[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51988-52001]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20848]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681; FRL-10000-28-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The revision is an attainment plan for the purpose of
providing for attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Beaver
County, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the ``Beaver Area'' or ``Area''). The attainment plan
includes the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the
reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available
control measure (RACM) requirements, a reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment,
enforceable emission limitations and control measures, contingency
measures for the Beaver Area, and Pennsylvania's new source review
(NSR) permitting program. As part of approving the attainment plan, EPA
is approving into the Pennsylvania SIP new SO2 emission
limits and associated compliance parameters for the FirstEnergy
Generation, LLC (FirstEnergy) Bruce Mansfield Power Station (Bruce
Mansfield) and a consent order with Jewel Acquisition Midland steel
plant (Jewel Facility). EPA is approving these revisions that
demonstrate attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the Beaver Area
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Goold can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of
75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also
provided for revocation of the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour
standards, subject to certain conditions.\1\ Following promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas
throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS;
this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the
CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality
designations for 29 areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR
47191), which became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating
air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there
were sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's June 22, 2010, final action provided for revocation of
the 1971 primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard
of 30 ppb because they were determined not to add additional public
health protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR
35520. However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was
retained. Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only
revoked for certain of those areas the EPA has already designated
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \2\ EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2,
2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the
rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific
deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
13-cv-03953-SI (N.D. Cal. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Beaver Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source Bruce Mansfield
and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 42-007-
0005). The final designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania
to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would
attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA section
192(a).
    For a number of areas, including the Beaver Area, EPA published a
document on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania
and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required
SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding
sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of September
29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017 to
Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of
the sanctions clock, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be
imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania's having missed the SIP
submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March
18, 2016 finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the
finding unless, by that time, the state has made the necessary complete
submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable
requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply as a result of this
action to finalize this SIP approval.
    Attainment plans for SO2 must meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA, and specifically, CAA sections 110, 172, 191,
and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are
listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA, and in EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. On April 23, 2014, EPA
issued guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance)
recommending how state submissions could address the statutory
requirements for SO2 attainment plans.\3\ In this guidance,
EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which
include: An accurate base year emissions inventory, of current
emissions, for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment
area (172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that includes a modeling
analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other
control measures taken by the state will provide for expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2));
implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); Nonattainment NSR
requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the
affected area (172(c)(9)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania
attainment plan for the Beaver Area includes: (1) An emissions
inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2)
an attainment demonstration. The formal SIP revision was submitted by
Pennsylvania on September 29, 2017. The attainment demonstration
includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify
sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy for the
primary SO2 source within the nonattainment area constitutes
RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control
strategy for the primary SO2 source (Bruce Mansfield),
showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018
attainment date; requirements for RFP toward attaining the
SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures; the assertion
that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program meets the
applicable requirements for SO2; and the request that
emission limitations and compliance parameters for Bruce Mansfield be
incorporated into the SIP. On October 5, 2018 (83 FR 50314), EPA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of the attainment
plan for the Beaver Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Comments on
EPA's proposed rulemaking were due on or before November 5, 2018.
    Other specific requirements of the Beaver Area attainment plan and
the

rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will
not be restated here. This final action incorporates the rationale
provided in the NPRM, except to the extent necessary to reflect any
changes in the rationale in response to the public comments. Multiple
comments on the NPRM were received from one entity. Several of the
comments had various points and are addressed point by point by EPA. To
review the full set of comments received, refer to the Docket for this
rulemaking, as identified above. A summary of the comments received and
EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1. The commenter asserts that considering FirstEnergy's
announcement that the Bruce Mansfield Plant will retire in 2021, the
proper path forward is for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) to incorporate that retirement into the SIP and set
emission limits for the plant of zero.
    Response 1. EPA disagrees with the commenter that PADEP needs to
revise their SIP submission to incorporate the retirement of Bruce
Mansfield. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania correctly submitted a
complete attainment plan SIP on September 29, 2017, and EPA is
finalizing approval of that submittal with this action. The Beaver Area
Attainment Plan includes modeling using the Bruce Mansfield critical
emissions values (CEVs) and operational restrictions for other
SO2 sources in the area that demonstrates attainment of the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. PADEP developed comparably stringent 30-
day emissions limits for Bruce Mansfield based on the modeled CEVs. The
attainment plan meets the requirements of CAA Section 172(c) as
submitted, and there is no need to amend the plan to incorporate the
planned shutdown of Bruce Mansfield. In addition to the planned
shutdown which the commenter mentioned, EPA is aware that Units 1 and 2
of the Bruce Mansfield Plant have been listed on PJM's (Pennsylvania
New Jersey Maryland Interconnection LLC) deactivation list as of
February 5, 2019 (which was after the public comment period for this
action); nevertheless, EPA continues to assert that even though Bruce
Mansfield Units 1 and 2 are already deactivated, the SIP does not need
to be amended. The permits for these units have not been retired, and,
thus, the units are still permitted to emit SO2 to the
allowable emission limit. The emission limits and operational
restrictions being incorporated into the SIP in this action are still
in effect, and still provide for attainment of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, as the attainment modeling demonstrated.
    Comment 2. The commenter claims that EPA has failed to issue a FIP
or impose sanctions against the state for not having a Federally
enforceable SIP that demonstrates how the Beaver Area will reach
attainment by the statutorily required compliance deadline of October
4, 2018. The commenter asserts that it is unclear how the SIP can meet
this now passed compliance deadline when the limits proposed in the
Pennsylvania submission are not presently Federally enforceable.
    Response 2. EPA disagrees with the commenter that sanctions should
have been applied in this case because, as discussed in the NPRM, the
sanctions clock was turned off when EPA determined a complete SIP was
submitted as stipulated in CAA 179(a). See also 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5),
which provides that a sanctions clock started by a finding of failure
to submit a required SIP will be permanently stopped upon a final
finding that the deficiency forming the basis of the finding of failure
to submit has been corrected, and that in such a case a letter from EPA
to the State would be how EPA issues a finding that the deficiency has
been corrected.
    EPA agrees with the commenter that the approval of this SIP did not
occur before the October 4, 2018 deadline for NAAQS attainment.
However, EPA disagrees that the proposed emission limits at Bruce
Mansfield and operational restrictions at the Jewel Facility in the
SIP, which have been in effect and enforceable at the state level since
October 1, 2018, and September 21, 2017, respectively, have not brought
the SO2 concentrations in the area under the 75-ppb standard
by the applicable deadline. Supporting evidence of timely attainment is
available from the most recent SO2 concentrations at the
Brighton Township monitor (AQS 42-007-0005) in the nonattainment area
being well below the 75-ppb standard. Specifically, the 99th percentile
of the 1-hour maximum SO2 concentrations at the (previously
violating) Brighton Township monitor was 18 ppb in 2018, and the most
recent design value (3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations using 2016-2018 data) was 22 ppb.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Brighton Township monitor was the highest violating
monitor in Beaver County in 2011 when the area was designated
nonattainment. The 2009-2011 Design Value (3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations) was
158 ppb, and the 2008-2010 design value was 167 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees with the apparent view of the commenter that
because EPA did not approve, and thereby make Federally enforceable,
the Commonwealth's emission limits before the October 4, 2018
attainment deadline, Pennsylvania's plan itself is somehow no longer
approvable and EPA cannot thereafter approve the emissions limits and
make them Federally enforceable. Such a view cannot be correct, as
adopting it would preclude EPA from ever being able to approve a SIP
that has fully adequate emissions limits that reduce emissions
concentrations to attaining levels merely due to EPA's timing of
action, rather than based on the technical merits of the SIP, and force
EPA to possibly adopt in a FIP the exact same emissions limits but on
an even more belated schedule. Such a result is not compelled by the
CAA, and would offend the value of cooperative federalism reflected in
the Act. In addition, EPA believes its obligation is to evaluate the
state's plan, and to evaluate whether the state has established timely
obligations for pertinent sources, without regard to the timing by
which the state enforceable obligations become Federally enforceable.
    In any case, EPA has proposed approval, and with this action,
finalizes approval of the Beaver, PA attainment plan, which makes
Federally enforceable the 30-day average SO2 limits at Bruce
Mansfield and operational restrictions at the Jewel Facility. The 30-
day average SO2 limits for Bruce Mansfield were developed
using procedures recommended in EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance and are a comparably stringent substitute for a 1-hour
limit at the modeled CEV. The CEV for Bruce Mansfield and the
operational restrictions for the Jewel Facility were modeled as
resulting in attainment of the NAAQS, Bruce Mansfield is complying with
the comparably stringent 30-day limits, Jewel is complying with the
operational restrictions, and the limits have been enforceable
Pennsylvania since October 1, 2018 for Bruce Mansfield, and since
September 21, 2017 for the Jewel Facility.
    In regard to EPA's failure to issue a FIP, EPA believes that the
most expeditious way to bring this area into attainment and maintain
attainment is to approve the submitted SIP with the limits and
restrictions adopted by the Commonwealth, making those limits and
restrictions Federally enforceable. Also, any FIP for this area would
likely mirror what Pennsylvania has proposed in the SIP, so approval of
the SIP is likely just as effective and a more efficient way to ensure
that the limits

and other elements of the SIP become Federally enforceable. Thus, it is
reasonable to conclude that the most expeditious approach to having a
Federally enforceable plan to bring the area into attainment and keep
it in attainment is to approve this SIP, and not issue a FIP.
    Comment 3. The commenter asserts that the 30-day average emission
limits in the Proposal for Bruce Mansfield are fundamentally incapable
of protecting a 1-hour standard. The commenter provided two references
to EPA documents where EPA states that averaging periods for emissions
limits should be consistent with the NAAQS averaging time periods.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA Region 7 Comments re: Sunflower Holcomb Station
Expansion Project 4 (August 12, 2010); EPA Region 5 comments re:
Monroe Power Plant Construction Permit 1 (February 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 3. EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the
proposed 30-day limit is fundamentally incapable of protecting the 1-
hour NAAQS. EPA believes as a general matter that properly set, longer
term average limits are comparably effective in providing for
attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard as 1-hour limits.
EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance sets forth in
detail the reasoning supporting its view that the distribution of
emissions that can be expected in compliance with a properly set longer
term average limit is likely to yield comparable overall air quality
than constant hourly emissions set at a level that provides for
attainment. See 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, including
Appendix B. This reasoning is also expressed in detail in the NPRM for
this action.
    At the outset, EPA notes that the specific examples of earlier EPA
statements cited by the commenter (i.e., those contained in Exhibits 1
and 2 to Appendix A of the comment submission) pre-date the release of
EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. As such, these
examples only reflect the Agency's development of its policy for
implementing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as of the dates of the
issuance of the statements. At the time these statements were issued,
EPA had not yet addressed the specific question of whether it might be
possible to devise an emission limit with an averaging period longer
than 1-hour, with appropriate adjustments that would make it comparably
stringent to an emission limit shown to attain 1-hour emission levels,
that could adequately ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.
None of the pre-2014 EPA documents cited by the commenter address this
question; consequently, it is not reasonable to read any of them as
rejecting that possibility.
    In contrast, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance
specifically addressed this issue as it pertains to requirements for
SIPs for SO2 nonattainment areas under the 2010 NAAQS,
especially with regard to the use of appropriately set comparably
stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days. EPA
found that a longer term average limit which is comparably stringent to
a short-term average limit is likely to yield comparable air quality;
and that the net effect of allowing emissions variability over time but
requiring a lower average emission level is that the resulting worst-
case air quality is likely to be comparable to the worst-case air
quality resulting from the corresponding higher constant short-term
average emission limit. See 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.
    Any accounting of whether a 30-day average limit provides for
attainment must consider factors reducing the likelihood of 1-hour
average concentrations that exceed the NAAQS level as well as factors
creating a risk of additional concentrations that exceed the NAAQS
level. To facilitate this analysis, EPA used the concept of a CEV for
the SO2-emitting facilities which are being addressed in a
nonattainment SIP. The CEV is the continuous 1-hour emission rate which
is expected to result in the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile
daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations being at or below 75 ppb,
which in a typical year means that fewer than four days have maximum
hourly ambient SO2 concentrations exceeding 75 ppb. See 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, Appendix B.
    EPA recognizes that a 30-day limit can allow occasions in which
emissions exceed the CEV, and such occasions yield the possibility of
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS level that would not be expected if
emissions were always at the CEV. At the same time, the establishment
of the 30-day average limit at a level below the CEV means that
emissions must routinely be lower than they would be required to be
with a 1-hour emission limit set at the CEV. On those critical modeled
days in which emissions at the CEV are expected to result in
concentrations exceeding 75 ppb, emissions set to comply with a 30-day
average level which is below the CEV may well result in concentrations
below 75 ppb. Requiring emissions on average to be below the CEV
introduces significant chances that emissions will be below the CEV on
critical days, so that such a requirement creates significant chances
that air quality would be better than 75 ppb on days that, with
emissions at the CEV, concentrations would have exceeded 75 ppb.
    The NPRM for this area provides an illustrative example of the
effect that application of a limit with an averaging time longer than 1
hour can have on air quality. This example illustrates both (1) the
possibility of elevated emissions (emissions above the CEV) causing
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS level not expected with emissions at
or below the CEV and (2) the possibility that the requirement for
routinely lower emissions would result in avoiding concentrations
exceeding 75 ppb that would be expected with emissions at the CEV. In
this example, moving from a 1-hour limit to a 30-day average limit
results in one day that exceeds 75 ppb that would otherwise be below 75
ppb, one day that is below 75 ppb that would otherwise be above 75 ppb,
and one day that is below 75 ppb that would otherwise be at 75 ppb. In
net, the 99th percentile of the 30-day average limit scenario is lower
than that of the 1-hour limit scenario, with a design value of 67.5 ppb
rather than 75 ppb. Stated more generally, this example illustrates
several points: (1) The variations in emissions that are accounted for
with a longer term average limit can yield higher concentrations on
some days and lower concentrations on other days, as determined by the
factors influencing dispersion on each day, (2) one must account for
both possibilities, and (3) accounting for both effects can yield the
conclusion that a properly set longer term average limit can provide as
good or better air quality than allowing constant emissions at a higher
level. The commenter has not disputed this rationale that longer term
limits can suitably provide for attainment, and thus EPA continues to
assert that appropriately set 30-day emission limits can be protective
of the 1-hour SO2 standard.
    Comment 3a. The commenter states that the Bruce Mansfield 30-day
average emission limits are 720 times the standard, and they would do
nothing to change Bruce Mansfield's current behavior. The commenter
provided data from the last four years of publicly available emissions
data for the facility and notes that the proposed 30-day average
emission limits for Units 1 and 2 combined, and for Unit 3,
respectively, are far higher than actual historical emissions. The
commenter also provided hourly emissions data from Bruce Mansfield
Units 1 and 2 combined from June 1, 2013 to May 30,

2017 \6\ and states that during this time period, there are 101 hours
in which emissions from Units 1 and 2 exceed the hourly limit. The
commenter further asserts that using their 30-day average analysis,
Bruce Mansfield would have been in ``compliance'' with the proposed 30-
day emission limits during this time period. In the commenter's view,
given that exceedances of the NAAQS can occur if as few as four hours
over the course of a year are above the 75-ppb threshold, the commenter
states that it is impossible that the proposed 30-day limit will
protect the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Appendix B spreadsheet submitted with this comment shows
the data analysis for the hourly emissions at Bruce Mansfield Units
1 and 2 was for the time period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2017.
However, the text of the comment states the analysis was completed
for emissions from June 1, 2013 to May 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 3a. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 30-day
average emission limits are 720 times the standard. The averaging
period for the emissions limit is 30 days, or 720 hours, which is 720
times the length of the averaging time of the standard. The 30-day
emission limits are not 720 times the 1-hour CEV, and the resulting
concentrations are not 720 times the NAAQS (75 ppb). More importantly,
this comment does not include a rationale that a limit with this
averaging time necessarily fails to assure attainment.
    The SO2 emissions and SO2 concentrations have
significantly declined in the Beaver Area. As described in the NPRM for
this action, two facilities within the nonattainment area have
permanently shut down--AES Beaver, a coal fired power plant, shut down
in 2015, and Horsehead Monaca, a zinc smelter, shut down in 2014. In
addition, the Jewel Facility, a steel mill, has entered into a Consent
Order and Agreement (COA) with PADEP to prohibit operation of the
Meltshop (the primary source of sulfur dioxide). The closure of two
facilities and the operational restrictions on a third facility have
provided SO2 emission reductions, and a significant portion
of these reductions are enforceable pursuant to Pennsylvania's plan.
These reduced allowable emissions, along with the allowable emissions
at Bruce Mansfield, have been modeled in accordance with Appendix W to
40 CFR part 51 and the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance and demonstrate that the area will attain the standard by its
attainment date. PADEP developed a comparably stringent 30-day average
emission limit for Bruce Mansfield using the modeled emission levels as
a starting point and adjusted downward, in accordance with procedures
recommended in EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. In
response 3 above and in EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance, EPA has explained at length its reasoning that a comparably
stringent 30-day average limit is a suitable substitute for a 1-hour
limit at the CEV in providing for attainment.
    Furthermore, although the focus of this rulemaking is on whether
the plan has limits that assure attainment, it is worth noting that
significant emission reductions have also occurred and will occur in
the future at Bruce Mansfield. Compared to emissions for 2010 to 2012
(the period of the air quality data that resulted in this area being
designated nonattainment), when emissions from Bruce Mansfield averaged
20,700 tons per year, emissions for 2017 to 2018 averaged 7,000 tons
per year. As stated in the attainment plan, in order to comply with the
new limit, Bruce Mansfield planned to make operational and physical
changes prior to October 2018 to ensure compliance with the new limits
(Appendix E-1, p. 7). Also, although shutdowns at Bruce Mansfield are
beyond the planning horizon of the SIP and are not part of the SIP, the
shutdown of this full facility that is slated for 2021 provides further
confidence that the area will continue to attain the standard.
    Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the emission limits at
Bruce Mansfield, in concert with the shutdown of AES Beaver and
Horsehead Monaca, and operating restrictions on the Jewel plant,
provide the SO2 emission reductions required to demonstrate
attainment. EPA notes that attainment is not solely dependent on
reducing emissions or changing the operations at Bruce Mansfield, but
on all the SO2 emission reductions that have occurred and
were modeled in the nonattainment area.
    Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the commenter's premise that the
existence of hours with emissions exceeding modeled attainment levels
despite compliance with the 30-day average limit necessarily means that
the 30-day limit is not protective of the NAAQS. (The commenter claims
the existence of 101 hours from mid-2013 to mid-2017 when the emissions
from Units 1 and 2 exceeded the ``hourly limit'' despite being in
compliance with the 30-day limit. In fact, there is no hourly limit; as
discussed further below, the commenter identified an equation, based on
Pennsylvania's simulations of attainment level emissions, for
characterizing the range of combinations of hourly Unit 1, Unit 2, and
Unit 3 emissions that would model attainment, and found that 101 hours
had emissions exceeding those levels.) Indeed, the NPRM provides an
extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for believing that a 30-day
average limit, which creates risk of occasions of emissions exceeding
the CEV but also creates a compensating likelihood that the mandate for
lower average emissions will avert some of the exceedances that would
be allowed with a higher 1-hour average limit, will have the net effect
of assuring attainment.
    However, the commenter does not address EPA's full rationale for
concluding that properly set 30-day average limits are a suitable basis
for providing for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard.
Instead, the commenter merely notes that there were 101 hours when the
emissions from Unit 1 and 2 exceeded attainment levels (which is 0.36
percent of the operating hours that the commenter examined) but fails
to address the effect of the adjusted 30-day average limit requiring
emissions to be well below critical emission levels, namely avoiding
some exceedances that would be expected to occur with emissions allowed
always to be at the CEV. Consequently, the commenter does not
acknowledge or address the occasions in which the longer term limit
provides better air quality, which is a key element of EPA's rationale
for concluding that the net effect of limiting longer term average
emissions to a downward adjusted level can be comparably effective in
providing for attainment as limiting 1-hour emissions to the level of
the CEV. Because the pertinent question is whether Pennsylvania's plan
provides for attainment, EPA must address the net effect of applying a
long-term average, not just considering those factors that increase the
likelihood of exceedances or just considering those factors that reduce
the likelihood of exceedances.
    At issue here is how often emissions from Bruce Mansfield, upon
compliance with Pennsylvania's 30-day average limits, might be expected
to have hourly emission rates above the level modeled to result in
attainment. Ordinarily, a single model run establishes upper bound
hourly emission rates at which the area attains the standard; EPA calls
these hourly emission rates CEVs. However, in this case, Pennsylvania
conducted numerous runs reflecting the combined effect of emissions
from the three units (two stacks) at Bruce Mansfield. These model runs
were used to determine the relationship between emissions from Stacks 1
and 2 which would result in attainment.

    Therefore, to determine the historic frequency of excess emission
events, a more complicated analysis is warranted. Part of such analysis
should be to establish criteria for defining excess emission events,
i.e., hours when emissions exceed the level demonstrated in the state's
plan to provide for attainment. Ordinarily, excess emission events may
be defined simply as hours when emissions exceed the CEV. However, in
this case, Pennsylvania has defined attainment level emissions in
significant part as an interactive function of the emissions of both
stacks at Bruce Mansfield. In particular, using the results of 17
modeling runs reflecting a range of combinations of emissions from
Bruce Mansfield Stack 1 and Stack 2, the Commonwealth determined an
equation defining the range of combinations of 1-hour emissions that
provide for attainment, as indicated in their correction email dated 6/
11/18 which was included in the docket for this action, and discussed
in the NPRM. The equation contains a critical value, which is the
equation result (applying the equation to Stack 1 and Stack 2
emissions) that is considered to correspond to the sets of 1-hour
emission rates that Pennsylvania modeled as providing attainment. EPA
will call this critical value the critical formula value (CFV), and
will call the analysis to determine how many exceedance events over the
CFV occurred, the CFV exceedance analysis.
    The commenter developed a different CFV, based on a different
equation (again based on the modeled combinations of Stack 1 and Stack
2 emissions) to define the combinations of 1-hour emissions from these
stacks that could be considered to yield attainment.
    Finally, EPA developed a third equation (with a third CFV), again
designed around a graph of the emission values that modeled attainment
from Stack 1 and Stack 2.
    These three equations (reflecting different order polynomials and
having different CFVs) provide three different expressions of the
maximum combinations of Stack 1 and Stack 2 emissions that may be
considered to yield attainment, and thus provide three different means
of assessing whether a particular historic combination of Stack 1 and
Stack 2 emissions should be considered to be an excess emission event.
These equations are presented in Pennsylvania's correction email, in
the commenter's comment letter, and in EPA's technical support document
(TSD) for this rulemaking, respectively.
    These three approaches all yielded similar results. Pennsylvania,
examining data for 2012 to 2016, found that 219 hours out of 43,848
hours, or 0.50 percent of hours, exceed Pennsylvania's CFV. (Dividing
this 219 hours over the number of hours in which at least one unit is
operating, 43,030 hours, suggests 0.51 percent of operating hours
exceeded the CFV.) The commenter, examining data for mid-2013 to mid-
2017, found that 101 hours (which, out of 28,074 operating hours, is
0.36 percent) exceeded the CFV. EPA, examining data for 2011 to 2017,
found that 226 hours out of 56,503 operating hours, or 0.40 percent,
constituted excess emission events, including 221 hours that exceeded
the CFV and 5 hours in which Unit 3, operating alone, exceeded its CEV.
Additional information regarding these three analyses are provided
respectively in the submittal, the comment letter, and the TSD noted
above.
    These results should be put in the context of whether the baseline
periods for these analyses reflected compliance with Pennsylvania's
emission limits and, if not, the frequency with which the facility
exceeded these limits. Pennsylvania did not assess whether Bruce
Mansfield met its adopted limits. The commenter did conduct this
assessment and concluded that the facility met all three limits for all
30-day average periods. However, EPA believes that the commenter
analyzed these data incorrectly, using averaging procedures different
from the procedures that Pennsylvania would use in assessing
compliance.
    The COA that Pennsylvania adopted and submitted to govern emissions
from Bruce Mansfield does not precisely define the data handling
procedures that it would use in assessing compliance with the pertinent
limits. However, Pennsylvania states, ``The 30-operating day rolling
average SO2 emissions rate shall be calculated using the
procedures outlined in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
regulations in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.'' EPA interprets this statement
to mean that compliance shall be assessed by calculating an average of
the hourly emission rates applicable while the facility is operating.
While the SO2 limit in MATS, which regulates mass of
emissions per unit heat input, has a different form from Pennsylvania's
limit, which regulates mass per hour, EPA interprets Pennsylvania to
intend the same feature of conducting its compliance calculations in a
manner that gives no weight to periods in which the unit(s) is not
operating. (While these procedures may be a moot point if Bruce
Mansfield does not resume operation, EPA's evaluation of the
approvability of Pennsylvania's SIP necessitates review of whether the
applicable limits provide for attainment should the facility restart.)
    The commenter computed 30-day averages by computing daily average
emission rates (including only operating hour emission rates) and then
by computing the unweighted average of these daily average values. This
approach gives days with partial operation the same weight as days with
24 hours of operation, and thus overweights the hours on the partial
operation days.
    EPA then conducted its own evaluation of whether Bruce Mansfield
was complying with the limits in Pennsylvania's SIP during the period
being evaluated for excess emission events. In this evaluation, EPA
examined data for 2011 to 2017.\7\ During this period, EPA concluded
that Bruce Mansfield was in compliance with the prospective limits for
Stack 1 (Units 1 and 2) and for Stack 2 (Unit 3) at all times but
exceeded the formula limit for 16 out of 2116 averaging periods, or
0.76 percent. Therefore, EPA believes that compliance with the limits
in Pennsylvania's SIP will require Bruce Mansfield to have a slightly
smaller fraction of hours exceeding the CFV than occurred in the
historical record. EPA, Pennsylvania, and the commenter nevertheless
agree that the frequency with which Bruce Mansfield could be expected
to exceed the CFV (or either of the stack-specific CEVs) is less that
0.6 percent of operating hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Consistent with the characteristics of data handling in
MATS, EPA interprets Pennsylvania's limits to reflect data handling
in which compliance with these mass per hour limits is assessed by
dividing total mass by total operating time, thereby giving hours
with fractional operating time the appropriate fractional weight.
For simplicity in this analysis, EPA gave the same weight to all
hours with any operation, averaging the hourly mass values
regardless of what portion of the hour was operational. However, EPA
expects in this case that a more precise analysis would give similar
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, EPA disagrees with the commenter on the air quality
consequences of these occasions of elevated emissions. EPA believes
that a full analysis of the air quality impact of Pennsylvania's limits
must consider these hours of elevated emissions in conjunction with the
far greater number of hours when emissions are required to be well
below the level (on average, on the order of 20 to 30 percent below the
level) that would model violations. For reasons described in more
detail in EPA's guidance and in the NPRM for this action, EPA believes
that the net effect of these compensating factors is that
Pennsylvania's limits provide adequate assurance that the area will

attain the SO2 standard. EPA notes that the data used for
these analyses were from time periods prior to the adoption of 30-day
emission limits, prior to the requirement of 95% scrubber control
efficiency, and prior to the operational and physical changes that were
made to meet the new lower emission limits. Through the adoption of
these new requirements, Bruce Mansfield will restrict the variability
in emissions and will need to comply with new emission limits.
    After reviewing Pennsylvania's submittal, EPA finds that the limits
established for Bruce Mansfield provide a suitable alternative to
establishing 1-hour average emission limits for this source. Consistent
with EPA guidance, EPA anticipates that, if Bruce Mansfield resumes
operation and complies with Pennsylvania's limits, excess emission
events will be sufficiently infrequent that compliance with the 30-day
average limits will provide for attainment.
    Comment 3b. The commenter states that EPA suggests that because
Bruce Mansfield has exceeded the polynomial-based emission limits on an
hourly basis only ``0.50%'' of the time during 2012-2016, that the 30-
day limits are therefore adequately protective.\8\ However, the
commenter asserts that EPA's reliance on FirstEnergy's math is
misplaced and its reasoning is incorrect. First, FirstEnergy and EPA
improperly compare the exceedances not to plant operating hours, but to
the number of hours in the calendar. The commenter states that
FirstEnergy and EPA significantly understate the significance of those
nonoperating hours because there are thousands of hours in which one or
another boiler at Bruce Mansfield was not operating, and nearly a
thousand hours during the examined time period in which no boiler was
operating. The commenter asserts that the 219 hours that FirstEnergy
concedes Bruce Mansfield exceeded the polynomial hourly attainment
level emissions is significant, given the commenter's view that the
NAAQS can be violated with heightened emissions in as few as four hours
a year over three years. Second, FirstEnergy's analysis only looks at
times in which the emissions from Units 1 and 2 together exceed the
polynomial function, and not at those times when emissions from Unit 3
exceed the polynomial function. As such, the commenter states that the
analysis only looks at a part of the story--there are numerous hours
where emissions from Unit 3 all by itself are enough to mean that, even
with their emission limits governed by the polynomial function, Units 1
and 2 would need to emit negatively. As such, the commenter asserts
that FirstEnergy and EPA are arbitrarily ignoring a significant aspect
of the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The commenter misrepresented EPA's statement. The emission
limits are expressed as 30-day average limits. As such, the limits
cannot be exceeded on an hourly basis. The commenter presumably
meant to refer to the frequency with which the facility exceeded the
attainment level hourly emission values, computed by the state's
unadjusted polynomial-based formula, which is the frequency that EPA
described as being 0.50 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 3b. EPA agrees with the commenter regarding mistakes in
FirstEnergy's math, but disagrees with the commenter regarding its
claims that a 30-day limit cannot be protective of a 1-hour standard.
EPA has addressed the latter issue above in Response 3a.
    Pennsylvania/FirstEnergy's CFV analysis contained two mistakes.
FirstEnergy failed to only use plant operating hours in their CFV
analysis. They also failed to count hours as exceeding the attainment
emission level when the emissions from Unit 3 would have exceeded the
limits on its own, thereby understating the number of hours in which
that, if modeled as occurring constantly for every hour of the year,
would be expected to estimate a violation. (The commenter describes
hours with excessive emissions from Unit 3 as hours in which ``Units 1
and 2 would need to emit negatively.'' EPA agrees that these hours when
Unit 3 emits above its own CEV need to be counted as excess emissions
hours for purposes of this analysis, but EPA believes that the
pertinent issue is whether the plant emitted excessively, not whether
the limits require impossible emission levels.) EPA addressed these
mistakes in its analysis. In order to determine exceedance events in
respect to the CFV, EPA kept all hours where Stack 1 (unit 1 and 2) and
Stack 2 had emission values. EPA included these occurrences in the
analysis because the formula applies when Stack 1 and Stack 2 are in
service, and therefore, the analysis to determine how many times the
formula was exceeded should include any hours when emissions were
coming out of both stacks. As described above, EPA's CFV exceedance
analysis shows that 0.4% of operating hours during 2011 through 2017
constituted an excess emissions event.
    Consequently, EPA continues to have reasonable confidence that
occasions with emissions above the CFV will be infrequent and limited
in magnitude. EPA's revised CFV analysis is available in the docket for
this action and is described in more detail in the TSD for this action.
EPA provided a full rationale for comparably stringent longer term
averages in Responses 3 and 3a above, concluding that the net effect of
limiting longer term average emissions to a downward adjusted level can
be comparably effective in providing for attainment as limiting 1-hour
emissions to the level of the CEV.
    Comment 3c. The commenter asserts that Pennsylvania's contingency
measures are limited and do not support Pennsylvania's claims that the
measures will minimize further the chance of an exceedance. The
commenter asserts that the contingency measures will require Bruce
Mansfield to (1) audit their systems if the emissions become close to
the emission limits and (2) require Bruce Mansfield to monitor their
systems to ensure the facility does not cause a violation at the
monitor. The commenter claims that number 1 above is what Bruce
Mansfield ought to be doing anyway to ensure that they are in
compliance with their permit limits, and number 2 incorrectly relies on
one monitor when attainment should be reached throughout the
nonattainment area.
    Response 3c. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the contingency
measures are too limited and do not support Pennsylvania's claims that
the measures will minimize further the chance of an exceedance. The CAA
requires a Nonattainment SIP to model attainment throughout the
nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency
measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be implemented in the
event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to attain the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures are to become
effective without further action by the state or EPA, where the area
has failed to (1) achieve RFP or, (2) attain the NAAQS by the statutory
attainment date for the affected area. These control measures are to
consist of other available control measures that are not included in
the control strategy for the attainment plan SIP for the affected area.
However, EPA has also explained that SO2 presents special
considerations.\9\ First, for some of the other criteria pollutants,
the analytical tools for quantifying the relationship between
reductions in precursor emissions and resulting air quality
improvements remains subject to

significant uncertainties, in contrast with procedures for directly-
emitted pollutants such as SO2. Second, emission estimates
and attainment analyses for other criteria pollutants can be strongly
influenced by overly optimistic assumptions about control efficiency
and rates of compliance for many small sources. This is not the case
for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994.
See also EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. See
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO2 control
measures are well understood and are far less prone to uncertainty.
Because SO2 control measures are based on what is directly
and quantifiably necessary to attain the SO2 NAAQS, it would
be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary emission controls
yet fail to attain the NAAQS. See 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance, page 41. Therefore, for SO2 programs, EPA has
explained that contingency measures can mean that the air agency has a
comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the
SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement, including expedited procedures for
establishing enforceable consent agreements pending the adoption of the
revised SIP. EPA believes that this approach continues to be valid for
the implementation of contingency measures to address the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and consequently concludes that Pennsylvania's
comprehensive enforcement program, as discussed below, satisfies the
contingency measure requirement.
    This approach to contingency measures for SO2 does not
preclude an air agency from requiring additional measures that are
enforceable and appropriate for a particular source category if the
state determines such supplementary measures are appropriate. As EPA
has stated in our 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance, in
order for EPA to rely on these measures to approve the SIP, the
supplementary contingency measures would need to be fully adopted
provisions in the SIP that become effective where the area has failed
to meet RFP or fails to attain the standard by the statutory attainment
date. See 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, page 42.
    As noted in EPA's NPRM, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance describes special features of SO2 planning
that influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the
requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures. One
effective alternative means identified by the Guidance is a
comprehensive enforcement program for sources emitting SO2.
Pennsylvania has a comprehensive enforcement program as specified in
Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35
P.S. Sec.  4004(27). Under this program, PADEP is authorized to take
any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement
of the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Act.
Such actions include the issuance of orders (for example, enforcement
orders and orders to take corrective action to address air pollution or
the danger of air pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil
penalties. Sections 9.1 and 10.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. Sec. Sec.  4009.1
and 4010.1, also expressly authorize PADEP to issue orders to aid in
the enforcement of the APCA and to assess civil penalties.
    Any person in violation of the APCA, the rules and regulations, any
order of PADEP, or a plan approval or operating permit conditions could
also be subject to criminal fines upon conviction under Section 9, 35
P.S. Sec.  4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. Sec.  4007.1,
prohibits PADEP from issuing plan approvals and operating permits for
any applicant, permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary
corporation of the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP's
Compliance Docket until the violations are corrected to the
satisfaction of PADEP.
    In addition to having a fully approved enforcement program,
Pennsylvania has included contingency measures that are triggered when
a source's emissions reach a certain percentage of the allowable
emissions and based on any monitor in the nonattainment area
registering a 1-hour daily maximum concentration exceeding 75 ppb.
These measures are in line with the supplemental contingency measure
guidance EPA mentions above and are included in the FirstEnergy COA and
the Jewel COA and thus will be fully approved provisions within the
SIP.
    In regard to the monitoring contingency measure, the commenter
erroneously confuses the requirement for Pennsylvania to plan for
attainment in the entire Nonattainment area with the ability of the
Commonwealth to use monitoring data from a single location as a trigger
for a contingency measure. Pennsylvania has demonstrated attainment
throughout the entire Beaver Nonattainment area through their modeling
demonstration discussed previously. Using monitoring data to trigger
supplemental contingency measures is a defensible approach for helping
achieve attainment throughout the area in cases where the plan has
unexpectedly not achieved attainment.
    EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program by itself
suffices to satisfy the contingency measure requirements. The magnitude
of prospective benefit from Pennsylvania's supplemental contingency
measures is unclear, but it is clear that these measures can only
improve and will not worsen air quality. Therefore, notwithstanding the
commenter's concerns about the specificity and triggering of the
supplementary measures identified in the Pennsylvania SIP and the
FirstEnergy and Jewel COAs, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's
enforcement program, which is enhanced by the supplementary provisions
in the COAs, suffice to meet Section 172(c)(9) requirements as
interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble and the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance.
    Comment 4. The commenter states that the conversion factors used to
determine the comparably stringent longer term limit for Bruce
Mansfield are arbitrary and insufficiently protective. The commenter
asserts that the conversion factors are highly dependent on the time
period selected. The commenter provided a table of varying time
periods, and corresponding adjustment factors. The commenter notes that
depending on the time period selected the adjustment factors can range
from 0.558 to 0.673.
    Response 4. EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that Bruce
Mansfield's SO2 limits are arbitrary and insufficiently
protective. As stated in EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance, EPA expects that establishing an appropriate longer-term
average limit will involve assessing a downward adjustment in the level
of the limit that would provide for comparable stringency. This
assessment should generally be conducted using data obtained by a
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), in order to have
sufficient data to obtain a robust and reliable assessment of the
anticipated relationship between longer-term average emissions and 1-
hour emission values. This is necessary to suitably assess the
warranted degree of adjustment of the longer-term average limit in
order to provide comparable stringency to the 1-hour emission rate that
is determined to provide for attainment.
    EPA generally expects that datasets reflecting hourly data for at
least three to five years of stable operation (i.e., without changes
that significantly alter emissions variability) would be needed to
conduct a suitably reliable analysis. PADEP's use of 2012-2016 CEM data
represents five years of historic data of

stable operation for the Bruce Mansfield facility, and provides the
robustness recommended in EPA's guidance.
    In contrast, the commenter's adjustment factors were based on time
intervals that varied from six months to three and a half years, which
are all less than the time interval used by Pennsylvania. The
commenter's adjustment factors resulting from using shorter time
periods illustrate a point that EPA considered in formulating its
guidance, which is that using an insufficient amount of data is prone
to yield results that vary unduly by data period and may not be a
sufficiently robust basis for determining a reliable adjustment factor.
The variability in adjustment factors using time intervals from six
months to three and a half years provided by the commenter demonstrates
the insufficiency of these shorter time periods for use in development
of such an adjustment factor, but does not demonstrate the
insufficiency of the overall method in EPA's 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance had it been appropriately applied, nor does
it demonstrate that Pennsylvania's adjustment factor is inappropriate.
    EPA's guidance recommends calculating adjustment factors using
statistics calculated according to the data handling procedures by
which compliance is determined. The COA between Pennsylvania and
FirstEnergy indicates that ``the 30-operating day rolling average
SO2 emissions rate shall be calculated using the procedures
outlined in the MATS regulations in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.''
Pennsylvania and EPA calculated adjustment factors accordingly.
    Pennsylvania imposed three separate limits, and EPA considered the
adjustment inherent in each limit. For the limit on Unit 3 emissions,
Pennsylvania appropriately compared the 99th percentile of 30-day
averages of Unit 3 emissions against the 99th percentile of 1-hour
values of Unit 3 emissions, computing an adjustment factor of 0.794.
The commenter does not contest this adjustment factor. EPA computed
similar statistics for seven years of emissions (2011 to 2017) and
computed a similar emission factor, 0.786.
    For the limit on the sum of Unit 1 and Unit 2 emissions,
Pennsylvania conducted separate calculations for Unit 1 and for Unit 2,
computing adjustment factors of 0.59 and 0.717, respectively. The
commenter objects to the use of the Unit 2 adjustment factor for both
units, thereby disregarding the variability of Unit 1. EPA agrees that
the variability of Unit 1 may not be disregarded, and that the
variability of Unit 2 should not be used as a surrogate for the
variability of both units.
    However, since the limit governs the sum of emissions from both
units, the more pertinent question is how much variability exists in
the sum of emissions from the two units. That is, the appropriate
method for computing an adjustment factor for this limit is to use
statistics for the sum of emissions from the two units, comparing the
99th percentile of the 30-day average sum of emissions against the 99th
percentile of the 1-hour sum of emissions. As discussed in the TSD, EPA
computed an adjustment factor in this manner using 2011 to 2017 data
for these units, computing a value of 0.72. This indicates that proper
calculation of an adjustment factor for this limit yields a result that
is very similar to the adjustment that Pennsylvania applied, resulting
in a limit that may be considered comparably stringent to the 1-hour
limit that Pennsylvania would otherwise have imposed.
    The third limit governs the combination of emissions from all three
units, in particular mandating that the value of an equation adding the
sum of 30-day average emissions from Units 1 and 2 plus two terms
(respectively first order and second order) based on emissions from
Unit 3 shall not exceed 7,100.\10\ Consequently, the most pertinent
approach for assessing the effect of using 30-day emission averages in
determining compliance with this limit is to apply EPA's recommended
procedure to statistics calculated using the equation of Pennsylvania's
limit. That is, EPA believes that the best assessment of the
appropriate adjustment to the level to be mandated with this equation
is to compare the 99th percentile of the values computed with this
equation (as would be calculated to determine compliance with the
limit) against the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values computed with
this equation. Using Pennsylvania's 2012 to 2016 data, EPA in this
manner computed an adjustment factor of 75.2 percent. Among the 14
model runs in which Unit 3 emissions comply with the Unit 3 emissions
limit, the lowest formula result (i.e., the level of the 1-hour formula
limit that would yield attainment in all scenarios) is 9,821. This
value multiplied by 75.2 percent yields a comparably stringent 30-day
average-based value of 7,385. Since Pennsylvania has imposed a more
stringent requirement for the results of this equation (i.e., 7,100),
EPA believes that Pennsylvania's limit is at least comparably stringent
to the 1-hour-based limit that they would otherwise have imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted previously, although Pennsylvania's limit is
expressed as limiting the sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions to 7100
minus the value of the two terms based on Unit 3 emissions, this
translation of the limit provides a more appropriate perspective
from which to examine the effect of the collective variability of
all three units on the stringency of the collective 30-day average
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter's adjustment factors are approximately 0.017 to 0.159
less than the adjustment factor calculated by PADEP, depending upon the
time period selected. However, EPA's calculations, using seven years of
hourly data from 2011 to 2017, and calculated in accordance with the
data handling procedures that will be used in assessing compliance,
provide a more robust and more pertinent assessment of the degree of
adjustment needed to identify 30-day average-based limits that may be
considered comparably stringent to the 1-hour limits that would
otherwise have been set. This analysis resulted in an adjustment factor
of 0.72 for Units 1 and 2 combined, and a formula limit value of 7,385
rather than the value of 7,100 that Pennsylvania imposed. These values
are closely aligned with the adjustment factors reflected in
Pennsylvania's limits, and support the limits that Pennsylvania
established.
    Comment 4a. The commenter notes that the years 2012-2016 used by
PADEP in calculating the Bruce Mansfield adjustment factor are
problematic. The commenter notes that the facility's dispatch has been
steadily declining, that there is a trend of increased start ups and
shut downs, and therefore, an increase in short term emission spikes.
Specifically, the commenter claims the use of years 2012-2014 are not
likely to be representative of future operation as in those years,
Bruce Mansfield's operation and emissions were more consistent. The
commenter asserts that future operation will be even more variable
considering a 2018 fire at the scrubber system and the need to rebuild
part of that system, noting that rebuilding will result in changes to
scrubber operation.
    Response 4a. EPA disagrees with the commenter that increased start-
ups and shutdowns will lead to an increase in SO2 emission
spikes at Bruce Mansfield and disagrees with the commenter that PADEP's
use of 2012-2016 emissions data was not representative of future
operations (PADEP used 2012 through 2016 emissions, and the commenter's
concern is with 2012-2014). EPA notes that the commenter did not
provide any material supporting the claim that more start-ups and
shutdowns increase SO2 emissions or cause emission spikes at

Bruce Mansfield. EPA analyzed hourly emissions data for Bruce
Mansfield's units from 2011 through 2017. This analysis shows that
there was an increasing number of start-ups and shutdowns during this
time period for Units 1, 2 and 3. However, EPA's analysis also shows
that SO2 emissions at these units do not spike during start-
up and shutdowns. In fact, the emissions are generally lower than 100
pounds per hour (lbs/hr) during these time periods for these units.
Absent any specific evidence from the commenter supporting their claim
that increased start-ups and shutdowns at Bruce Mansfield will increase
SO2 emissions spikes, EPA does not believe that the
commenter has justified its claims that Bruce Mansfield can expect to
experience more emission spikes due to start-ups and shutdowns or that
expected differences between operation from 2012 to 2016 and future
operation warrants a lower adjustment factor.
    In addition, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance
recommends using emissions data that reflect the distribution of
emissions that is expected once the attainment plan is implemented.
PADEP was correct to assume that the Bruce Mansfield Facility (if it
resumes full operation) would continue to operate with a similar
distribution of emissions as it did during 2012 through 2016, since the
attainment plan was not requiring any new control technology.
SO2 emissions from each of the three boilers were already
controlled by three individual Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 each vent through two flues within a common stack.
Unit 3 vents through two flues in the other stack. Through the COA,
PADEP required Bruce Mansfield FGD units to achieve at least a 95%
removal efficiency. The recent fire at the scrubber system which was
identified as an issue by the commenter does not remove the requirement
to achieve at least a 95% removal efficiency from the FGD units, and to
meet the emission limits outlined in the COA. As such, the control
technology after the implementation of the attainment plan remains the
same as the control technology prior to the development of the
attainment plan, and therefore EPA reasonably believes that emissions
variability during the historic period of 2012-2016 continues to be
representative regardless of any rebuilding of the FGD system (if that
does need to occur as the commenter asserts).
    EPA notes that Bruce Mansfield Units 1 and 2 have been listed on
the PJM deactivation list as of February 2019. Therefore, EPA
anticipates not that these units will start up and shut down more often
but instead that these units will not resume operation and will not
start up or shut down at all. However, EPA's task here is to assess
whether Pennsylvania's plan provides for attainment, including in the
scenario that these units resume operation. In this scenario, EPA
presumes that satisfaction of emission limits will reflect full repair
of emission control systems and the resumption of normal, stable
operations, which may resume the trend toward more startups and
shutdowns but which can be expected to have a distribution of upper
level emissions that is similar to the distribution seen in 2012 to
2016. Thus, the deactivation of these units does not impact the
approval of this attainment plan. The emission limits for the three
units at Bruce Mansfield are still in effect.
    Comment 4b. The commenter asserts that Pennsylvania's use of Unit
2's adjustment factor (0.717) for Unit 1 was incorrect and by using
this higher adjustment factor, the 30-day emission limit calculated is
significantly higher than the one that would be calculated using Unit
1's adjustment factor. The commenter asserts that EPA incorrectly
determined that it was appropriate to use Unit 2's adjustment factor
for Unit 1, because Unit 2's hourly emissions tend to be higher more
frequently than those of Unit 1. The commenter asserts that during the
time period 2012-2016, Unit 2's emissions were actually lower than Unit
1's for nearly 5,000 hours. Thus, the commenter claims EPA's own logic
actually supports using the 0.59 conversion factor for Unit 1, not the
0.717 ratio.
    The commenter continues that neither EPA nor Pennsylvania provides
any evidence or enforceable mechanism to ensure that the future
operations of Bruce Mansfield will demonstrate variability
representative of Unit 2 rather than Unit 1, and as such there is no
demonstrable mechanism to ensure compliance with the NAAQS.
    Response 4b. PADEP followed the recommendation in EPA's 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance to use an appropriate emissions
data set when determining the adjustment factors. The data set used
should be sufficiently robust in terms of time covered, should be
representative of the type of control strategy that is expected after
the attainment plan controls are in place and should reflect the
emissions variability that might be expected at the source once the SIP
is implemented. However, PADEP did not use the same data handling
procedures for development of the adjustment factor as for the
calculation of compliance with the limit, which is recommended in EPA's
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. PADEP calculated unit
specific adjustment factors even though the form of the limit was for
combined units. PADEP's use of Unit 2's adjustment factor for Unit 1
did provide for a higher 30-day average limit than would have resulted
from the use of separate adjustment factors for the two limits.
However, if PADEP followed EPA's Guidance in calculating the adjustment
factor using the same data handling proecures as the form of the limit,
they would have combined Units 1 and 2, and developed one adjustment
factor based on the sum of the two units' emissions. EPA did this
analysis and obtained an adjustment factor of 0.72. EPA's analysis
supports the adjustment factor that PADEP applied. In fact, PADEP's
approach provides for a slightly lower adjustment factor than would
have been calculated using EPA's recommended approach. EPA's analysis
is described in the TSD for this action.
    EPA reviewed the hourly emissions data from 2012 to 2016 for Units
1 and 2, and continues to assert that Unit 2's emissions tend to be
higher more frequently. Based on the commenter's explanation of the
analysis they conducted to claim that Unit 2's emissions were lower
than Unit 1's emissions for nearly 5,000 hours, EPA believes the
commenter may be comparing the hourly emission value per hour of each
specific day (i.e., Unit 1, Day 1-Hour 1 versus Unit 2, Day 1-Hour 1).
However, EPA does not believe this type of comparison is relevant to
the adjustment factor analysis for a limit. EPA believes that a larger
data set and more robust statistical analysis over a longer period of
time, such as five years (as PADEP did), and use of data calculated in
the same manner in which Pennsylvania will be determining compliance,
provides a better portrayal of the influence of variability on the
stringency of each limit and thus the degree of adjustment each limit
needs to be comparably stringent to the 1-hour limits that Pennsylvania
would otherwise have imposed.
    Providing further support for the use of a 0.717 adjustment factor
for Unit 1 and Unit 2, the adjustment factor listed in Appendix D of
EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Guidance for Sources with Wet
Scrubbers (30-day average vs. 1-hour adjustment factor) is 0.71.
Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the adjustment factors used
for Units 1 and 2 provide for a comparably stringent 30-day emission
limit.

    Regarding the commenter's concern that there is no enforceable
mechanism provided to ensure that future emissions variability of Bruce
Mansfield will reflect the emissions variability representative of Unit
2 rather than Unit 1, EPA has provided options to states in the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance to reduce the likelihood of
increased emissions varaiability in the future. PADEP followed EPA's
Guidance of adopting a direct work practice requirement for control
equipment which could set a minimum level of control efficiency. The
Bruce Mansfield plant is required to use this work practice in order to
ensure that the NAAQS is not exceeded. To this end, the Bruce Mansfield
plant FGDs must achieve at least a 95% design removal efficiency on
Units 1, 2, and 3 during normal operating conditions following the
general requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139.11 and the testing
frequency contained in the COA. This additional work practice
requirement provides greater assurance that there will be less
variability in emissions when complying with the 30-day limits, as well
as minimizing the likely frequency and magnitude of elevated emissions.
In addition, as stated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, if the source is exceeding the expected variability, such
that the plan proves not to provide the expected confidence that the
NAAQS is being attained, EPA will use its available authority to pursue
any necessary correction of the plan.
    Comment 5. The commenter states that the emission limits for Bruce
Mansfield are needlessly complex and prevent transparency in
determining compliance. The commenter asserts that the emission limit
formula only applies when both Chimney 1 and Chimney 2 are operating,
and as such it is unclear what limits apply when one chimney is not
operating. In addition, the commenter states that when Chimney 2 emits
over 3584 lbs/hour on a 30-day average, it is not clear what the
allowable emission limits are for Chimney 1. The commenter states that
a Federal plan with transparent emission limits should be adopted.
    Response 5. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the emission
limits for Bruce Mansfield are needlessly complex and lack the
transparency needed to determine compliance. While the formula-based
emission limit requires extra calculation to determine compliance, and
therefore is more complex than a Unit-specific 30-day limit, all the
data needed to calculate whether Bruce Mansfield is complying with the
limit are available from the PADEP certified CEM data and are reported
to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division. The CEM data are available at
https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. Anyone may then determine Bruce Mansfield's
compliance status simply by retrieving those data into a spreadsheet
(or other suitable software) and applying the formula in the
Pennsylvania's rule. As such, the limit is sufficiently transparent for
Federal, state and public scrutiny.
    EPA disagrees that the emission limit is not clear when one chimney
is not operating. As described in the NPRM, Unit 1 and Unit 2 each vent
through two flues within Chimney 1, and Unit 3 vents through two flues
in Chimney 2. The 30-operating day rolling average SO2
emissions rate for Units 1 and 2 cannot exceed the result of equation
one (EQ-1), below, with Chimney 1 and Chimney 2 in service, calculated
daily. Pursuant to this equation, the limit for the sum of emissions
from Unit 1 and Unit 2 is a function of the emissions from Unit 3, with
a maximum limit (when Unit 3 has low emissions) under 7,100 lb/hr. In
addition, if Unit 3 is not operating (and therefore only Chimney 1 is
operating), the 30-operating day rolling average emissions rate cannot
exceed 7,362 lb/hr for Units 1 and 2 combined. The 30-operating day
rolling average SO2 emissions rate for Chimney 2 (Unit 3)
cannot exceed 3,584 lb/hr.

EQ-1: CH1SO2 Lim = -1.38E-04 x CH2SO2\2\-0.920 x
CH2SO2 + 7100

Where:

CH1SO2 Lim: Chimney 1 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling
average
CH1SO2 Lim <=7,362 lb/hr
CH2SO2: Chimney 2 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling
average
CH2SO2 <=3,584 lb/hr

    In other words, if Chimney 1 is not in service, the stand-alone 30-
operating day rolling average emission limit for Chimney 2 (Unit 3) is
set at 3,584 lb/hr. If Chimney 2 is not in service, Chimney 1's 30-
operating day average emission limit is 7,362 lb/hr. EPA continues to
assert that the 30-operating day limit established for Bruce Mansfield
is clear and transparent and therefore a Federal plan with a different
limit is unnecessary.
    Comment 5a. The commenter asserts that the emission inventories are
improper because the projected 2018 emissions of 32,443 tons of
SO2 are greater than the actual emissions of 26,622 tons
reported for 2011, when the Beaver County SO2 monitor had a
design value of 136 ppb. The commenter asserts that this increase in
emissions is particularly egregious for Bruce Mansfield with 21,196
tons of SO2 in 2011, and allowable 2018 emissions of 32,246
tons.
    Response 5a. The commenter is comparing allowable emissions for
2018 against actual emissions for 2011. EPA agrees with the commenter
that the allowable annual 2018 emissions for Bruce Mansfield (and for
all sources combined in the Beaver Area) are greater than the base year
2011 annual actual emissions for Bruce Mansfield (and for all sources
in the Beaver Area combined, respectively). However, air quality in a
multi-source area like this is not a function of total allowable
emissions, since sources with different stack heights, different
locations, and other differences will have different impacts per ton of
emissions. For example, the monitor is near the former Horsehead
facility and the former AES Beaver facility, and the improvements in
air quality at the monitor have clearly been more influenced by the
shutdown of these facilities than by the decline in actual emissions at
Bruce Mansfield. In this area, modeling provides the best information
regarding the impact per ton of emissions from each facility.
Pennsylvania has conducted an appropriate modeling analysis of this
area, and EPA concurs with the state's finding that its limits for
Bruce Mansfield (which reduce allowable emissions), in combination with
the other emission reductions in the area, will assure that the area
attains the standard, notwithstanding the fact that these limits allow
more total emissions than were actually emitted in 2011.
    Comment 5b. The commenter further claims that assuming 8,760 hours
in a year, Bruce Mansfield's allowable annual emissions of 32,246 tons
translates to an hourly allowable rate of 7,362 lbs/hr, an emission
rate that is higher than many of the emission rate scenarios modeled by
FirstEnergy. Also, because these modeled scenarios model attainment
less than one microgram per cubic meter below the NAAQS, the annual
allowable maximum SO2 emissions for Bruce Mansfield are much
greater than what the modeling indicates are protective of the NAAQS.
    Response 5b. EPA disagrees with commenter that the allowable
emissions for Bruce Mansfield are not protective of the NAAQS. EPA
understands the commenter's concern as follows: Since there are modeled
scenarios where the combined hourly emission value of Units 1, 2 and 3,
are less than 7,362 lb/hr (which is the highest 30-day average emission
value allowed under the emission limits) and those model runs show
SO2 concentrations very close to the standard, then an
allowable emissions rate of 7,362 lb/hr is much

greater than what several modeling runs indicate is protective of the
NAAQS.
    The commenter incorrectly assumes that all modeled scenarios are
permitted. However, that is not the case. Seventeen scenarios with
varying combinations of 1-hour critical emission values for Unit 1 and
2, and Unit 3 were modeled and used to develop an equation for limiting
the combination of emissions from Units 1, 2 and 3 at Bruce Mansfield.
As shown in Table 1, all 17 scenarios modeled attainment.
    In addition to the limit on the combination of the three units'
emissions, Pennsylvania also set a limit specifically limiting the
emissions from Unit 3, that Unit 3 30-operating day average emissions
shall not exceed 3,584 lb/hr. In model runs 9 through 11, Unit 3's
emissions correspond to an adjusted 30-day average value that would
have been greater than 3,584 lb/hr. Thus, these runs are disallowed
scenarios.
    It is these three model runs that the commenter refers to as those
showing SO2 concentrations very close to the standard, and
asserts that the allowable emissions (calculated from these 1-hour
values; i.e., for model run 9 from Table 1, using the 1-hour CEVs,
2056.54 + 4743.88 = 6800.42 lb/hr combined CEV for all units) are much
less than the allowable emissions that PADEP calculates. Although the
relevant values are hourly emissions, adjusted to be limited with 30-
day average limits, both the commenter and PADEP calculated the
corresponding annual emission rates. The model run 9 values correspond
to annual emissions of 29,786 tons per year, which is much less than
PADEP's calculated allowable annual emissions of 32,246 tons per year.
If the emission rates in model runs 9 through 11 were allowable, they
would indicate that Pennsylvania's limits are not protective of the
NAAQS. However, these model runs contain disallowed emission rates, and
so these runs are not indicative of the emission rates necessary to
attain the standard. Therefore, EPA continues to support Bruce
Mansfield's 30-day emission limits as demonstrating attainment of the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

                                     Table 1--Modeling Results and Emission Values for the Bruce Mansfield Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Corresponding                   Corresponding  30-day average SO2 limit for      Modeled
                                                Modeled     30-day average      Modeled     30-day average   Units 1 + 2 based on 30-day  maximum  using
                 Model run                   emissions for   emissions for   emissions for   emissions for      average equivalent to      the  1-hr CEV
                                              Units 1 + 2     Units 1 + 2   Unit 3 (lb/hr)  Unit 3 (lb/hr)  modeled Unit 3 emissions (lb/ from column  1
                                                (lb/hr)       (lb/hr) **                          **                   hr) ***                 and 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 **......................................       10,282.70        7,372.70            0.00            0.00  Disallowed..................       196.17563
2.........................................        9,254.43        6,635.43          761.19          604.38  6493.6......................       196.18089
3.........................................        8,226.16        5,898.16        1,482.72        1,177.28  5825.6......................       196.17966
1FE *.....................................        7,484.24        5,366.20        2,006.14        1,592.88  5284.4......................       196.18033
4.........................................        7,197.89        5,160.89        2,206.62        1,752.06  5064.5......................       196.17977
2FE *.....................................        6,765.97        4,851.20        2,507.57        1,991.01  4721.2......................       196.14426
5.........................................        6,169.62        4,323.62        2,885.44        2,291.04  4267.9......................       196.18044
3FE *.....................................        5,952.47        4,267.92        3,009.17        2,389.28  4114.1......................       196.07897
6.........................................        5,141.35        3,686.35        3,469.90        2,755.10  3517.8......................       196.17912
4FE *.....................................        5,051.66        3,622.04        3,510.68        2,787.48  3463.3......................       196.11106
7.........................................        4,113.08        2,949.08        3,985.46        3,164.46  2806.8......................       196.17974
5FE *.....................................        4,015.93        2,879.42        4,012.20        3,185.69  2768.7......................       196.04158
8.........................................        3,084.81        2,211.81        4,407.53        3,499.58  2190.3......................       196.18032
6FE *.....................................        2,857.18        2,048.60        4,513.72        3,583.89  2030.3......................       196.10031
9 **......................................        2,056.54        1,474.54        4,743.88        3,766.64  Disallowed..................       196.18082
10 **.....................................        1,028.27          737.27        4,956.43        3,935.41  Disallowed..................       196.18081
11 **.....................................            0.00            0.00        5,041.58        4,003.01  Disallowed..................       196.17832
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FirstEnergy Model run.
** Disallowed modeled scenarios. Model run 1 is disallowed because the emission limit equation only applies when both Chimneys are operating. Model runs
  9-11 are prohibited as Unit 3's 30-day average emission rate is greater than the comparably stringent 30-day emission limit of 3,584 lb/hr.
*** The limit that would result from the compliance equation (EQ-1) using the Unit 3 30-operating day average emission rate that corresponds to the
  modeled 1-hour rate (from fifth column of this table).

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal for the
Beaver Area, as submitted by PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017 for the
purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment
plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Beaver Area meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA in sections 110, 172 and 191-
192, and comports with EPA's recommendations discussed in the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. Specifically, EPA is
approving the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration
of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, an RFP plan,
and contingency measures for the Beaver Area, and concludes that the
Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving into the
Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits, compliance
parameters and contingency measures established for Bruce Mansfield,
and operational restrictions for the Jewel Facility. Furthermore,
approval of this SIP submittal removes EPA's duty to promulgate and
implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c) for the Beaver Area.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
unredacted portions of the COA entered between Pennsylvania and
FirstEnergy Generation, LLC for the Bruce Mansfield Generating Station,
and the COA entered between Pennsylvania and Jewel Acquisition, LLC on
September 21, 2017 as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. This includes emission limits and associated compliance
parameters,

record-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures for Bruce
Mansfield; and operational restrictions for the Jewel Facility. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or at the EPA Region III Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action to approve the Beaver Area attainment plan for the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS into the Pennsylvania SIP may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 13, 2019.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d)(3) is amended by adding an entry for
``Bruce Mansfield Generating Station and an entry for Jewel
Acquisition, LLC'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for
``Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard''
at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State
           Name of source                  Permit No.                  County            effective      EPA approval date    Additional explanation/Sec.
                                                                                date                                    52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bruce Mansfield Generating Station.  FirstEnergy Redacted    Beaver...................      10/1/18  10/1/19, [Insert        Sulfur dioxide emission
                                      Consent Order and                                               Federal Register        limits and related
                                      Agreement.                                                      citation].              parameters in unredacted
                                                                                portions of the Consent
                                                                                Order and Agreement dated
                                                                                9/21/17.
Jewel Acquisition, LLC, Midland      Jewel Acquisition       Beaver...................      9/21/17  10/1/19, [Insert        Operational restrictions
 Facility.                            Redacted Consent                                                Federal Register        and related parameters in
                                      Order and Agreement.                                            citation].              unredacted portions of the
                                                                                Consent Order and
                                                                                Agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  State
 Name of non-regulatory SIP revision   Applicable geographic    submittal      EPA approval date      Additional
                                                area               date                              explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Attainment Plan for the Beaver,       Industry Borough,            9/29/17  10/1/19, [Insert          52.2033(d)
 Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for   Shippingport Borough,                 Federal Register
 the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary       Midland Borough,                      citation].
 National Ambient Air Quality          Brighton Township,
 Standard.                             Potter Township and
                                       Vanport Township.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.2033 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2033  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides.

* * * * *
    (d) EPA approves the attainment demonstration State Implementation
Plan for the Beaver, PA Nonattainment Area submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on September 29,
2017.

[FR Doc. 2019-20848 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P