Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28333

TABLE 161.60(d)—VTS PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND REPORTING POINTS—Continued

Designator Geographic name Geographic description Latitude/longitude Notes

2A ................. Naked Island ................................. Naked Island ................................. 60°40′00′′N; 147°01′24′′ W ........... Northbound

Only.

2B ................. Naked Island ................................. Naked Island ................................. 60°40′00′′N; 147°05′00′′ W ........... Southbound

Only.

3A ................. Bligh Reef ...................................... Bligh Reef Light (Pilot Embark) ..... 60°50′36′′N; 146°57′30′′ W ........... Northbound

Only.

3B ................. Bligh Reef ...................................... Bligh Reef Light (Pilot Disembark) 60°51′00′′N; 147°01′24′′ W ........... Southbound

Only.

4A ................. Rocky Point ................................... Rocky Point ................................... 60°57′48′′N; 146°47′30′′ W ........... Northbound

Only.

4B ................. Rocky Point ................................... Rocky Point ................................... 60°57′48′′N; 146°50′00′′ W ........... Southbound

Only.

5 ................... Entrance Island ............................. Entrance Island Light .................... 61°05′24′′N; 146°37′30′′W..

PART 162—INLAND WATERWAYS

NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

13. The authority citation for part 162

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 49 CFR 1.46.

§ 162.117 [Amended]

14. In 162.117, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) Anchoring Rules

(1) A vessel must not anchor:

(i) within the waters between Brush

Point and the waterworks intake crib off

Big Point southward of the Point Aux

Pins range; or

(i) within 0.2 nautical miles of the

intake crib off Big Point.

(2) In an emergency, vessels may

anchor in a dredged channel. Vessels

shall anchor as near to the edge of the

channel as possible and shall get

underway as soon as the emergency

ceases, unless otherwise directed.

Vessel Traffic Services St. Marys River

must be advised of any emergency

anchoring as soon as is practicable.

(3) Vessels collected in any part of the

VTS Area by reason of temporary

closure of a channel or an impediment

to navigation shall get underway and

depart in the order in which they

arrived, unless otherwise directed by

Vessel Traffic Service St. Marys River.

Vessel Traffic Service St. Marys River

may advance any vessel in the order of

departure to expedite the movement of

mails, passengers, cargo of a perishable

nature, to facilitate passage of vessels

through any channel by reason of

special circumstance, or to facilitate

passage through the St. Marys Falls

Canal.

* * * * *

15. In § 162.117(g), Table 162.117(g),

add the heading ‘‘Table 162.117(g)—St.

Marys River Speed Rules’’; and in

paragraph (g)(2), add the words

‘‘Commanding Officer’’ before ‘‘Vessel

Traffic Service St. Marys River.’’

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

16. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

§ 165.809 [Removed]

17. Section 165.809 is removed.

§ 165.810 [Amended]

18. In § 165.810 redesignate

paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) as paragraphs

(b), (c) and (d) respectively; and add

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

(a) Purpose and Applicability. This

section prescribes rules for all vessels

operating in the Mississippi River below

Baton Rouge, LA, including South and

Southwest Passes, to assist in the

prevention of collisions and groundings

and to protect the navigable waters of

the Mississippi River from

environmental harm resulting from

those incidents.

* * * * *

§ 165.811 [Amended]

19. In § 165.811, in paragraph (e),

amend the table heading by adding

‘‘Table 165.812(e)—’’ before the words

‘‘Minimum Available Horsepower

Requirement’’; and in paragraph

(f)(4)(ii), remove the word

‘‘horizontally’’ and add, in its place, the

word ‘‘vertically.’’

§ 165.1704 [Amended]

20. In § 165.1704 remove paragraph

(c)(4) and redesignate paragraphs (c)(5),

(c)(6) and (c)(7) as paragraphs (c)(4),

(c)(5) and (c)(6), respectively.

Dated: May, 16, 1995.

G.A. Penington,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Office

of Navigation Safety and Waterways Services.

[FR Doc. 95–13268 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. 136, PR3–2–6731,

FRL–5209–5]

Approval and Promulgation of PM10

Implementation Plan for the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the

purpose of attaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).

The SIP addresses sources impacting the

Municipality of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico

which has been designated

nonattainment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective June 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal

are available at the following addresses

for inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Library, 290 Broadway,

16th Floor, New York, New York,

10007–1866.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, Caribbean Field Office, Centro

Europa Building, Suite 417, 1492 Ponce

De Leon Avenue, Stop 22, Santurce,

Puerto Rico, 00909.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Environmental Quality Board, Banco

National Plaza, 8th Floor, 431 Ponce De

Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico,

00917.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information
28334 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Center (MC 6102), 401 M. Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, 290 Broadway, 20th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

18666 (212) 637–4249.

or

Carl Soderberg, Director, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II,

Caribbean Field Office, Centro Europa

Building, Suite 417, 1492 Ponce De

Leon Avenue, Stop 22, Santurce,

Puerto Rico, 00909, (809) 729–6951.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (the Act), requires all areas that

have measured a violation of the

NAAQS for PM10 before January 1, 1989

be designated nonattainment. On

November 15, 1990 by operation of law

the Municipality of Guaynabo, Puerto

Rico was designated nonattainment for

PM10 and classified as moderate based

on violations measured in 1987 in the

Municipality. [see 56 FR 11101 (March

15, 1991)]. The Act requires state or

territorial governments to revise their

SIP for all areas that are designated as

nonattainment to ensure that the

NAAQS will be attained. Under the Act,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is

regarded as a state. The reader should

refer to the ‘‘General Preamble’’ [see

generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)

and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)] for

a more detailed discussion of the

designation of PM10 nonattainment

areas.

II. Today’s Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA’s review of

SIP submittals. (See 57 FR 13565–

13566.) In this action, EPA is approving

the Puerto Rico PM10 implementation

plan revision submitted to EPA on

November 14, 1993. This submittal was

intended to satisfy those moderate PM10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

due November 15, 1991 and the

moderate PM10 nonattainment area New

Source Review requirements due June

30, 1992. EPA proposed to approve the

submittal on August 11, 1994, 57 FR

41265. The reader is referred to the

proposal for a detailed explanation of

Puerto Rico’s PM10 SIP and EPA’s

evaluation. In response to the Federal

Register notice and a Public Meeting

held by EPA Region II on September 11,

1994 in the Municipality of Catan ̃ o,

comments were received from ten

interested parties. EPA’s response to

these comments are discussed in IV.

Public Comment.

III. Analysis of Puerto Rico’s SIP

Submission

A. Administrative Requirements

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

held a public hearing on October 15,

1993 to accept public comments on the

implementation plan for the

Municipality of Guaynabo PM10

nonattainment area. Following the

public hearing the plan was adopted by

Puerto Rico and was submitted to EPA

as a revision to the SIP on November 14,

1994. The submittal was supplemented

with administrative documents on

March 18, 1994 and March 30, 1994.

The SIP submittal included revisions to

the Puerto Rico Regulations for the

Control of Atmospheric Pollution which

include the following: Part I; Rule 102,

‘‘Definitions,’’ Part II; Rule 201,

‘‘Location Approval,’’ Rule 202, ‘‘Air

Quality Impact Analysis,’’ Rule 203,

‘‘Permit to Construct a Source,’’ and Part

IV; Rule 401, ‘‘Generic Prohibitions,’’

Rule 402, ‘‘Open Burning,’’ Rule 403,

‘‘Visible Emissions,’’ Rule 404,

‘‘Fugitive Dust,’’ and Rule 423,

‘‘Limitations for the Guaynabo PM10

Nonattainment Area,’’ which became

effective on April 2, 1994. The entire

SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to

determine completeness in accordance

with the completeness criteria set out at

40 CFR 51, and found to be

administratively complete.

B. Emissions Inventory

Puerto Rico submitted an emissions

inventory for base year 1990. EPA is

approving the emissions inventory

because it is accurate and

comprehensive, and provides a

sufficient basis for determining the

adequacy of the attainment

demonstration for this area consistent

with the requirements of sections

172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act.

C. New Source Review (NSR) PM10

Permit Program

The statutory permit requirements for

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are

contained in section 173 and section

189 of the Act. For all moderate PM10

nonattainment areas, states must adopt

the appropriate major source threshold,

offset ratio, significance level for

modifications, and provisions for PM10

precursors. Puerto Rico’s PM10

implementation plan submittal

addressed all NSR Act requirements,

therefore, EPA is approving the PM10

NSR permit program SIP revision.

D. Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) including Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit provisions to

assure that RACM (including RACT)

would have been implemented no later

than December 10, 1993 or four years

after designation in the case of an area

classified as moderate nonattainment

after November 15, 1990. [see sections

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)]. The

Municipality of Guaynabo was

designated and classified as moderate

nonattainment for PM10 on November

15, 1990 by operation of law, therefore,

the Puerto Rico PM10 implementation

plan needed to assure that RACT/RACM

would have been implemented no later

than December 10, 1993. The SIP

contains enforceable commitments by

the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality

Board (EQB) to achieve various RACM

requirements through regulations as

well as through Memoranda of

Understanding (MOU). These were

effective upon adoption. The EQB has

signed MOU’s with various entities

which include details of how the

various RACM requirements would be

implemented.

EPA has reviewed Puerto Rico’s SIP

documentation and concluded that its

choice of control measures has provided

for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by

December 31, 1994. By this notice, EPA

is determining that the control strategies

are consistent with the RACM and

RACT requirements contained in the

Act.

E. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the

Act, all PM10 nonattainment area SIP’s

must include contingency measures (see

generally 57 FR 13543–44). These

measures were required to be submitted

by November 15, 1993 for the moderate

PM10 nonattainment areas. [see 57 FR

13543 (April 16, 1992)]. Contingency

measures should consist of other

available measures, not already part of

the area’s control strategy, that take

effect without further action by the

Commonwealth or EPA upon a

determination by EPA that the area has

failed to make Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP) or attain the PM10

NAAQS by the applicable statutory

deadline. The Municipality of Guaynabo

PM10 nonattainment area SIP contains

contingency measures which are

included in Rule 423(D).

After review of the contingency

measures contained in the SIP, EPA has

determined they meet the requirements

of the Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28335

F. Demonstration of Attainment

Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit a

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) showing that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994 [see sections

188(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act).

EQB performed an attainment

demonstration using the Industrial

Source Complex (ISC2) dispersion

model and five years of National

Weather Service meteorological data.

EPA recommends that implementation

plans show maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for at least three years beyond

the attainment date. Puerto Rico’s

demonstration, included in their PM10

implementation plan, indicates the

NAAQS for PM10 were attained by

December 31, 1994 in the Municipality

of Guaynabo. In addition, Puerto Rico

went beyond EPA’s recommendation of

demonstrating maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for three years and

demonstrated they would be maintained

at least until 1999. EPA is approving the

attainment demonstration.

G. Quantitative Milestones and RFP

The moderate PM10 nonattainment

area plan revisions demonstrating

attainment must contain quantitative

milestones which are to be achieved

every three years until the area is

redesignated attainment and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward attainment by December

31, 1994 (see section 189(c)(1) of the

Act). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as

such annual incremental reductions in

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as

are required by Part D or may

reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

The assurance that milestones and

RFP will be achieved is based upon the

Commonwealth adopting and

implementing the particular control

measures contained in the PM10 SIP,

RACM (including RACT).

H. Enforceability

The SIP must include enforceable

emission limitations and other control

measures, means or techniques

necessary or appropriate to meet the

requirements of the Act. [see section

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act]. Nonattainment

plan provisions must also include

enforceable emission limitations and

other control measures, means or

techniques necessary or appropriate to

provide for attainment of the NAAQS by

the applicable attainment date. [see

section 172(b)(6)]. The SIP must also

contain a program which provides for

enforcement of the control measures

and other elements in the SIP and the

regulation of the modification and

construction of any stationary source

within the areas covered by the plan as

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are

achieved, including a permit program

required under Part C or D of Title I of

the Act. [see, section 110(a)(2)(C)]. All

measures and other elements in the SIP

must be enforceable by the

Commonwealth and EPA [see sections

172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR

13556]. Moderate PM10 nonattainment

area plan provisions must also contain

a program which provides for

enforcement of the control measures

and other elements in the SIP [see

section 110(a)(2)(C)].

The SIP requires that all affected

stationary sources must be in full

compliance with the applicable RACT

requirements by December 10, 1993.

However, if a physical alteration of the

stationary source is necessary to achieve

compliance, the SIP requires that

construction of the alteration must have

been commenced by February 15, 1994,

and must have been completed by

November 30, 1994. EQB has prepared

a compliance schedule for those sources

that still need to make alterations.

Compliance with these RACT

requirements must be demonstrated

using the applicable EPA Reference Test

Methods. Puerto Rico has an

enforcement program that will ensure

that these RACT requirements are

adequately enforced. There are civil

penalties for noncompliance with the

Regulation containing these RACT

requirements.

In addition to the RACT requirements

for stationary sources, the SIP contains

enforceable commitments by EQB to

achieve various RACM requirements. To

implement these measures, EQB has

signed an MOU with the Puerto Rico

Department of Transportation, the

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority,

the Municipality of Guaynabo, and the

Port Authority that contain details on

how each of these entities will meet

these RACM commitments. The

commitments to implement the RACM

requirements are in the SIP itself, and

thus are enforceable as requirements of

the SIP. In addition, the MOU’s, having

gone through public review and

comment, will be incorporated into the

SIP by reference, and are effective as of

the date each was signed. The

attainment demonstration, which shows

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by

December 31, 1994, uses emissions

reductions from the identified RACM

measures, and thus EPA expects them to

be implemented pursuant to the MOU’s.

Once incorporated into the approved

SIP, the requirements of the MOU may

not be changed except by a revision to

the SIP that has been submitted to and

approved by EPA.

Puerto Rico’s revisions to the

regulations include a new definition for

‘‘PM10’’ in Rule 102. Although test

methods are not contained in Puerto

Rico’s definition of ‘‘PM10’’ as they are

in 40 CFR 51.100 (qq), EPA is approving

Puerto Rico’s definition of ‘‘PM10,’’

since the relevant test methods are

found in other provisions of the

regulations.

I. PM10 Precursors

The Act states that ‘‘control

requirements applicable to major

stationary sources of PM10 must also

apply to major stationary sources of

PM10 precursors except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM10 levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area.’’ Based on filter

analyses of the Guaynabo nonattainment

area, the relatively minor contribution

of precursors to overall nonattainment,

and the effectiveness of the

Commonwealth’s RACT/RACM

strategies, EPA agrees with EQB’s

determination that no controls of PM10

precursors beyond what are already

controlled in the Puerto Rico SIP are

needed for attainment. Nonetheless,

Puerto Rico has chosen to include

within the NSR provisions a

requirement for control of PM10

precursors unless EPA and EQB

determine otherwise.

IV. Public Comment

EPA proposed to approve the Puerto

Rico PM10 implementation plan on

August 11, 1994, 57 FR 41265.

Comments were received from ten

interested parties. Comments were also

received during the Public Meeting held

by EPA Region II on September 11, 1994

in the Municipality of Catan ̃ o. EPA

evaluated all the comments with respect

to EPA’s proposed approval. Due to the

large number of comments, EPA

prepared a separate ‘‘Responsiveness

Document’’ which summarizes each

comment and includes EPA’s evaluation

and detailed response. This document is

available from EPA upon request. In this

Federal Register notice EPA has

summarized major comments and

responses.

The following summaries of

comments and responses is divided into

several major areas; the designation of

the nonattainment area, the SIP

attainment demonstration, and RACT

determinations.
28336 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Designation of Nonattainment

Comment: Puerto Rico’s plan is based

on air quality data which is incomplete

and insufficient for determining that the

Municipality of Guaynabo was not in

attainment of the air quality standards.

Air quality now meets the NAAQS.

Response: The Commonwealth

presented no information which

invalidates the air quality data

previously collected which indicated

nonattainment. Section 107(d)(4)(B) of

the Act mandated the designation of

areas as nonattainment for PM10 by

operation of law:

‘‘(B) PM10 Designations.—By operation of

law, * * * (ii) any area containing a site for

which air quality monitoring data show a

violation of the national ambient air quality

standard for PM10 before January 1, 1989 (as

determined under part 50, appendix K of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is

hereby designated nonattainment for PM10;’’

This section of the Act confines the EPA

to review air quality data prior to

January 1, 1989, not after January 1,

1989, in designating an area for PM10.

The designation of the Municipality of

Guaynabo as nonattainment for PM10

was based on the PM10 concentration of

285 μg/m3, recorded at the Electrical

Substation #24 on August 1, 1987. There

was no evidence presented by the

Commonwealth that showed this

reading to be invalid. Further, air

quality data available to the

Administrator indicated that there were

violations of the annual standard in

1987 and 1988. EPA does not find any

evidence to conclude that the

nonattainment designation was made in

error.

If indeed the area is attaining the

PM10 NAAQS in the Municipality of

Guaynabo as a result of permanent

reductions in emission, the

Commonwealth can request a

redesignation to attainment. Section 107

(d)(3) of the Act specifies the procedures

and requirements for changing an area’s

designation. The redesignation of an

area from nonattainment to attainment

is an entirely separate procedure from

today’s SIP approval action. However,

one requirement of a redesignation is

that the Commonwealth has an

approved PM10 attainment SIP. A

redesignation request, which may be

submitted at any time, would be

processed expeditiously by EPA as a

separate rulemaking.

Comment: The location of EQB’s PM10

air quality monitors are not

representative of the air in the

remainder of the nonattainment area

and in the surrounding areas of

Guaynabo. Monitors should be located

in the center and southern end of the

Municipality of Guaynabo and in the

Municipality of Catan ̃ o.

Response: EPA believes the current

PM10 monitoring network in Puerto Rico

is representative of the highest PM10

concentrations in the entire

nonattainment area. This design is

consistent with the monitoring

objectives and methodologies described

in Part 58 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Appendix D. They are sited

immediately downwind of major point

and area sources in locations where a

long record of total suspended

particulate monitors had measured the

highest levels in Puerto Rico. Thus they

meet the monitor-siting objective of

measuring air quality in the area where

the highest concentrations of a pollutant

can be expected to occur.

Locations in southern Catan ̃ o and

Guaynabo do not have the same

potential to measure high

concentrations due to the lack of major

sources of particulate matter, as

demonstrated by the emission inventory

of the Municipality of Guaynabo.

Consequently, their absence should not

make the Commonwealth’s plan any

less approvable.

Attainment Demonstration

Comments: The dispersion model

used in the attainment demonstration is

not conservative. Wrong meteorological

data being used. The Puerto Rico

Electrical Power Authority (PREPA)

Palo Seco plant should have been

included in the Plan.

Response: The dispersion model is

conservative because it predicts higher

concentrations than observed for almost

the entire set of observed data. The

graph in the Commonwealth’s PM10

plan comparing concentrations

predicted by the model with the

observed data may not demonstrate this

fact because the plotted predicted

concentrations lack the background

contribution from outside the modeled

area of (approximately 31 ug/m3). When

the concentrations predicted by the

model are correctly included, however,

the predicted concentrations are higher

than the observed concentrations. Thus,

EPA concludes that the model generally

over predicts PM10 concentrations and

is conservative. This is further

supported by recent air quality

measurements which show annual

concentrations significantly well below

concentrations predicted by the model,

even after control measures have been

enacted.

The San Juan Airport site is

representative of the industrialized area

of Guaynabo since it is also located on

the north coast of Puerto Rico and

subject to the same land-sea effects on

the wind. The terrain in the Puerto

Nuevo area where the largest emitting

sources are located is mainly flat like

the area near the Airport. Comparison

between the San Juan Airport data and

data collected at a meteorological tower

in the Municipality of Guaynabo

confirm that they are subject to the same

meteorological patterns.

In reference to the PREPA Palo Seco

issue, the attainment demonstration did

consider the impact of the Palo Seco

Power Plant’s PM10 emissions on the

Catan ̄ o—Guaynabo area. The

atmospheric dispersion model used in

the attainment demonstration showed

that the greatest impact of the power

plant’s emissions remained over water.

The plants contribution to the Guaynabo

nonattainment area (only about three

and one half percent of the time) is less

than the deminimis impact levels

contained in EPA regulations. Since the

power plant is located outside of the

Guaynabo nonattainment area, EPA’s

guidance to the states is that RACT

strategies need only be applied to those

sources which have a significant impact

on the nonattainment area. Thus RACT

at the Palo Seco Power Plant would

have no real benefit to attainment of

PM10 standards in the Guaynabo.

However, all power plants in Puerto

Rico are subject to the same 20 percent

opacity limit that is required of the

power plant in Puerto Nuevo.

RACT Determinations for Electrical

Utilities

Comment: A mass emissions limit

should be adopted by Puerto Rico. The

1.5 percent sulfur-in-fuel limit is not

cost effective nor stringent enough to

show attainment. EQB has no

independent way of verifying sulfur-infuel limits.

Response: There is no requirement

that a mass emission limit be used

exclusively in state clean air plans. EPA

can approve a SIP revision as long as it

contains emission limits which are

enforceable and which provide for

attainment of the standards. The Act

states ‘‘each implementation plan

submitted by a State * * * shall include

enforceable emission limitations and

other control measures, means, or

techniques * * * as well as schedules

and timetables for compliance, as may

be necessary or appropriate to meet the

applicable requirements of this Act,

section 110(a)(2)(A).’’

The Puerto Rico SIP relies on a sulfurin-fuel limit and a 20% opacity

limitation, both of which are

enforceable. Further, the Agency has

collected emission data from a variety of

fuel oil burning power plants from

which the particulates can be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28337

calculated. These factors are contained

in the Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors (AP–42), Supplement

F, emissions factor equation. These

emissions were factored into the Puerto

Rico plan and attainment with health

related ambient air quality standards

was demonstrated.

EQB included in their SIP submittal

an Economic Feasibility Analysis of

Alternative Emission Control Strategies

in the Guaynabo Municipality. This

document presented an analysis of the

cost of reducing emissions in Guaynabo

and the cost effectiveness of alternative

control strategies.

EPA reviewed the document and

determined the costs of low sulfur

residual oil were accurate to determine

the cost effectiveness of controls

applicable to PREPA. The analysis

showed that 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 percent

sulfur oils cost about the same for each

ton of sulfur reduced, however,

according to the Economic Feasibility

Analysis provided with the SIP, it will

cost more than $6.6 million per year to

reduce the sulfur content from 1.5 to 1.0

percent at the PREPA San Juan plant.

EQB has informed EPA that it has the

necessary equipment to analyze fuel

samples. Compliance of the sulfur-infuel limit will be verified by a variety

of methods. In accordance with the

January 31, 1994 Memorandum Of

Understanding (MOU), PREPA and its

fuel supplier will send sampling data to

EQB. When the fuel supplier delivers

the fuel, it will send its analysis of the

fuel content to EQB. EQB can compare

the supplier’s analysis against reports

from the facility.

In summary, the two procedures set

forth in the PM10 SIP, the sulfur-in-fuel

limit that correlates to a 0.08 #/MMBtu

mass emission rate, and the 20%

opacity restriction are easily measured,

readily enforceable, and when

combined with the other control

measures adopted by the

Commonwealth, can demonstrate

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. The

Agency therefore has determined that

the limits provided can and should be

approved.

RACT Determinations for Grain

Handling Facilities

Comment: Puerto Rico’s ban on the

use of clamshell unloading of ships is

not supportable as RACT. The 99.9%

filtration efficiency required of grain

mills is not technically achievable.

Response: The General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest emission

limitation that a particular source is

capable of meeting by the application of

control technology that is reasonably

available considering technological and

economic feasibility.’’ Congress

specified that nonattainment area plans

were to ‘‘require * * * reasonable

further progress * * * including such

reduction in emissions from existing

sources in the area as may be obtained

through the adoption, at a minimum, of

RACT.’’

Through modeling, EQB’s contractor

demonstrated that emissions from the

grain mills contributed in a large way to

the violations of the PM10 air quality

standard predicted by the model. Taking

this into consideration, EQB determined

that stringent RACT measures were

needed at these facilities to show

attainment.

EPA guidance identifies that

Industrial process fugitive particulate

emissions are produced during all

phases of grain handling and processing

including: unloading, receiving,

handling, drying, cleaning, milling, and

land-out. EPA’s Control Techniques for

Particulate Emissions from Stationary

Sources recommends that for grain

handling and storage ‘‘the most common

control strategy is to enclose and hood

the processing equipment or area with

ventilation to cyclones and filters.’’

Thus, the emission reductions that can

be obtained from this strategy depend

upon both process modifications to

optimize the capture efficiency of the

ventilation system and the installation

of control devices.

EQB determined that for a very dusty

process such as Clamshell loading and

unloading, RACT for this process would

be the prohibition of Clamshell loading

and unloading and the utilization of

telescopic loading spouts in a fully

enclosed area with a ventilation system.

This control strategy is considered both

technologically and economically

feasible. EPA has verified this in

discussions with grain facilities in the

United States who are currently using

the telescopic loading spouts.

EPA has not been able to conclude

that a ban on loading/unloading using

clamshells is not an acceptable RACT

determination. Telescoping loading

spouts are used in the industry to load

and unload grain or grain products.

However, EPA would object to a RACT

determination that is less stringent than

could be technologically and

economically justified. Should the

Commonwealth decide in the future to

propose an alternative to a ban on the

use of clamshells, the SIP could be

revised accordingly.

The SIP requires the installation of

control equipment with a 99.5%

efficiency. Upon review EPA has

concluded that this is achievable even

in warm climates. In other parts of the

country, (PM10 attainment and

nonattainment areas), 99.9% is

routinely required. One commenter

argued that conditions at grain handling

facilities in Puerto Rico would prevent

99.5% efficiency from being achieved.

EPA has reviewed permits issued to

grain mills in warm climates and

determined that the 99.5% limit

proposed in the SIP is achievable on a

continuous basis providing there is

proper operation and maintenance of

the control systems.

Environmental Justice Concerns

Comment: Several commenters raised

environmental justice concerns in their

comments.

Response: EPA recognizes that air

pollution sources in the SIP area raise

environmental justice issues, and EPA

has taken steps to address these

concerns in the SIP process. In

particular, EPA has had meetings and

contacts with affected communities and

organizations, and intends to continue

these contacts as air programs are

implemented and enforced. In addition,

EPA and other agencies such as the

Centers for Disease Control have been

assessing environmental health factors

in these communities. EPA will

continue to review progress in

implementing the SIP and other

environmental programs with respect to

Executive Order 12898 and the EPA

Environmental Justice Strategy.

V. Summary

In this action, EPA is approving the

SIP revision submitted to EPA on

November 14, 1993 and supplemented

on March 18, 1994 and March 30, 1994

by Puerto Rico for the Municipality of

Guaynabo PM10 nonattainment area.

Specifically, EPA is approving the

emissions inventory, the control strategy

including RACM and RACT, the

demonstration that the Municipality of

Guaynabo PM10 nonattainment area will

attain the PM10 NAAQS by December

31, 1994 and maintain the PM10 NAAQS

through 1999, the NSR permit

provisions and the contingency

measures. EPA determined that PM10

precursor controls are not needed for

attainment. EPA is approving the

revisions to the Puerto Rico Regulations

for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution

which include the following: Part I;

Rule 102, ‘‘Definitions,’’ Part II; Rule

201, ‘‘Location Approval,’’ Rule 202,

‘‘Air Quality Impact Analysis,’’ Rule

203, ‘‘Permit to Construct a Source,’’

and Part IV; Rule 401, ‘‘Generic

Prohibitions,’’ Rule 402, ‘‘Open

Burning,’’ Rule 403, ‘‘Visible

Emissions,’’ Rule 404, ‘‘Fugitive Dust,’’
28338 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

and Rule 423, ‘‘Limitations for the

Guaynabo PM10 Nonattainment Area.’’

EPA is approving this PM10 SIP

submittal in relation to its satisfying all

Act requirements.

Previously, the Governor of Puerto

Rico was notified on December 16, 1991

by the EPA Regional Administrator that

Puerto Rico had not submitted the PM10

SIP requirements due on November 15,

1991. This action formally started both

an 18-month Sanction clock and a 24-

month Federal Implementation Plan

(FIP) clock. In a January 15, 1993 letter,

the Governor was notified that another

18-month Sanction clock and 24-month

FIP clock, for the failure to submit a

permit program for the NSR

requirements by June 30, 1992, had

begun. Since the November 14, 1993

submittal was found to be complete, the

findings made on December 16, 1991

and January 15, 1993 of non-submittal

have been corrected and no sanctions

will be imposed. With the approval of

this SIP revision, all Clean Air Act

requirements have been met and it is no

longer necessary for EPA to adopt a FIP

to address the PM10 deficiencies.

This notice is issued as required by

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as

amended. The Administrator’s decision

regarding the approval of this plan

revision is based on its meeting the

requirements of Section 110 of the Clean

Air Act, and 40 CFR Part 51.

The Agency has reviewed this request

for revision of the federally-approved

SIP for conformance with the provisions

of the 1990 Amendments enacted on

November 15, 1990. The Agency has

determined that this action conforms

with those requirements irrespective of

the fact that the submittal preceded the

date of enactment.

Nothing in this rule 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 any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to the private sector, or

to state, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the state and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under sections

110(a)(2), 172(c), 173 and 189(a) of the

Clean Air Act. These rules may bind

state, local and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. To the extent that the rules being

approved by this action would impose

any mandate upon the state, local or

tribal governments either as the owner

or operator of a source or as a regulator,

or would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action would

impose no new requirements; such

sources are already subject to these

regulations under state law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. EPA has also determined that

this final action does not include a

mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs of $100 million or more to

state, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate or to the private sector.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

Under section 307(b)(l) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this rule

must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit

within 60 days from date of publication.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule 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 rule may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: May 14, 1995.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart BBB—Puerto Rico

2. Section 52.2720 is amended by

adding new paragraph (c)(35) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(35) A revision submitted on

November 14, 1993 by the Chairman of

the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality

Board (EQB) for the Municipality of

Guaynabo. The submittal was made to

satisfy those moderate PM10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

due for the Municipality of Guaynabo as

outlined in the Clean Air Act of 1990.

(i) Incorporation by reference:

(A) Regulations:

(1) Amendments to Part I, Rule 102,

‘‘Definitions,’’ of the Puerto Rico

Regulations for the Control of

Atmospheric Pollution, effective April

2, 1994.

(2) Amendments to Part II, Rule 201,

‘‘Location Approval,’’ Rule 202, ‘‘Air

Quality Impact Analysis,’’ and Rule 203,

‘‘Permit to Construct a Source,’’ of the

Puerto Rico Regulations for the Control

of Atmospheric Pollution, effective

April 2, 1994.

(3) Amendments to Part IV, Rule 401,

‘‘Generic Prohibitions,’’ Rule 402,

‘‘Open Burning,’’ Rule 403, ‘‘Visible

Emissions,’’ Rule 404, ‘‘Fugitive Dust,’’

and Rule 423, ‘‘Limitations for the

Guaynabo PM10 Nonattainment Area,’’

of the Puerto Rico Regulations for the

Control of Atmospheric Pollution,

effective April 2, 1994.

(B) Memoranda of Understanding

(MOU):

(1) MOU signed by the Chairman of

EQB and the Executive Director of

Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority,

San Juan plant, limiting the sulfur-infuel level, annual operation capacity,

and requiring the submittal of monthly

sampling reports of its fuel’s sulfur

content, effective January 31, 1994.

(2) MOU signed by the Chairman of

EQB and the Secretary of Puerto Rico

Department of Transportation and

Public Works and the Executive Director

of the Highway Authority to maintain

and control the reconstruction of

existing roads and the construction of

new roads, effective July 2, 1993.

(3) MOU signed by the Chairman of

EQB and the Mayor of the Municipality

of Guaynabo to pave and maintain the

streets, roads and parking areas located

in the Municipality of Guaynabo,

effective December 13, 1993.

(4) MOU signed by the Chairman of

EQB and the Executive Director of the

Puerto Rico Port Authority to pave and

maintain the streets, roads, and parking

areas that lead into the port area in

Puerto Nuevo, Guaynabo and San Juan,

effective October 14, 1993.

[FR Doc. 95–13181 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P