should reduce overall emissions of 

PM2.5 from OWBs. Pennsylvania’s SIP 

submittal discussed how ACHD tailored 

its OWB regulations to the specific 

situations encountered in Allegheny 

County and how ACHD expected the 

regulations to benefit the health of 

citizens of Allegheny County.7 EPA’s 

TSD, supporting the approval of the SIP 

revision, stated the ACHD regulations 

would reduce problems associated with 

the operation of OWBs, including smoke 

and burning prohibited fuels, and 

would reduce ambient levels of PM2.5

which would improve visibility. To 

approve these regulations as a SIPstrengthening measure, EPA does not 

have to determine if the emissions 

reductions from the regulations are or 

are not significant or address health 

concerns in Allegheny County. EPA 

merely needs to determine if the 

regulations will generate some 

additional emissions reductions that 

would not be achieved by the current 

Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has reviewed 

these regulations in accordance with 

that framework and finds the provisions 

approvable for the SIP as the regulations 

will reduce PM2.5 and improve 

visibility. EPA has concluded the OWB 

regulations meet the minimum criteria 

for SIP approvability. No provision in 

the CAA, or in its implementing 

regulations, requires consideration of 

additional health impacts available from 

alternative, more stringent emission 

control measures before EPA may 

approve emission control measures 

submitted by a state for SIP approval, 

nor requires EPA to take a ‘‘strict healthprotective approach’’ before approving 

SIPs as suggested by ALA. See 

Commonwealth of Virginia v. EPA, 108 

F.3d 1397 (limiting role of EPA to 

reviewing SIP submissions for 

compliance with CAA requirements). As 

discussed in a prior response, and in the 

TSD, EPA recognizes that there may be 

ancillary health benefits in Allegheny 

County from the OWB regulations from 

reduced exposure to PM2.5 emissions. 

However, as discussed previously, states 

have primary responsibility for deciding 

how to attain and maintain the NAAQS, 

which EPA set to protect health with an 

adequate margin of safety. Under the 

CAA, the sole issue for EPA’s 

consideration in this rulemaking action 

is whether adding the OWB regulations 

from ACHD in the SIP would be 

consistent with CAA provisions. EPA 

has found the ACHD regulations are a 

PM control measure and approval is 

therefore consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA, including 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Concerns regarding population 

density, institutionalized air pollution 

impacts, cumulative adverse health 

impacts, property impacts, and 

increased usage of OWBs are not criteria 

for approving SIP submissions under 

the CAA. ACHD is able to consider on 

its own any additional restrictions on 

OWBs or other emission sources to 

benefit the health of residents of 

Allegheny County given ALA’s concerns 

for air pollution in the area. 

Finally, operation of OWBs is 

permissible generally within Allegheny 

County and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. ACHD’s regulations add 

restrictions on OWB operations and 

therefore reduce impacts from the OWB 

operation. Therefore, contrary to ALA’s 

comments, ACHD’s regulations should 

reduce air pollutant concentrations and 

not lead to elevated concentrations of 

air pollutants. Thus, EPA appreciates 

ALA’s comments and concerns but finds 

the submitted SIP provision approvable 

and in accordance with the CAA. 

IV. Correction 

During the course of this rulemaking 

action EPA became aware of three 

inadvertent errors involving Section 

2101.20 in the ‘‘EPA-Approved 

Allegheny County Health Department 

(ACHD) Regulations’’ at 40 CFR 

52.2020(c), table (2). The first error 

occurs at the second entry for Section 

2101.20. The title of the section should 

read ‘‘Definitions’’ not ‘‘Definitions 

related to gasoline volatility.’’ The 

second error occurs at the fourth entry 

for Section 2101.20. The EPA approval 

date should read ‘‘12/28/10, 75 FR 

81480’’ not ‘‘12/28/10, 75 FR 81555.’’ 

The third error occurs at the fifth entry 

for Section 2101.20. The EPA approval 

date should read ‘‘1/2/14, 79 FR 54’’ not 

‘‘1/2/14, 79 FR.’’ In this rulemaking 

action, EPA corrects these errors. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the Pennsylvania 

SIP revision consisting of: (1) The 

addition of Section 2104.09 (Outdoor 

Wood-Fired Boilers) to Article XXI, ‘‘Air 

Pollution Control Rules and 

Regulations’’; and (2) the addition of 

related new definitions to Section 

2101.20. EPA is also correcting minor 

typographical errors found in 40 CFR 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65905 

52.2020(c), table (2), related to Section 

2101.20 (Definitions). 

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, 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 5, 2015. 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, 

pertaining to the regulation of OWBs in 

Allegheny County, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 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 NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(c)(2) is amended by: 

■ a. Under Part A, revising the second, 

fourth, and fifth entries for ‘‘2101.20’’, 

and adding a new entry for ‘‘2120.20’’ 

and 

■ b. Under Part D, adding in numerical 

order an entry for ‘‘2104.09’’. 

The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

Article XX or 

XXI citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

§ 52.2063 citation 

Part A—General 

*******

2101.20 ........ Definitions ...................................... 5/15/98, 9/1/99 4/17/01, 66 FR 19724 ................... (c)(151); See Part I of the IBR 

document. 

*******

2101.20 ........ Definitions ...................................... 5/24/10 12/28/10, 75 FR 81480 ................. Addition of four new definitions: 

Exterior panels, interior panels, 

flat wood panel coating, and 

tileboard. See Part III of the IBR 

document. 

2101.20 ........ Definitions ...................................... 5/24/10 1/2/14, 79 FR 54 ........................... Addition of ‘‘PM2.5’’ definition. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
65906 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Article XX or 

XXI citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

§ 52.2063 citation 

2101.20 ........ Definitions ...................................... 6/8/13 11/6/14 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Added seven definitions related to 

Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers. 

*******

Part D—Pollutant Emission Standards 

*******

2104.09 ........ Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers ......... 6/8/13 11/6/14 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Added new regulation. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–26300 Filed 11–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74 

[GN Docket No. 12–268; FCC 14–143] 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Clarification. 

SUMMARY: This document clarifies how 

the Commission intends to preserve the 

‘‘coverage area’’ as well as the 

‘‘population served’’ of eligible 

broadcasters in the repacking process 

associated with the broadcast television 

spectrum incentive auction. This action 

is taken in order to remove any 

uncertainty regarding the repacking 

approach the Commission adopted in 

the Incentive Auction R&O. 

DATES: Effective November 6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aspasia Paroutsas, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, 202–418–7285, 

Aspasia.Paroutsas@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Declaratory Ruling, GN Docket No. 12– 

268, FCC 14–143, adopted September 

20, 2014 and released September 30, 

2014. The full text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

document also may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street 

SW., Room, CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People 

with Disabilities: To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Summary of Declaratory Ruling 

1. In this Declaratory Ruling, the 

Commission clarifies how it intends to 

preserve the ‘‘coverage area’’ as well as 

the ‘‘population served’’ of eligible 

broadcasters in the repacking process 

associated with the broadcast television 

spectrum incentive auction. The 

Commission takes this action in order to 

remove any uncertainty regarding the 

repacking approach it adopted in the 

Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR48442, 

August 15, 2014. The Commission 

addresses each of these factors 

independently and in a manner that 

fully comports with Congress’s mandate 

to make ‘‘all reasonable efforts’’ to 

‘‘preserve’’ both coverage area and 

population served as of the enactment 

date of the Spectrum Act. 

Background 

2. The Spectrum Act requires the 

Commission, in repacking the television 

bands to repurpose spectrum through 

the incentive auction, to ‘‘make all 

reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the 

date of the enactment of the Act 

[February 22, 2012], the coverage area 

and population served of each broadcast 

television licensee, as determined using 

the methodology described in OET 

Bulletin 69.’’ In the Incentive Auction 

R&O, the Commission interpreted 

‘‘coverage area,’’ consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘service area’’ in OET 

Bulletin 69 (OET–69) and 47 CFR 

73.622(e), as the area within a full 

power station’s noise-limited F(50,90) 

contour where the signal strength is 

predicted to exceed the noise-limited 

service level, and as the area within a 

Class A station’s protected contour. The 

Commission interpreted ‘‘population 

served,’’ consistent with OET–69 and 47 

CFR 73.616(e), to mean persons who 

reside within a station’s ‘‘coverage area’’ 

at locations where the signal is not 

subject to interference from other 

stations. 

3. Section 6403(b)(2) requires that the 

Commission determine each eligible 

station’s ‘‘coverage area’’ and 

‘‘population served’’ using ‘‘the 

methodology described in OET Bulletin 

69.’’ The OET–69 methodology has two 

major steps. First, ‘‘service area or 

coverage’’—the area within a station’s 

relevant contour where the signal 

strength is predicted to exceed a 

specified level—is determined using 2- 

kilometer spacing increments or ‘‘cells.’’ 

Second, interference from other stations 

is evaluated on a cell-by-cell basis 

within that area. The result of the 

interference analysis is data that 

indicate the population and area (in 

square kilometers) within the ‘‘coverage 

area’’ lost to interference from other 

stations. 

4. While OET–69 does not provide 

standards for preserving a television 

station’s coverage area or population 

served, the Commission’s rules provide 

that applications for new or modified 

digital television station facilities are 

acceptable if they are not predicted to 

cause interference ‘‘to more than an 

additional 0.5 percent of the population 

served . . . by another DTV station.’’ In 

other words, the rules protect from 

interference populated portions of a 

station’s coverage area that are not lost 

to existing interference from other 

stations. Consistent with this standard, 

the Commission adopted a 0.5 percent 

interference threshold in the Incentive 

Auction R&O. The Commission also 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES