Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18385

Federalism

The Corporation has analyzed this

proposal under the principles and

criteria in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that this proposal does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 402

Vessels, Waterways.

Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence

Seaway Development Corporation

proposes to amend Part 402—Tariff of

Tolls (33 CFR Part 402) as follows:

PART 402—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 33 CFR

Part 402 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 68 Stat. 93, 33 U.S.C. 981–990.

2. Section 402.9 would be amended

by revising paragraph (a) and the first

sentence of paragraph (c) introductory

text to read as follows:

§ 402.9 Incentive tolls.

(a) Notwithstanding anything

contained in this Tariff, the portion of

the composite toll related to charges per

metric ton of cargo charged on new

business shall be reduced by fifty

percent for a Seaway transit beginning

and ending during the 1995 navigation

year.

* * * * *

(c) For the purposes of this section,

‘‘new business’’ means cargo that has

not moved through a Seaway lock

between an origin and a destination as

defined in this paragraph (c) during the

navigation seasons of 1992, 1993, and

1994 or cargo that has moved through a

Seaway lock in quantities representing

less than five percent of the average of

Seaway traffic between an origin and a

destination during the navigation

seasons of 1992, 1993, and 1994. * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 402.11 would be amended

by revising the first sentence of

paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) through

(d) to read as follows:

§ 402.11 Volume discount.

(a) A volume rebate shall be granted

to a shipper of downbound cargo or to

a receiver of upbound cargo at the end

of the 1995 navigation season after

payment of the full toll specified in the

schedule under the tariff in § 402.8 of

this part if shipments of a particular

commodity during 1995 exceed by a

minimum of 25,000 tons the shipper’s

or receiver’s highest tonnage for that

particular commodity during 1991,

1992, 1993, or 1994 in the Seaway.

* * *

(b) Volume rebates shall be granted

only with respect to commodities whose

shipper and receiver have shipped or

received the subject commodity in the

years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 and

have not been subject of a merger or

take-over during 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,

or 1995.

(c) The volume rebate shall be equal

to a 50 percent reduction of the portion

of the composite toll related to charges

per metric ton of cargo paid for the

shipments that surpass the shippers or

receiver’s highest tonnage for that

commodity during 1991, 1992, 1993, or

1994. Payment of rebates will be made

directly to the qualified receiver or

shipper.

(d) A description of the shipper’s or

receiver’s Seaway traffic history for

1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 by

port, vessel name, transit date,

commodity description, and tonnage

shall be submitted by the shipper or

receiver prior to the end of 1995 and

shall be subject to audit by the

Authority.

* * * * *

Issued at Washington, D.C. on April 4,

1995.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation.

Marc C. Owen,

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95–8808 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–61–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 20–1–6517, PA 31–1–6009, PA 39–1–

6518, AD–FRL–5187–6]

Proposed Approval and Promulgation

of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania: Approval of PM–10

Implementation Plan for the Liberty

Borough Area of Allegheny County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

three State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the

purpose of attaining and maintaining

the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for particulate

matter with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers (PM–10) in Allegheny

County. These implementation plans

were submitted by the State to: fulfill

the County’s Group III requirements;

strengthen the Allegheny County SIP;

and satisfy certain federal requirements

for an approvable nonattainment area

PM–10 SIP for the Liberty Borough area

of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

This action is being taken under section

110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air,

Radiation, and Toxics Division, 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, Radiation, and Toxics

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 Allegheny County Health

Department of Air Quality, 301 39th

Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan J. Cimorelli, (215) 597–6563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for PM–10 (52 FR 24634).

These standards replaced those

promulgated for total suspended

particulate (TSP) in 1971. On that day,

EPA also promulgated, in 40 CFR parts

51 and 52, policies and regulations by

which it would implement the PM–10

NAAQS.

Although there was a lack of

extensive PM–10 ambient monitoring

data at the time, EPA evaluated existing

particulate matter data and concluded

that there were some areas where the

PM–10 NAAQS were likely to be

violated, other areas where it could be

presumed that a state’s existing total

suspended particulate regulations were

adequate to provide for attainment, and

other areas in which the attainment

status was uncertain. Recognizing that it

would be unreasonable to require full

attainment demonstrations in all areas,

EPA classified areas of the country as

groups based on the probability that

each area would maintain the PM–10

standard. Group I areas had a greater

than 95 percent probability of

nonattainment, Group II areas had a 20–

95 percent probability of nonattainment

and Group III areas had a less than 20

percent probability of nonattainment.

Through this process, EPA identified all
18386 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Letter from Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air

Management Division, EPA Region III to Ronald J.

Chleboski, Deputy Director, Allegheny County

Health Department, Bureau of Air Pollution

Control.

2EPA has determined that sufficient evidence

does not exist to redesignate the Braddock area as

nonattainment for PM–10 at this time. No PM–10

exceedances have been monitored at Braddock

since the promulgation of the PM–10 NAAQS.

3Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2).

4This submittal pre-dates the 40 CFR part 51,

Appendix V requirement for a completeness

determination.

of Allegheny County as a Group II area

on August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383). On

January 20, 1988, EPA approved

Allegheny County’s request to limit the

Group II area to an area near Allegheny

County’s Braddock monitor.1

State planning requirements were

different for each Group classification.

All states were required to fulfill the

Group III requirements which included:

the adoption of NAAQS for PM–10; the

adoption of the definition for PM–10

emissions; the adoption of the reference

method for the measurement of PM–10

in ambient air; the inclusion of PM–10

values in the episode plan; and the

addition of PM–10 to the definitions of

major source or facility, major

modification, and significant air quality

impact. States containing Group II areas

were to submit committal SIPs that

pledged to gather ambient air quality

data and evaluate emissions inventories

and control strategies in these areas.

States containing Group I areas were

required to submit full SIP revisions,

including attainment demonstrations,

within nine months.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 affected PM–10 classifications and

requirements in a number of ways. The

Act, as amended, eliminates the

‘‘Group’’ classifications. Former Group I

areas, and Group II and Group III areas

that had monitored violations of the

PM–10 NAAQS before January 1, 1989,

were designated as moderate

nonattainment areas by operation of

law. The Liberty Borough monitor

recorded sixteen exceedances of the 24-

hour PM–10 standard in 1988. As a

result, the Liberty Borough area

(consisting of the City of Clairton and

the Boroughs of Liberty, Lincoln,

Glassport, and Port Vue) was designated

as a moderate nonattainment area.

States containing initial moderate

PM–10 nonattainment areas were

required to submit, among other things,

the following provisions by November

15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably

available control measures (RACM)

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology—RACT) shall be

implemented no later than December

10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including

air quality modeling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994 or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward attainment by December

31, 1994; and

4. Provisions to assure that the control

requirements applicable to major

stationary sources of PM–10 also apply

to major stationary sources of PM–10

precursors except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM–10 levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c),

188, and 189 of the Act.

Some provisions were due at a later

date. States with initial moderate PM–

10 nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM–10 by June 30, 1992 (see section

189(a)). These states were also to submit

contingency measures by November 15,

1993, which become effective without

further action by the State or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the

PM–10 NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline. See section 172(c)(9)

and 57 FR 13543–13544.

The amended Act eliminated the

requirement for states to seek approval

of ‘‘committal’’ SIP revisions for Group

II areas as prescribed in the July 1, 1987

Federal Register. The Group II areas are

being addressed using the authorities

established in section 107 of the Act

concerning the designation of areas as

attainment or nonattainment with

regard to the NAAQS.2

The Act did not affect the

requirements established for Group III

areas. The July 1, 1987 regulations

require states, among other things, to

seek approval of SIP revisions as

required under the preconstruction

review program and to codify other

regulatory changes as needed.

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate PM–10 nonattainment

areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of

Title I, Part D of the Act. EPA has issued

a ‘‘General Preamble’’ describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how EPA intends

to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the Act,

including those state submittals

containing moderate PM–10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)). Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of Title I advanced

in this notice.

Evaluation of State Submittal

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA’s review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–13566).

EPA is granting approval of the PM–10-

related plan revisions submitted to EPA

on November 14, 1988, January 12,

1993, and January 13, 1994 because they

meet all of the applicable requirements

of the Act. The following sections

provide an analysis of the State’s

submittals and a discussion of their

approvability. More detail is provided

in the technical support document

(TSD) to this rulemaking (memo from

Thomas A. Casey to the SIP Docket File

dated June 6, 1994).

Analysis of November 14, 1988 ‘‘Group

III’’ Submittal

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires states to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a state must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

state under the Act must be adopted by

such state after reasonable notice and

public hearing.4

Allegheny County held a public

hearing on April 21, 1988 to solicit

public comment on the implementation

plan for the Liberty Borough area.

Following the public hearing, the plan

was adopted by the County on August

11, 1988. The package was signed by the

Secretary of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Resources

(PADER) on November 8, 1988, and

submitted to EPA as a proposed revision

to the SIP. Provisions for a minorsource, abrasive blasting permit program

(Article XX § 533) and an asbestosrelated provision (Article XX § 1001.02),

originally included in that submittal,

were withdrawn on March 14, 1994.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18387

5The EPA issued guidance on PM–10 emissions

inventories prior to the enactment of the Clean Air

Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM–10

SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided

in this document appears to be consistent with the

Act and EPA’s guidelines.

2. Technical Evaluation

Allegheny County’s Group III SIP

submittal consists of: a definition of

PM–10 (Article XX § 101.90); ambient

air quality standards for PM–10 (Article

XX § 109); a definition of areas where

certain additional control measures are

required (Article XX § 527, superseded

by the 1993 submittal); a reference

ambient monitoring method for PM–10

(Article XX § 613); the inclusion of PM–

10 in air quality episode criteria (Article

XX § 704); and the revision of several

definitions (such as ‘‘significant impact’’

and ‘‘major modification’’) to include

PM–10 in new source review activities

(Article XX § 801). The submittal also

deletes Article XX Appendix 1, a listing

of the attainment, nonattainment, and

unclassifiable areas.

EPA has reviewed these provisions

and determined that they are sufficient

to satisfy all of the Group III

requirements.

Analysis of January 12, 1993 ‘‘SIP

Strengthening’’ Submittal

1. Procedural Background

Allegheny County held a public

hearing on August 27, 1992 to solicit

public comment on the implementation

plan for the Liberty Borough area.

Following the public hearing, the plan

was adopted by the County on October

8, 1992. The package was signed by the

Secretary for the PADER on December

31, 1992, and submitted to EPA as a

proposed revision to the SIP.

The SIP revision was reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness in

accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V (1991), as amended by 57

FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The

submittal was found to be complete, and

a letter dated April 8, 1993 was

forwarded to the State indicating the

completeness of the submittal and the

next steps to be taken in the review

process.

2. Technical Evaluation

This submittal strengthens the

County’s portion of the Pennsylvania

SIP with respect to the non-point source

RACM guidance issued by EPA as

Appendices C1, C2 and C3 of the

General Preamble (Article XX § 521,

523, and 524); expands the area in

which certain area-source provisions

apply; and adopts EPA test methods

201, 201A, and 202 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix M). (The submittal also

included new emission limits for

industrial combustion units (Article XX

§ 402) which were replaced in their

entirety by new provisions in the

‘‘Attainment SIP’’ submittal.) The

submittal also contains several non-PM–

10-related provisions that are the subject

of separate rulemakings.

The section 521, 523, and 524 rules

provide visible emission (VE) limits for

fugitive dust from wind erosion,

transport of materials, and land clearing,

respectively. Compliance is determined

by previously-approved procedures

(Article XX § 606).

This submittal also provides for new

enforceable emission limits, expands

the geographic scope of some existing

provisions, and establishes improved

test methods that strengthen the SIP. For

this reason, and because the rules were

adopted and submitted in a manner

consistent with 40 CFR part 51, EPA is

fully approving Allegheny County’s

‘‘SIP strengthening’’ submittal. A

discussion of the County’s RACM/RACT

analysis is provided in section II.C.3 of

this notice and in the TSD.

Analysis of ‘‘Attainment SIP’’ Submittal

1. Procedural Background

Allegheny County held a public

hearing on December 3, 1993 to solicit

public comment on the attainment plan

for the Liberty Borough area. Following

the public hearing, the plan was

adopted by the County on December 16,

1993. The package was signed by the

Secretary for PADER on January 6, 1994,

and submitted to EPA as a proposed

revision to the SIP.

The SIP submittal was reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness shortly

after its submittal, in accordance with

the completeness criteria set out at 40

CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26,

1991). The submittal was found to be

complete on January 10, 1994, and a

letter dated January 19, 1994 was

forwarded to the State indicating the

completeness of the submittal and the

next steps to be taken in the review

process.

The submittal contains sourcespecific limits for ten industrial boilers,

including some alternate limits (Article

XXI § 2104.6.a); new source-specific

limits for 21 other processes (Article

XXI § 2104.6.d et seq. and 2105.49); a

reduction of the leaking coke oven door

limit from 10% (plus two) to 8% (plus

two) on USX-Clairton Batteries #1, #2,

#3, #7, #8, #9, and #19 (Article XXI

§ 2105.21.b); a reduction in the coke

pushing limit from 0.02 to 0.01 grains

per dry standard cubic foot from USXClairton Batteries #1, #2, #3, #7, #8, #9,

and #19 (Article XXI § 2105.21.e); new

limits for material storage and handling

at the Glassport Transportation Center

(Article XXI § 2105.29.e); new

definitions related to coke oven gas

emissions (Article XXI § 2101.20); and

new test methods (Article XXI § 2107.1

and 2107.2).

Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires

that nonattainment plan provisions

include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of relevant pollutants in

the nonattainment area. Pursuant to

EPA regulations, the emissions

inventory should also include a

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of allowable emissions in the

area. Because the submission of such

inventories are necessary to an area’s

attainment demonstration (or

demonstration that the area cannot

practicably attain), the emissions

inventories must be received with the

submission (see 57 FR 13539).

Pennsylvania submitted an inventory

of actual emissions for base year 1992.

The base year inventory is dominated by

emissions from coke production

activities at the USX-Clairton Coke

Works, which accounts for 72% of the

inventory. Additional sources included

public roads (26%) and other industrial

sources (1%).

EPA is proposing to approve the

emissions inventory because it appears

to be generally 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 Clean

Air Act.5 For further details see section

2.3.2.1 of the Technical Support

Document (TSD).

2. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, the initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas must submit

provisions to assure that RACM

(including RACT) are implemented no

later than December 10, 1993 (see

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

General Preamble contains a detailed

discussion of EPA’s interpretation of the

RACM (including RACT) requirement

(see 57 FR 13539–13545 and 13560–

13561).

a. PM–10 RACT

USX-Clairton is the only point source

complex in the Liberty Borough

nonattainment area subject to the RACT

requirement. The large emission points
18388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

6 August 7, 1980 memorandum from Edward E.

Reich, Director, Stationary Source Enforcement

Division to the Regional air enforcement directors

entitled ‘‘Steel Technical Support Options and

Documents,’’ (with the attached table entitled

‘‘Particulate Emission Limitations Generally

Achievable on a Retrofit Basis’’).

and their emission limits are listed in

Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 1.—RACT FOR USX CLAIRTON WORKS COKE OVEN BATTERY EMISSIONS

[Allowable Emission Limits]

Source Batteries 1–3, 7–9 and 19 Batteries 13–15, 20 and ‘‘B’’

Charging ............................................................ VE (visible emissions) for 75 seconds during

any four consecutive charges.

VE for 55 seconds during any five consecutive charges.

Door Leaks ........................................................ VE from 8% of doors excluding the last two

charged.

VE from 5% of doors excluding the last two

charged.

Charging Ports ................................................... VE from 2% of charging ports or seals ........... VE from 1% of charging ports or seals.

Offtake Piping .................................................... VE from 5% of offtake pipe .............................. VE from 4% of offtake pipes.

Pushing .............................................................. 0.01 gdscf 20% opacity of VE from PEC outlet

or pushing fugitives.

At any time 0.04 lb/ton coke. At any time,

20% opacity of VE from PEC outlet or

pushing fugitives.

Combustion Stacks ............................................ 0.030 grains per dscf ....................................... 0.015 grains per dscf.

TABLE 2.—RACT FOR USX CLAIRTON

WORKS OTHER EMISSIONS

[Allowable Emission Limits]

Source Post-revision

Traveling Hot Car ...... 10% opacity in open

atmosphere.

Quench Towers ......... Water quality ≥

Monongahela River

(750 mg/liter total

dissolved solids);

baffles.

Cooling Towers ......... Water quality ≥

Monongahela.

Boilers ....................... 387 TPY.

Pulverizers ................ 11.86 grain PM–10

per ton.

Continuous Unloaders No VE.

Storage Piles ............. VE 20% opacity for 3

min/60 min.

Private Industrial

Roads.

VE 20% opacity for 3

min/60 min.

On May 19, 1994, Allegheny County

provided EPA with documentation

substantiating its claim that the revised

SIP would provide for RACT (Letter

from Cari J. Weaver, Section Head of

Planning, Division of Air Quality to

Marcia L. Spink, Chief, Air & Radiation

Programs Branch, EPA Region III). The

County compared its emission limits to

those found in the appropriate

guidance 6 and found their emission

limits to be at least as restrictive as

those in the 1980 Steel RACT document

or those in neighboring jurisdictions.

The County also found its emission

limits to be generally equivalent to the

most restrictive applicable limits found

in Procedures for Identifying

Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Stationary Sources of

PM–10 (EPA–452/R–93–001). In some

cases, the County’s emission limits may

be more restrictive than RACT because

further reductions were required to

demonstrate attainment. The

demonstration that Allegheny County’s

emission limits are comparable to the

most stringent state or local limits in the

nation obviates the County’s need to

also undertake a review of the technical,

economic, and environmental

considerations that are generally

involved in RACT analyses.

b. Other RACM

As noted above, EPA issued non-point

source RACM guidance in Appendices

C1, C2, and C3 to the General Preamble.

Appendix C1 lists fifteen available

fugitive dust control measures. In its

‘‘RACM’’ submittal, Allegheny County

satisfactorily described that sections 521

through 526 of Article XX include the

applicable available control measures

(57 FR 18070). Sections 521 and 522

regulate visible emissions from

roadways, haul roads, parking lots, and

source premises, generally; § 523

prohibits visible emissions from the

transport of solids or liquids; and

§§ 524, 525, and 526 regulate visible

emissions from construction, mining,

and demolition, respectively.

Appendices C2 and C3 provide

guidance on the requirements for RACM

for residential wood combustion (RWC)

and prescribed burning. RWC is not a

significant source of PM–10 in the

Liberty Borough nonattainment area

(comprising less than one-half of one

percent of the emissions inventory);

therefore the County determined,

pursuant to EPA’s guidance that to

require control of this de minimis

source would be unreasonable and not

constitute RACM. Prescribed burning on

a large scale is not a common practice

in Allegheny County and such burning

that does occur is adequately regulated

by Article XX § 516.

The total of all the control measures

contained in this submittal result in a

reduction in federally-allowable

emissions of 5700 tons per year of PM–

10 and a reduction in actual emissions

of at least 600 tons per year in the

nonattainment area and environs from

1992 levels. A more detailed discussion

of the individual source contributions

and their associated control measures

can be found in the TSD. EPA has

reviewed the State’s submittal and

concluded that it provides for RACM

(including RACT). The implementation

of Allegheny County’s PM–10 control

strategy will promote attainment of the

PM–10 NAAQS as of December 31,

1994. By this action EPA is approving

the control strategy as RACM, including

RACT.

3. Demonstration

As noted, the initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas must submit a

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) showing that the plan will

provide for attainment of the PM–10

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,

but no later than December 31, 1994

(See section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act).

Alternatively, the State must show that

attainment by December 31, 1994 is

impracticable. The 24-hour PM–10

NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter

(μg/m3), and the standard is attained

when the expected number of days per

calendar year with a 24-hour average

concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal

to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6).

The annual PM–10 NAAQS is 50 μg/m3,

and the standard is attained when the

expected annual arithmetic mean

concentration is less than or equal to 50

μg/m3 (id.).

Allegheny County produced an

attainment demonstration for the

Liberty Borough area using dispersion

modeling. The demonstration indicated

that the NAAQS for PM–10 would be

attained by December 31, 1994 in the

Liberty Borough area and maintained in

future years. Allegheny County’s

analysis shows that, even if all sources
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18389

emit at their newly adopted maximum

allowable emission rates, the 24-hour

PM–10 concentration will not exceed

150 μg/m3 more than once per year.

Similarly, the demonstration shows

that, in the attainment year, the annual

PM–10 concentration will not exceed

the annual PM–10 NAAQS of 50 μg/m3.

The analysis was performed in a manner

that is consistent with the Guideline on

Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51,

appendix W). The control strategy used

to achieve these design concentrations

is summarized in the section titled

‘‘RACM (including RACT)’’. For a more

detailed description of the attainment

demonstration and the control strategy

used, see the Technical Support

Document.

4. PM–10 Precursors

The control requirements that are

applicable to major stationary sources of

PM–10 also apply to major stationary

sources of PM–10 precursors, unless

EPA determines such sources do not

contribute significantly to PM–10 levels

in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see

section 189(e) of the Act). The PM–10

precursors explicitly identified in the

Act are sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen

oxides (NOX), and volatile organic

compounds (VOC).

An analysis of air quality and

emissions data for the Liberty Borough

nonattainment area indicates that while

exceedances of the NAAQS are chiefly

attributable to direct particulate matter

emissions from industrial sources

within the nonattainment area, locallyformed, secondary PM–10 makes a

significant contribution. According to

the County’s analyses, emissions of

sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coke ovens,

coke oven battery underfiring, and

industrial boilers can contribute up to

45 μg/m3 in sulfates to the total 24-hour

PM–10 concentrations (though the

contribution is usually substantially

less). Similarly, the County found that

organic carbon could contribute up to

28 μg/m3, but this contribution is most

likely dominated by condensed VOC,

which are controlled as PM–10 as

described in the RACM/RACT section of

this notice. Nitrate loading was rarely in

excess of 5 μg/m3. Consequently, EPA

finds, pursuant to section 189(e) of the

Act, that SO2 emissions do contribute

significantly to PM–10 exceedances in

the Liberty Borough nonattainment area,

while VOC and NOX emissions do not.

Therefore, under sec. 189(e) the

requirement to control SO2 emissions

applies to the area, while the

requirement for VOC and NOX controls

do not apply. This finding does not

affect any other control technology

requirements of the Act. It should be

noted that while EPA is making a

general finding for this area, today’s

finding is based on the current character

of the area including, for example, the

existing mix of sources in the area. It is

possible, therefore, that future growth

could change the significance of

precursors in the area.

Pursuant to section 189(e) Allegheny

County’s current SIP provides for the

control SO2 emissions. In a May 19,

1994 letter, Allegheny County found

that its SO2 limits for battery

combustion (40 grains per 100 dry

standard cubic foot of COG) and boilers

(lb SO2/MMBTU=1.7E¥0.14, where E is

the actual heat input in MMBTU/hr)

were more stringent than those of

neighboring jurisdictions. For more

detail, see the TSD.

5. Quantitative Milestones and

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM–10 nonattainment area plan

revisions demonstrating attainment

must contain quantitative milestones

which are to be achieved every 3 years

until the area is redesignated attainment

and which demonstrate RFP toward

attainment by December 31, 1994 (see

section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable

further progress 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 as may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

In evaluating whether the requirement

to implement RFP for this initial

moderate area has been met, EPA has

reviewed the attainment demonstration

and control strategy for the area in order

to determine whether annual

incremental reductions in addition to

those provided in the SIP should be

required in order to ensure attainment

of the PM–10 NAAQS by December 31,

1994 (see section 171(1)). All of

Allegheny County’s new PM–10

requirements affecting the

nonattainment area became effective

during 1994, and the County’s air

quality analysis demonstrates that these

controls would be sufficient to cause

attainment of the NAAQS by December

31, 1994. Therefore, no additional

incremental reductions are needed and

quantitative milestones demonstrating

RFP by 1994, as required by the Act, are

being met in the area. The County’s

rules satisfy the requirements for

quantitative milestones and RFP.

6. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). The EPA

criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a

September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541).

Nonattainment area plan provisions

must also contain a program that

provides for enforcement of the control

measures and other elements in the SIP

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

The particular control measures

contained in the SIP are addressed

above under the section headed ‘‘RACM

(including RACT).’’ These control

measures apply to the types of activities

identified in that discussion, including

coke production, fuel combustion, and

material handling and processing. Some

of the provisions are County-wide, some

apply only in the nonattainment area,

and others are source-specific. The

geographic applicability and

compliance date of each provision are

clearly stated. In addition, this SIP

revision incorporates several federal test

methods into the Allegheny County SIP.

EPA believes that these procedures,

along with previously-approved test

methods, serve as acceptable methods

for determining compliance with the

rules provided in this SIP revision.

The TSD contains further information

on enforceability requirements

including: enforceable emission

limitations; a description of the rules

contained in the SIP and the source

types subject to them; test methods and

compliance schedules, as appropriate;

malfunction provisions; excess emission

provisions; averaging times for

compliance test methods; correctly cited

references of incorporated methods/

rules; and reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Allegheny County has adopted a

program that will ensure that the

measures contained in the SIP are

adequately enforced. The effective date

of each new or revised rule is provided

for in each provision. The existing test

methods and recordkeeping

requirements, along with those included

in this SIP revision, are sufficient to

determine compliance with each

emission limit.

7. Contingency Measures

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

Act, all moderate nonattainment area

SIPs that demonstrate attainment must

include contingency measures. See

generally 57 FR 13543–13544.

These measures must be submitted by

November 15, 1993 for the initial

moderate nonattainment areas.

Contingency measures should consist of

other available measures that are not
18390 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

7 January 18, 1994 letter from Stanley L.

Laskowski, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA

Region III to Governor Robert P. Casey.

8EPA has determined that this submittal

conforms with the requirements of the Act,

irrespective of the fact that the submittal preceded

the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.

part of the area’s control strategy. The

SIP must provide that these measures

take effect without further action by the

State or EPA, upon a determination by

EPA that the area has failed to make

RFP or attain the PM–10 NAAQS by the

applicable statutory deadline.

Allegheny County’s SIP submittal

does not contain contingency measures.

On January 18, 1994, EPA formally

found that the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania had not submitted

contingency measures to EPA for the

Liberty Borough area as required by the

Act.7 This finding started the eighteenmonth and 24-month sanctions clocks

pursuant to section 179(a) of the Act.

Also, section 110(c) requires that EPA

promulgate a federal implementation

plan (FIP) no later than two years after

making a finding under section 179(a).

Today’s rulemaking has no effect on the

January 18 finding or the associated

sanctions and FIP clocks. The sanction

clock will continue to run until EPA

receives a complete SIP submittal of the

contingency measures, and the FIP

clock will continue to run until EPA

approves those contingency measures.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the PM–

10-related revisions to the Allegheny

County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP

submitted to EPA on November 14,

1988,8 January 12, 1993, and January 13,

1994.

Federally-approved state

implementation plan must be in

conformance with the provisions of the

1990 amendments enacted on November

15, 1990. The Agency has determined

that Pennsylvania’s November 14, 1988

submittal conforms with those

requirements irrespective of the fact that

the submittal preceded the date of

enactment.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

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

do 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 Act, 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,

3427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)).

This action to propose approval of the

PM–10 SIP for Allegheny County,

Pennsylvania has been classified as a

Table 2 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by an October 4,

1993 memorandum from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The OMB has

exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 review.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the SIP revision

will be based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2) (A)–

(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 95–8883 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Chapter II

[RSI–95–1]

Regulatory Review

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meetings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad

Administration invites all individuals

affected by the rail safety regulatory

program to discuss the agency’s

regulations and enforcement policies

during two open forums to be convened

in April. In addition, FRA invites

written comment on ways to improve

the safety regulatory program to make it

more flexible, performance-oriented and

cost-effective.

DATES: Public meetings will be held in

Chicago, IL on April 20, 1995 and in

Newark, N.J. on April 25, 1995. Written

comments must be submitted to the

FRA by May 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The

Chicago, IL meeting will be held in the

Tower’s West room of the

Knickerbocker Hotel, 163 E. Walton

Place, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The

Newark, NJ meeting will be held in the

Crystal Room of the Robert Treat Hotel,

50 Park Place, (about 5 minutes from

Pennsylvania Station) from 10:00 a.m. to

2:00 p.m.

Written Comments: Written

comments should identify the docket

number and the notice number and

must be submitted in triplicate to the

Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel,

Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street, S.W., Room 8201, Washington,

D.C. 20590–0001. Persons desiring to be

notified that their written comments

have been received by FRA should

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard with their comments. The

Docket Clerk will indicate on the

postcard the date on which the

comments were received and will return

the card to the addressee. Written

comments will be available for

examination, both before and after the

closing date for comments, during

regular business hours in Room 8201 of

the Nassif Building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

English, Office of Safety Enforcement,

Federal Railroad Administration, 400

7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590, 202–366–9252, or Lisa Levine,

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal