32126 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1 GASP v. Browner, Civil Action No. 96–322,

Western District of Pennsylvania.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX NO. PA 108–4073; FRL–6107–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Source Specific Control

Measures and a Revised Episode Plan

for USX Clairton in the Liberty

Borough PM–10 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP) for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This revision establishes

and requires control measures at USX’s

Clairton Coke Works in Clairton,

Pennsylvania and enhances the

Allegheny County Health Department’s

(ACHD) episode plan by requiring the

USX to develop and maintain a sourcespecific episode plan subject to ACHD

approval.

DATES: This direct final rule will

become effective on August 11, 1998

without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comment on the notice

of proposed rulemaking by July 13,

1998. If adverse comment is received,

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the direct final rule in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Makeba Morris, Chief, Technical

Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; and the

Allegheny County Health Department,

Bureau of Environmental Quality,

Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denis M. Lohman, (215) 566–2192, or by

e-mail at

lohman.denny@epamail.epa.gov. While

requests for information may be made

via e-mail, comments for EPA

consideration regarding this proposal

must be submitted in writing to the

address indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 21, 1996, the Group

Against Smog and Pollution (GASP), a

citizen’s environmental group, filed suit

against EPA. This suit 1 pertained to

certain Clean Air Act (Act) mandated

planning activities for Allegheny

County, Pennsylvania’s Liberty Borough

PM–10 nonattainment area. This suit

was settled in a Settlement Agreement

signed by GASP, USX, ACHD, PADEP,

EPA, and the United States Department

of Justice. The Settlement Agreement

provided for, among other things, ACHD

and PADEP proposal of and EPA action

on revisions to the Allegheny County

portion of the Pennsylvania SIP

applicable to USX Clairton. The

Technical Support document (TSD)

prepared for this rulemaking includes a

detailed summary of the settlement

provisions. Copies of the TSD are

available, upon request, from the EPA

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

On October 30, 1997, PADEP

submitted ACHD-adopted measures to

EPA as revisions to the Allegheny

County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP.

The purpose of these revisions is to

incorporate into the SIP the control

measures required by USX by the

Settlement Agreement. These control

measures include a revised air quality

episode plan, the prohibition of coal

combustion (except during certain

emergencies), improved coal handling

procedures, the installation of a mist

eliminator on cooling tower, and ‘‘big

plug’’ doors on most coke ovens.

II. Contents of the State Submittal

The submittal is comprised of several

revisions to Allegheny County’s Article

XXI and administrative material.

Specifically, section 2104.02, 2105.21,

and 2106.05 were revised as follows:

A. Revisions to section 2104.02 of

Article XXI, limit USX Clairton’s Boiler

#1 to 0.02 pounds of particulate matter

per million British thermal units of

actual heat input, except for fuel

emergencies; require specific

improvements to coal handling at USX

Clairton’s #2 Secondary Pulverizer; and

require the operation of a mist

eliminator on USX Clairton’s Keystone

cooling tower.

B. Revisions to section 2105.21, Coke

Ovens and Coke Oven Gas, require the

installation of ‘‘big plug’’ coke oven

doors (i.e., doors with a minimum

thickness of refractory material) on most

coke oven batteries.

C. The adoption of section 2106.05,

USX Clairton Works PM–10 Self Audit

Emergency Episode Plan strengthens

ACHD’s air quality episode planning by

requiring USX Clairton to develop and

maintain a source-specific episode plan

subject to ACHD approval. Unlike

general episode plans required by 40

CFR 51 Subpart H, which are designed

to guide the state and local air pollution

control agencies in undertaking certain

actions to protect the public from acute

danger from ambient pollutant

concentrations greatly exceeding the

NAAQS, the County’s plan for USX is

designed to effect timely action by USX

in order to prevent exceedances of the

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS.

III. Analysis of State Submittal

As stated above, the purpose of the

October 1997 SIP revision submittal was

to fulfill certain requirements of the

Settlement Agreement and to strengthen

the PM–10 SIP for the Liberty Borough

area. The SIP revision imposes source

specific requirements on the USX

Clairton Coke Works including the

development of a source-specific air

quality episode plan, the prohibition of

coal combustion (except during certain

emergencies), improved coal handling

procedures, the installation of a mist

eliminator on its cooling tower, and ‘‘big

plug’’ doors on all coke ovens.

The rules were properly adopted by

Allegheny County and submitted to EPA

as a SIP revision by PADEP. The rule

revisions contained in the submittal

serve to strengthen the Liberty Borough

PM–10 nonattainment area plan in the

Allegheny County portion of the

Pennsylvania SIP. Furthermore, the

submittal fulfills the Allegheny

County’s and Pennsylvania’s obligations

under sections 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 of the

Settlement Agreement.

EPA has determined that the SIP

revision is approvable and fulfills

ACHD’s and PADEP’s obligations under

the Settlement Agreement to propose

and submit measures to reduce

particulate matter emissions in the

Liberty Borough area. This SIP revision

is being approved pursuant to section

110 of the Act.

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving the revisions to the

Allegheny County portion of the

Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP

on October 30, 1997 which impose

source-specific requirements on USX

Clairton Coke Works to reduce PM–10

emissions. EPA is approving this rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32127

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should EPA receive relevant comments

on the notice of proposed rulemaking.

This rule will become effective August

11, 1998 without further notice unless

the Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by July 13, 1998.

Should EPA receive such comments,

it will publish a notice informing the

public that this rule did not take effect.

All public comments received will then

be addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on the proposed rule. Parties interested

in commenting on this action should do

so at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will become effective on August 11,

1998 and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.

If adverse comments are received that

do not pertain to all paragraphs in this

rule, those paragraphs not affected by

the adverse comments will be finalized

in the manner described here. Only

those paragraphs which receive adverse

comments will be withdrawn in the

manner described here.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Executive Order 13045

The final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

E.O. 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

does not create any new requirements

but simply approve requirements that

the State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding today’s action under section

801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability because it is applicable to

only one entity, the USX Clairton Coke

Works.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 August 11, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule,

approving control measures at USX

Clairton does not affect the finality of

this rule 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, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart 2020 of

chapter I, title 40 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(133) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(133) Revisions to the Pennsylvania

State Implementation Plan consisting of

Source-Specific Control Measures and a

Revised Episode Plan for USX Clairton

in the Liberty Borough PM–10

Nonattainment Area, submitted on

October 30, 1997 by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection:

(I) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of October 30, 1997 from

the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection transmitting a

SIP revision for source specific control

measures for USX Clairton located in

the Liberty Borough PM–10

nonattainment area of Allegheny

County.

(B) Revisions to Allegheny County’s

Article XXI applicable to USX’s Clairton
32128 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth

in section 187(a) of the CAA and differ depending

on whether the area’s design value is below or

above 12.7 ppm. The Anchorage area has a design

value above 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR 81.302.

2See generally memorandum from Sally L.

Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies and

Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air Office

Directors, entitled ‘‘Criteria for Granting Attainment

Date Extensions, Making Attainment

Determinations, and Determinations of Failure to

Attain the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment

Areas,’’ October 23, 1995 (Shaver memorandum).

3See memorandum from William G. Laxton,

Director Technical Support Division, entitled

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value

Calculations,’’ June 18, 1990. See also Shaver

memorandum.

Coke Works, effective August 15, 1997,

specifically:

(1) Revisions to section 2104.02.

limiting particulate matter emission

from Boiler #1, requiring specific

improvements to coal handling at

Secondary Pulverizer #2, and requiring

the operation of a mist eliminator at the

Keystone cooling tower.

(2) Revisions to section 2105.21

requiring the installation of ‘‘big plug’’

doors on most coke ovens by January 1,

2000.

(3) The adoption of section 2106.05

requiring a source-specific ‘‘self audit

emergency action plan.’’

(ii) Additional Material—Remainder

of the October 30, 1997 State submittal.

[FR Doc. 98–15585 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[AK 19–1707; FRL–6108–6]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Anchorage, Alaska Nonattainment

Area; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document EPA is

making a final finding that the

Anchorage, Alaska, carbon monoxide

(CO) nonattainment area has not

attained the CO national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) under the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAA). The CO nonattainment occurred

after Anchorage received a one year

extension to December 31, 1996 from

the mandated attainment date of

December 31, 1995 for moderate

nonattainment areas. This finding is

based on EPA’s review of monitored air

quality data for compliance with the CO

NAAQS. As a result of this finding, the

Anchorage CO nonattainment area is

reclassified as a serious CO

nonattainment area by operation of law.

As a result of the reclassification, the

State is to submit within 18 months

from the effective date of this action a

new State Implementation Plan (SIP)

demonstrating attainment of the CO

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable

but no later than December 31, 2000, the

CAA attainment date for serious areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Montel Livingston, Office of Air

Quality, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Seattle,

Washington, 98006, telephone (206)

553–0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions

Concerning Designation and

Classifications

The CAA Amendments were enacted

on November 15, 1990. Under section

107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each CO area

designated nonattainment prior to

enactment of the 1990 Amendments,

such as the Anchorage nonattainment

area, was designated nonattainment by

operation of law upon enactment of the

1990 Amendments. Under section

186(a) of the CAA, each CO area

designated nonattainment under section

107(d) was also classified by operation

of law as either ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘serious’’

depending on the severity of the area’s

air quality problem. CO areas with

design values between 9.1 and 16.4

parts per million (ppm), such as the

Anchorage nonattainment area, were

classified as moderate. These

nonattainment designations and

classifications were codified in 40 CFR

part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991).

States containing areas that were

classified as moderate nonattainment by

operation of law under section 107(d)

were required to submit SIPs designed

to attain the CO NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than December 31, 1995.1

B. Effect of Reclassification

CO nonattainment areas reclassified

as serious are required to submit, within

18 months of the area’s reclassification,

SIP revisions providing for attainment

of the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December

31, 2000. In addition, the State must

submit a SIP revision that includes: (1)

a forecast of vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) for each year before the

attainment year and provisions for

annual updates of these forecasts; (2)

adopted contingency measures; and (3)

adopted transportation control measures

and strategies to offset any growth in CO

emissions from growth in VMT or

number of vehicle trips. See CAA

sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),

187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1).

Finally, upon the effective date of this

reclassification, contingency measures

in the moderate area plan for the

Anchorage nonattainment area must be

implemented.

The reclassification to serious does

not mean that CO pollution levels in

Anchorage are getting worse. In

Anchorage, CO levels have dropped by

more than 50% since the early 1980’s.

Reclassification to serious allows

additional planning time to develop

control strategies to meet the CO

NAAQS because Anchorage failed to

attain the CO standard by the end of its

extension date, December 31, 1996.

C. Attainment Determinations for CO

Nonattainment Areas

EPA makes attainment determinations

for CO nonattainment areas based upon

whether an area has two years (or eight

consecutive quarters) of clean air quality

data.2 Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA

states that the attainment determination

must be based upon an area’s ‘‘air

quality as of the attainment date.’’

EPA determines a CO nonattainment

area’s air quality status in accordance

with 40 CFR 50.8 and EPA policy. 3 EPA

has promulgated two NAAQS for CO: an

8-hour average concentration and a 1-

hour average concentration. Because

there were no violations of the 1-hour

standard in the Anchorage

nonattainment area, this document

addresses only the air quality status of

the Anchorage nonattainment area with

respect to the 8-hour standard. The 8-

hour CO NAAQS requires that not more

than one non-overlapping 8-hour

average in any consecutive two-year

period per monitoring site can exceed

9.0 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded

down to 9.0 and they are not considered

exceedances). The second exceedance of

the 8-hour CO NAAQS at a given

monitoring site within the same twoyear period constitutes a violation of the

CO NAAQS.

D. Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain

On December 2, 1997 (62 FR 63687),

EPA proposed to find that the

Anchorage CO nonattainment area had

failed to attain the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1996, the CO attainment

extension date. Anchorage did not have

two consecutive years of CO data

without violations of the CO NAAQS.

This proposed finding was based on air

quality data showing three violations of