or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 128 Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

* * * * *

Subpart BBBBB[ AMENDED]

112. Section 63.7185 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.7185 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP). * * *

* * * * *

§ 63.7187  [ Amended]

113. Section 63.7187 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph ( d).

Subpart CCCCC [ AMENDED]

114. Section 63.7310 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.7310 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * * 129 ( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

115. Section 63.7336 is amended by removing introductory text in paragraph ( b) and revising paragraph ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 63.7336 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?

* * * * *

( b) Startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

Subpart DDDDD[ AMENDED]

116. Section 63.7505 is amended by revising paragraph ( e) to read as follows:

§ 63.7505 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * * 130 ( e) If you have an applicable emission limit or work practice standard, you must develop a written startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

117. Section 63.7540 is amended by:

a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( a)( 9);

b. Removing and reserving paragraph ( c); and c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( d) to read as follows:

§ 63.7540 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards?

( a) * * *

( 9) If your unit is controlled with a fabric filter,

and you demonstrate continuous compliance using a bag leak detection system, you must initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions as soon as practical, and operate and maintain the fabric filter system such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6 month period. * * *

* * * * *

( c) [ Reserved] 131 ( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the EPA Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

118. Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of part 63 is amended by revising the citation to § 63.8( c)( 1)( iii) to read as follows: 132 Table 10 to Subpart DDDDD of Part 63  Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart DDDDD As stated in § 63.7565, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions according to the following:

Citation Subject Brief Description Applicable * * * * * * *

§ 63.8( c)( 1)( iii)... Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Must develop an SSMP for CMS. Yes * * * * * * * 133 Subpart EEEEE[ AMENDED]

119. Section 63.7720 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). * * *

120. Section 63.7746 is amended by removing introductory text in paragraph ( b) and revising paragraph ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?

* * * * *

( b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with the requirements of § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

Subpart FFFFF[ AMENDED] 134 121. Section 63.7810 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

122. Section 63.7835 is amended by revising removing introductory text to paragraph ( b) and revising paragraph ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?

* * * * *

( b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

Subpart GGGGG[ AMENDED]

123. Section 63.7935 is amended by: 135 a. Revising paragraph ( c);

b. Removing and reserving paragraph ( d); and c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( f) to read as follows:

§ 63.7935 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

( d) [ Reserved]

* * * * *

( f) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

* * * * *

124. Table 3 to subpart GGGGG of part 63 is amended by revising the citation to § 63.8( c)( 1)( i) to read as follows: 136 Table 3 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63  Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart GGGGG As stated in § 63.7940, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:

Citation Subject Brief Description Applies to Subpart GGGGG * * * * * * *

§ 63.8( c)( 1)( i)......... Routine and Predictable SSM Keep parts for routine repairs readily available; reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSM plan. Yes * * * * * * * 137 Subpart HHHHH [ AMENDED]

125. Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH is amended by adding in numerical order a new entry for 63.6( e)( 3)( ix) to read as follows:

Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63  Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart HHHHH As specified in § 63.8095, the parts of the General Provisions that apply to you are shown in the following table: Citation Subject Explanation * * * * * * *

§ 63.6( e)( 3)( ix)... Title V permit Yes * * * * * * *

Subpart IIIII[ AMENDED]

126. Section 63.8226 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows:

§ 63.8226 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( b) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

127. Section 63.8248 is amended by removing introductory text in paragraph ( b) and revising paragraph ( b)( 1) to read as follows: 138 § 63.8248 What other requirements must I meet?

* * * * *

( b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

Subpart JJJJJ[ AMENDED]

128. Section 63.8420 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

* * * * *

129. Section 63.8470 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph ( d); and b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( e) to read as follows: 139 § 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

* * * * *

( d) [ Reserved]

( e) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1) and your OM& M plan. * * *

* * * * *

Subpart KKKKK[ AMENDED]

130. Section 63.8570 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) For each kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

* * * * *

131. Section 63.8620 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph ( d); and 140 b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( e) to read as follows:

§ 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?

* * * * *

( d) [ Reserved]

( e) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1) and your OM& M plan. * * *

* * * * *

Subpart LLLLL[ AMENDED]

132. Section 63.8685 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

* * * * *

133. Section 63.8691 is amended by: 141 a. Removing and reserving paragraph ( c); and b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( d) to read as follows:

§ 63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits?

* * * * *

( c) [ Reserved]

( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

134. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising the citation to § 63.8( c)( 1)( i) to read as follows: 142 Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63  Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL Citation Subject Brief Description Applicable * * * * * * *

§ 63.8( c)( 1)( i)..... Routine and predictable CMS malfunction 1. Keep parts for routine repairs readily available.

2. Reporting requirements for CMS malfunction when action is described in SSM plan. Yes * * * * * * * 143 Subpart MMMMM[ AMENDED]

135. Section 63.8794 is amended by revising paragraph ( e) to read as follows:

§ 63.8794 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( e) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, you must develop a written startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

* * * * *

136. Section 63.8812 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph ( c); and b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( d) to read as follows:

§ 63.8812 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

* * * * *

( c) [ Reserved]

( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur at a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source during a period of startup,

shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you 144 demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

* * * * *

Subpart NNNNN[ AMENDED]

137. Section 63.9005 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.9005 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

* * * * *

138. Section 63.9040 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph ( d); and b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( e) to read as follows:

§ 63.9040 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?

* * * * *

( d) [ Reserved]

( e) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 145 or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

Subpart PPPPP[ AMENDED]

139. Section 63.9305 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.9305 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written SSM plan ( SSMP) for emission control devices and associated monitoring equipment according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). * * *

140. Section 63.9340 is amended by removing introductory text in paragraph ( c) and revising paragraph ( c)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 63.9340 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

* * * * *

( c) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of SSM of control devices and associated monitoring equipment are not violations if you 146 demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

141. Section 63.9375 is amended by revising the first sentence in the definition of malfunction to read as follows:

* * * * *

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *

* * * * *

142. Table 7 to subpart PPPPP of part 63 is amended by revising the citation to § 63.8( c)( 1)( i) to read as follows: 147 Table 7 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63  Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPP As stated in § 63.9365, you must comply with the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 that apply to you according to the following table:

Citation Subject Brief Description Applicable * * * * * * *

§ 63.8( c)( 1)( i)......... Routine and predictable CMS malfunctions. 1. Keep parts for routine repairs of CMS readily available.

2. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. Yes * * * * * * * 148 Subpart QQQQQ[ AMENDED]

143. Section 63.9505 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.9505 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

144. Section 63.9530 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph ( d); and b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph ( e) to read as follows:

§ 63.9530 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitation that applies to me?

* * * * *

( d) [ Reserved]

( e) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1). * * *

Subpart RRRRR[ AMENDED] 149 145. Section 63.9610 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

146. Section 63.9637 is amended by removing introductory text in paragraph ( b) and revising paragraph ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?

* * * * *

( b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

Subpart SSSSS[ AMENDED] 150 147. Section 63.9792 is amended by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.9792 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( c) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

* * * * *

148. Section 63.9810 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph ( e)( 1) and revising the first sentence in paragraph ( e)( 2) to read as follows:

§ 63.9810 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?

* * * * *

( e) * * *

( 1) [ Reserved]

( 2) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1),

deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1) and your OM& M plan. * * * 151 Subpart TTTTT[ AMENDED]

149. Section 63.9910 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows:

§ 63.9910 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

* * * * *

( b) You must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

150. Section 63.9925 is amended by removing introductory text in paragraph ( b) and revising paragraph ( b)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 63.9925 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance?

* * * * *

( b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. ( 1)

Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6( e)( 1).

* * * * *

Part 65[ AMENDED] 152 151. The authority citation of part 65 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A[ AMENDED]

152. Section 65.2 is amended by revising the first sentence in the definition of malfunction to read as follows:

§ 65.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded. * * *

* * * * *

153. Section 65.3 is amended by a. Revising the second sentence in paragraph ( a)( 3);

b. revising the first sentence in paragraph ( a)( 4);

and c. Revising paragraph ( b)( 2)( i) to read as follows:

§ 65.3 Compliance with standards and operation and maintenance requirements. 153 ( a) * * *

( 3) * * * The measures to be taken may include, but are not limited to, air pollution control technologies,

recovery technologies, work practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/ or changes in the manner of operation of the regulated source. * * *

( 4) Malfunctions shall be corrected as soon as practical after their occurrence. * * *

* * * * *

( b) * * *

( 2) * * *

( i) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction ( and the source is operated during such periods in accordance with § 65.3( a)( 3)), a monitoring parameter is outside its established range or monitoring data cannot be collected; or * * * * *

154. Section 65.6 is amended by a. Revising the first and fourth sentence in paragraph ( b)( 1) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph ( b)( 2); and c. Revising paragraph ( c)( 3) to read as follows: 154 § 65.6 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and procedures.

* * * * *

( b) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( 1)

Description and purpose of plan. The owner or operator of a regulated source shall develop a written startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail,

procedures for operating and maintaining the regulated source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. * * * The requirement to develop this plan shall be incorporated into the source's title V permit. * * *

* * * * *

( 2) Operation of source. During periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator of a regulated source shall operate and maintain such source ( including associated air pollution control equipment and CPMS) in accordance with § 65.3( a). The general duty to minimize emissions during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction does not require the owner or operator to achieve emission levels that would be required by the 155 applicable standard at other times if this is not consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices, nor does it require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.

Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures ( including the startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan required in paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section), review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

* * * * *

( c) * * *

( 3) If actions taken by an owner or operator during a startup, shutdown, and malfunction of a regulated source,

or of a control device or monitoring system required for compliance ( including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified in the source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan,

then the owner or operator shall state such information in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report, and describe 156 the actions taken. Such description can take the form of a checklist; only one checklist is necessary if actions taken are the same for multiple events during the reporting period.

* * * * *

155. Section 65.115 is amended by revising the last sentence in paragraph ( b)( 1) and the last sentence in paragraph ( b)( 2) to read as follows:

§ 65.115 Standards: Closed vent systems and control devices; or emissions routed to a fuel gas system or process.

* * * * *

( b) Compliance standard. ( 1) * * * Note that this includes the startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions of § 65.6.

( 2) * * * Note that this includes the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction provisions of § 65.6.

156. Section 65.156 is amended by revising paragraphs ( d)( 3)( i) and ( ii) to read as follows:

§ 65.156 General monitoring requirements for control and recovery devices.

* * * * *

( d) * * * 157 ( 3) * * *

( i) Excursions which occur during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction, when the source is being operated during such periods to minimize emissions in accordance with § 65.3( a)( 3).

( ii) Excursions which occur due to failure to collect a valid hour of data during periods of startup, shutdown,

and malfunction, when the source is being operated during such periods in accordance with § 65.3( a)( 3).

* * * * *

157. Section 65.161 is amended by revising paragraph ( e)( 2)( iv)( A) to read as follows:

§ 65.161 Continuous records and monitoring data system handling.

* * * * *

( e) * * *

( 2) * * *

( iv) * * *

( A) The daily average value during any startup,

shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered an excursion for purposes of this paragraph ( e) if the owner or operator operates the source in accordance with § 65.3( a). 158 * * * * *

158. Section 65.163 is amended by revising paragraph ( c)( 2) to read as follows:

§ 65.163 Other records.

( c) * * *

( 2) For each startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which excess emissions occur, records whether the procedures specified in the source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan were followed, and a description of actions taken to minimize emissions. For example, if a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan includes procedures for routing control device emissions to a backup control device ( for example, the incinerator for a halogenated stream could be routed to a flare during periods when the primary control device is out of service), records must be kept of whether the plan was followed. These records may take the form of a checklist or other form of recordkeeping that confirms conformance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for the event.

* * * * *


1 Environmental Defense Montana Environmental Information Center Natural Resources Defense Council Powder River Basin Resource Council Wyoming Outdoor Council September 1, 2004 Michael Leavitt Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ( 1101A) Washington, DC 20460 Ann Klee General Counsel U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ( 2310A) Washington, DC 20460 Robert Roberts Regional Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 999 18th St., Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 2466 Dear Administrator Leavitt, General Counsel Klee and Regional Administrator Roberts:

The undersigned public health and environmental organizations are writing to convey our serious concerns about recommendations that several western states have made to designate unreasonably small areas as attainment/ unclassifiable areas for PM2.5. In their PM2.5 area designation requests, the states of Montana, Utah and Wyoming recommended dividing the portions of their states that were not designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 into numerous attainment/ unclassifiable areas. 1 1 Montana proposed splitting its PM2.5 attainment areas into thousands of 10 kilometer by 10 kilometer square areas, Utah proposed township wide attainment areas, and Wyoming proposed city wide and county wide attainment areas. 2 On July 20, 2004, EPA indicated to Utah and Wyoming that it agrees with their boundary recommendations, but advised Montana that it intends to identify the entire state, except for Lincoln County, as a single attainment area. Because these state proposals could severely undermine the Clean Air Act's prevention of significant deterioration of air quality program, we support your position on Montana's proposal and respectfully urge you to reconsider your responses to Utah and Wyoming. All three states must be required to designate attainment/ unclassifiable areas that conform to the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

As discussed below, EPA action approving the states' request is premature and arbitrary and capricious when EPA has failed to fulfill its basic responsibility of promulgating a program to prevent significant deterioration of air quality for PM2.5 as required by the Clean Air Act. Section 166 of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to promulgate PSD regulations within two years of the date of promulgation of a new NAAQS. 2 And PSD regulations for PM2.5 are urgently needed to protect human health and the premier vistas and ecosystems of the West from the impacts of increased PM2.5 levels.

Congress pointedly required EPA to issue regulations to prevent significant deterioration of air quality for PM2.5 in tandem with or prior to the air quality status designations under section 107. This reflects the obvious interlocking statutory linkages between the PSD program and the 107 designations. But EPA has turned the statute on its head by putting off the PSD regulations that would illuminate the consequences of its proposed action. The failure of EPA to timely issue the PSD regulations for PM2.5 therefore thwarts meaningful and informed public input into the full consequences of EPA's action on the air quality designations. We respectfully request that EPA swiftly carry out its long overdue statutory responsibility to issue PSD regulations for PM2.5 and reject or at the very least hold in abeyance any final action on Utah and Wyoming as well as Montana's recommendations until it has promulgated the framework regulations required to prevent significant deterioration with respect to PM2.5, so that the implications of the proposed boundaries can be meaningfully assessed.

Attainment area boundaries have historically been critical to the PSD program. Under federal regulations, PSD baseline areas, i. e., those areas in which the " minor source baseline date" is triggered, are tied to areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section 107( d)( 1) of the Clean Air Act. 3 Growth in minor, area, and mobile source emissions does not consume a PSD increment until after the minor source baseline date is triggered for an area. The baseline date is not triggered until the first complete PSD permit application is submitted for a proposed major source or major modification of the pollutant in question, and the date is only triggered in those areas where the proposed source would locate or would have a " significant" ambient impact. 4 The designations proposed by Montana, Utah and Wyoming could potentially create a large number of attainment and unclassifiable areas where the minor source baseline date would not have been triggered and where minor pollution sources will be able to locate and degrade air quality for years to come without affecting PSD increment consumption.

2 42 U. S. C. § 7476( a). 3 40 C. F. R. 52.21( b)( 15)( i). 4 For PM10, this has been measured as a 1 µ g m 3 impact. 3 The balkanization of the attainment portions of Montana, Utah and Wyoming into small areas is unsupportable when air quality in some of the most treasured areas of the West is already threatened by ongoing degradation. National parks and wilderness areas from Yellowstone to Bryce Canyon are facing an onslaught of air pollution, with increasing ozone levels throughout the Intermountain West and worsening visibility in the Colorado Plateau. 5 PM2.5 is the primary cause of visibility problems and it shares a common precursor, nitrogen oxides emissions, with ozone. Moreover, the three states that are requesting this special treatment by EPA are the focus of the Intermountain West's latest fossil fuel based energy boom, including massive coal bed methane development ( see attachments A and B) and rapidly burgeoning coal fired power plant proposals ( see attachment C). Consequently, these states stand in the greatest need of the protections that the Clean Air Act's PSD program was intended to provide.

The analysis presented below demonstrates that EPA has the statutory duty to revise proposed boundaries for attainment and unclassifiable areas when these boundaries fail to uphold the requirements, goals and purposes of the Clean Air Act. It also shows that the statutory purposes of the PSD program necessitate the use of functionally based attainment area boundaries, not arbitrarily small ones. The undersigned groups respectfully urge EPA to carry out its statutory responsibilities by designating attainment and unclassifiable area boundaries for Montana, Wyoming, and Utah that meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. All documents attached and cited in this letter are hereby incorporated as part of these comments.

EPA Has Explicit Statutory Authority to Revise States' Proposed Boundaries for Nonattainment, Attainment, and Unclassifiable Areas The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments eliminated any possible doubt about EPA's authority to revise designations and boundaries for nonattainment, attainment and unclassifiable areas. Section 107 empowers the EPA Administrator to " make such modifications as the Administrator deems necessary to the designations of the areas ( or portions thereof) submitted under subparagraph ( A) ( including to the boundaries of such areas or portions thereof)." 6 This language marks a deliberate and significant shift from the corresponding section in the previous version of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 simply authorized the Administrator to promulgate lists of nonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable areas submitted by the States " with such modifications as he deems necessary." 7 The inclusion of language on boundary designations plainly gives EPA the authority to modify the boundaries of the states' designated areas, and makes it clear that EPA's authority is not simply limited to reclassifying the status of specified areas.

Even before the 1990 Amendments made this authority express, the courts confirmed that EPA had the power to revise area boundaries. In Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the Clean Air Act provides " considerable EPA discretion in 5 National Park Service, Air Quality in the National Parks, 2002; http:// www2. nature. nps. gov/ air/ Pubs/ index. htm see Presentation on current GPRA Trends from 1993 2002 ( power point presentation). 6 42 U. S. C. § 7407( d)( 1)( B)( ii) ( emphasis added). 7 95 Cong. Public Law 95. 4 designating area boundaries large enough to achieve the purposes which underlie the classification scheme." 8,9 EPA Revision of Montana's, Utah's, and Wyoming's Attainment/ Unclassifiable Area Boundaries Is " Necessary" to Fulfill the Statutory Requirements, Purposes and Goals of the PSD Program Not only does EPA have the authority to revise boundaries of attainment/ unclassifiable areas, in the cases at issue it must do so to achieve the statutory goals of the PSD program. The D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed EPA to implement the Clean Air Act's PSD program in a manner consistent with PSD program goals. 10 As examined below, the states' recommendations are so manifestly damaging to the interwoven fabric of the PSD program that it is " necessary" for EPA to reject their recommendations, as called for under section 107.

The PSD program limits the deterioration of air quality in attainment and unclassifiable areas. A principal means for ensuring that air quality does not worsen significantly is the establishment of baseline areas and application of PSD increment requirements. 11 For example, section 163( a) of the Clean Air Act provides that: " In the case of  particulate matter, each applicable implementation plan shall contain measures assuring that maximum allowable increases over baseline concentrations of, and maximum allowable concentrations of, such pollutant shall not be exceeded." 12 As noted above, since EPA has promulgated a new NAAQS for PM2.5, it has an affirmative duty under Section 166 to promulgate accompanying regulations, including increments or other equally effective measures, to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. 13 Under EPA's current PSD increment scheme, establishing small, arbitrary attainment/ unclassifiable areas, as Montana, Wyoming, and Utah proposed to do, would contravene the PSD program goals of protecting public health, preserving air quality in areas of special scenic and natural value, assuring economic fairness among states, and preserving program administrability. Unreasonably small areas frustrate the statutory goal of the PSD program " to protect public health and welfare from any actual or potential adverse effect which in [ EPA's] judgment may reasonably be anticipated to occur from air pollution  notwithstanding attainment and maintenance of all national ambient air quality standards." 14 By creating small baseline areas, states reduce the likelihood that a major pollution 8 767 F. 2d 603, 606 ( 9th Cir. 1985). 9 It is also important to note that the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Reno Sparks Indian Colony v. EPA pertaining to Nevada's baseline areas does not limit the EPA's authority to revise states' boundary designations. This case did not dispute EPA's ability to revise area boundaries. Rather, it merely addressed the factual questions of whether EPA intended in 1978 to adopt the areas that Nevada had proposed and whether EPA had subsequently taken action to revise the boundary designations. In other words, this case did not resolve on the merits the question of whether EPA can properly approve finely subdivided attainment areas. 10 Envtl. Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 898 F. 2d 183 ( D. C. Cir. 1990). 11 Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d. 323, 374 ( D. C. Cir. 1979). 12 42 U. S. C. § 7473( a). 13 42 U. S. C. § 7476( a). See also 52 Fed. Reg. 24672 ( July 1, 1987); 54 Fed. Reg. 41218 ( Oct. 5, 1989); 58 Fed. Reg. 31622 ( June 3, 1993) ( recognizing the requirement that EPA promulgate PSD regulations for PM10 after it established a NAAQS for this size range of particulate matter). 14 42 U. S. C. § 7470( 1). 5 source has triggered the baseline date by applying for a permit in any given area. Therefore, states would have many attainment areas in which minor pollution sources could locate without consuming PSD increment.

The proposed area designations would also thwart the federal government's responsibility to protect Class I areas and undermine the purpose of the PSD program " to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic or historic value." 15 If states can subdivide their attainment areas too finely, Class I areas could be left without the protection of PSD increments at all.

Third, the creation of unreasonably small areas frustrates Congress' goal of economic equity and fairness. As the Supreme Court recently noted in Alaska v. EPA, the House Report on the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act stated that national guidelines help prevent a state from becoming " the target of ` economic environmental blackmail' from new industrial plants that will play one state off against another with threats to locate in whichever state adopts the most permissive pollution controls." 16 In Alaska, the Supreme Court found that EPA surveillance of state BACT designations under the PSD program could help prevent such " interjurisdictional pressures." 17 State boundary designations present parallel concerns. Historically, most states have requested designation of a single attainment/ unclassifiable area   the " rest of the state" that was not nonattainment  or of relatively large attainment areas that correspond to natural topographic airsheds. Allowing some states to establish excessively small attainment/ unclassifiable areas defeats the goal of evenhandedness among states because it allows industry to operate in more locations in a particular state without being subject to important PSD program requirements. This incentive for industry is unfair to other states that carry out their PSD responsibilities in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the law and that is designed to provide meaningful protection for air quality.

Finally, the creation of numerous attainment/ unclassifiable areas runs counter to the goal of administrability of the PSD program. For the PSD program in particular, the 1980 EPA rules recognized that "` postage stamp' baseline areas would be difficult to administer." 18 Different baseline dates might be triggered in many different attainment areas within a state, so that assessment of new source impacts would require use of multiple inventories and consideration of completely different sets of sources to evaluate cumulative increment consumption.

Montana, Utah and Wyoming's Proposed Attainment/ Unclassifiable Boundaries are Unsupportable in the Face of EPA's Failure to Promulgate PSD Requirements for PM2.5 The attainment area boundary requests made by Montana, Utah and Wyoming shine a bright light on EPA's own failure to promulgate PSD provisions for PM2.5. While EPA should have 15 42 U. S. C. § 7470( 2). 16 Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 124 S. Ct. 983, 995 ( 2004); H. R. Rep. No. 95 294, p. 134 ( 1977). 17 Alaska, 124 S. Ct. at 995. 18 45 Fed. Reg. 52,716 ( Aug. 7, 1980). 6 promulgated PSD regulations for PM2.5 within two years after it established the new NAAQS, the Agency is still operating under an interim policy that unjustifiably equates PM2.5 with PM10.19 PM2.5 and PM10 cannot rationally be equated for purposes of the PSD program, because they have distinct sources, different chemical composition, different behavior in the atmosphere, different exposure patterns and significantly different effects on human health, ecosystems and visibility. 20 It defies logic that EPA would consider the attainment area subdivisions proposed by Montana, Utah and Wyoming before first establishing PSD requirements for this pollutant. EPA's own regulations has historically presumed that PSD baseline areas would cover the entire state, outside of designated nonattainment areas. 21 At the very least, EPA's existing PSD regulations require that " Area redesignations under section 107( d)( 1)( D) or ( E) of the Act cannot intersect or be smaller than the area of impact of any major stationary source or major modification which establishes a minor source baseline date  " 22 For PM2.5, EPA has not yet even determined how the area of impact for major stationary sources or modifications would be measured.

Due to the well recognized potential for long distance transport of PM2.5 and its precursors, designation of sufficiently large PSD baseline areas is especially important for this pollutant. Because pollutant impacts do not respect state political subdivisions or standardized grids, setting area boundaries along these lines is arbitrary and capricious and does not support the functional purposes that baseline area boundaries must serve under the PSD program. To be consistent with its long standing interpretive requirements and policy, EPA should not even consider approving Utah, Wyoming or Montana's proposed designations until it first adopts framework PSD regulations for PM2.5 so that it can rationally assess their implications. Once EPA has done so, it should further require, consistent with its own regulations, attainment area boundaries that satisfy the functional requirements and purposes of baseline areas under the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act. In the absence of these steps, EPA should require that the states adhere to the default assumption that the attainment portion of each of these states comprises a single attainment/ unclassifiable area for PSD baseline purposes.

Conclusion In summary, it is critical to the protection of air quality that EPA not allow Montana, Utah or Wyoming to designate unreasonably small boundaries for their attainment and unclassifiable areas for PM2.5. If EPA fails to do so, it will be disregarding Congress's intent to protect existing air quality that is better than the NAAQS through the PSD program, since failing to trigger PSD increment protections in significant portions of these states would result in those areas simply being governed by the NAAQS. Designation of PM 2.5 areas based on arbitrary grid or jurisdictional boundaries within a state would also constitute arbitrary and capricious 19 Seitz, J. S. " Interim use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 in meeting NSR", memorandum, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Oct. 24, 1997. 20 Fourth External Review Draft of Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, EPA/ 600/ P 99/ 002AD, June 2003; Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, May 1, 1996; Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Staff Paper, EPA 452\ R 96 013, July 1996. 21 40 CFR 81.300. 22 40 CFR § 52.21( b)( 15)( ii). 7 agency action, because such boundaries bear no conceivable relationship to any of the relevant requirements or purposes of the Act. Finally, to make PSD protections meaningful, EPA is also obligated to promulgate PSD regulations for PM2.5, as required under Section 166 of the Clean Air Act.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

Jana Milford Senior Scientist Environmental Defense 2334 North Broadway Boulder, CO 80304 ( 303) 440 4901 James D. Jensen Executive Director Montana Environmental Information Center P. O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624 ( 406) 443 2520 John D. Walke Director, Clean Air Program Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20009 ( 202) 289 6868 Jill Morrison Sheridan Organizer Powder River Basin Resource Council 23 N. Scott Sheridan, WY 82801 ( 307) 672 5809 Dan Heilig Executive Director Wyoming Outdoor Council 262 Lincoln Street Lander, Wyoming 82520 ( 307) 332 7031 ex 12 Attachments:

A. Environmental Defense v. Norton, Complaint filed in the United States District Court for The District Of Montana, Billings Division.

B. Technical Support Document, Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Montana Statewide Final Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans and the Wyoming Final EIS and Planning Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Development Project, Argonne National Laboratory, December 2002.

C. Argus, U. S. New Power Projects, spreadsheet, July 2004.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47586-47591]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19270]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-9915-24-Region 6]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Direct Deletion of the Monroe Auto Equipment
(Paragould Pit) Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Monroe Auto
(Paragould Pit) Superfund Site located in Paragould, Greene County,
Arkansas, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Arkansas, through the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective October 14, 2014 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by September 15, 2014. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow internet on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Brian W. Mueller<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RL); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-7167.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733;
Contact: Brian W. Mueller<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; hours of operation: Monday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Contact:
Brian W. Mueller<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, 5301 Northshore Drive,
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118; Hours of Operation: Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
Northeast Arkansas Regional Library, located at 120 North 12th Street,
Paragould, Arkansas 72450; Hours of operation: Monday through Thursday
day 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., and
Saturday 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project
Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Superfund
Division (6SF-RL); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Monroe Auto Pit. Superfund Site (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part
300 which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
As described in Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the
NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future
conditions warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by September 15, 2014. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent for
Deletion in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Deletion and
the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity
to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Monroe Auto Pit Superfund
Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA has consulted with the state of Arkansas prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of
Intent for Deletion co-published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
this Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality, has concurred on this deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent for Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Paragould Daily Press. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Deletion of the Site
from the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in
the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for
Deletion and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Monroe Auto Equipment (Paragould Pit) Superfund Site (CERCLIS
ID ARD980864110) is located in northeastern Arkansas in an
unincorporated portion of Greene County, approximately three miles
southwest of Paragould, Arkansas. The site lies immediately west of
Arkansas Highway 358, approximately three miles west of its
intersection with U.S. Highway 49. The site lies in the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 16 North,
Range 5 East, in the Paragould West 7.5-minute quadrangle. The
southwestern corner of the site is at latitude 36[deg]01'0'' and
longitude 90[deg]34'30''. The site occupies seven (7) acres of a former
sand and gravel borrow pit. The area is rural and lightly populated
with private residences located immediately south, north, and northeast
of the site.
    Monroe Auto Equipment Company (now Tenneco Automotive, Inc.)
purchased the described property for disposal of alum and lime
electroplating sludge that originated from settling ponds used for the
treatment of wastewater from Monroe Auto

Equipment's Paragould manufacturing plant. The waste material was
placed on the site from 1973 to 1978, resulting in over 10,000 cubic
yards (CY) of sludge at the site in the sand and gravel pit. In July
1987, the EPA conducted a Site Assessment inspection to assess the
potential for public exposure to contaminants being released from the
site. Principal pollutants in groundwater identified by the EPA
included solvents and degreasing agents such as 1,1-Dichloroethane
(1,1-DCA), 1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), Xylenes, and metals. As an
interim action, Tenneco initiated sampling of private residential wells
located within one-half mile of the site beginning in July 1987. The
EPA proposed that the Site be added to the National Priorities List
(NPL) on October 26, 1989 and was finalized to the NPL on August 30,
1990. On-site monitoring wells and a private drinking water well 300
feet southeast (down-gradient) of the pit are contaminated with 1,1-
dichloroethane and 1,2-dichloroethylene, according to tests conducted
in 1987-88 by the Arkansas Department of Health and a Monroe
consultant. The consultant also found arsenic, nickel, and lead in the
monitoring wells. An estimated 2,100 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search conducted in 1990
under CERCLA Section 104 (e) 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), indicated that Monroe
Auto Equipment was the only PRP for the site. On March 14, 1991, the
EPA issued notice of an impending Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to the PRP. Monroe Auto Equipment, now
Tenneco, responded to the notice with a good faith offer to perform the
RI/FS. On June 28, 1991, Monroe Auto Equipment Company entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to conduct a RI/FS under
CERCLA. The RI was completed in August 1993, and the FS was completed
in April 1995. The RI/FS identified the types, quantities, and
locations of contaminants found at the Site and developed ways to
address the contamination. A Human Health Risk Assessment and an
Ecological Risk Assessment were performed to determine the current and
future effects of contaminants on human health and the environment.

Remedy Components

    Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were developed for Site to
address the contaminated soils and ground water. The remedy is
comprised of the following major components as stipulated in the
Remedial Action Workplan:
     Excavate, segregate and stage sludge, stained soils, and
overburden (clean soil) and unstained soils;
     Stockpile overburden and unstained soils for use as
backfill;
     Stabilize sludge material with 5 to 10 percent lime
addition;
     Analyze stained soil and solidified sludge;
     Transport and dispose of stained soil that exhibits
concentrations of constituents of concern (COC) below toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) levels and EPA Region VI
Medium Specific Health Based Screening Levels in a Subtitle D landfill;
     Stockpile stabilized sludge in an on-site lined
containment cell;
     Apply for de-listing of stabilized sludge;
     Verify removal of impacted materials from the sludge pit
through analytical testing of the bottom and sides of the excavation
area;
     Restore the site by backfilling, grading and seeding;
     Transport and dispose of stabilized sludge in accordance
with the results of the de-listing petition; and
     Conduct groundwater monitoring to ensure the effectiveness
of the RA.
    In order to achieve these RAOs, numerical risk-based cleanup levels
were established for each environmental medium based on the residential
scenario.
Soil/Sludge
     Prevent exposure to current and future human and
ecological receptors through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation
of contaminated soil/sludge containing trichloroethylene, vinyl
chloride, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium VI, and lead.
Groundwater
     Prevent exposure to current and future human and
ecological receptors through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation
of contaminated groundwater containing cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans-
1,2-Dichloroethylene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, beryllium, chromium,
lead, manganese.
    In order to achieve these RAOs, numerical risk-based cleanup levels
were established for each environmental medium based on the residential
scenario.

Selected Remedy

    A proposed plan for the Site was issued on July 17, 1995,
presenting the preferred alternative of capping the sludge disposal
area, installing a groundwater interception system (french drain), and
addressing the groundwater contamination through natural attenuation,
degradation and monitoring. On September 26, 1996, the Record of
Decision (ROD) was issued and signed for the Site.

Remedy Modification

    In February 1998, the ADPC&E (current ADEQ) signed a Consent
Administrative Order directing Tenneco to conduct the Remedial Design/
Remedial Action (RD/RA) under ADPC&E oversight presenting the preferred
alternative of excavation and offsite disposal for the waste,
contaminated soil, and contaminated sediment at the Site.
    In 1999, Tenneco submitted a petition to modify the ROD to change
the method of contaminated soil remediation from containment of the
contaminated soil and sludge, to excavation and treatment as required
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for removal and disposal
of contaminated soil and sludge in an off-site permitted secure
Subtitle D disposal facility. The amended ROD was signed by the ADEQ on
September 15, 2000, and by the EPA on November 9, 2000. The amendment
to the ROD did not alter the Remedial Action Objectives established by
the 1996 ROD, or the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements listed in the 1996 ROD. The revised soil remedy did not
alter the previous requirement of monitored natural attenuation of
constituents in the groundwater. The new remedy was consistent with the
statements and expressed wishes regarding remediation activities from
nearby residents. By treatment and removal of the waste from the site,
the site is available for future development. The amended soil or
source remedy included: Excavation of sludge and stained soils;
verifying removal of impacted materials from the sludge disposal area;
transporting and disposing of stained soil in a Subtitle D landfill;
solidifying and stabilizing sludge material; stockpiling stabilized
sludge; applying for de-listing of stabilized sludge and transporting
and disposing of stabilized sludge in accordance with the results of
the delisting petition.
    The final remedy is detailed in the Remedial Design Submittal
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Action Workplan, Remedial
Design Submittal Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), and Remedial Design
Submittal Health and Safety Plan. The final remedy represents the
culmination of

activities that resulted from the preliminary site investigation
completed in 1988, the RI/FS, the ROD and Amended ROD.

Response Actions

    Tenneco began on-site Remedial Action construction in September
1999. The soil remedial action consisted of the excavation and
segregation of 14,633 cubic yards of soil and started in September
1999. Based on field calculations, a total of 3,348 cubic yards of
overburden (clean fill material), 8,553 cubic yards of stained soil and
2,732 yards of sludge (prior to stabilization and consolidation) were
removed during the excavation activities.
    The overburden was removed, stockpiled, sampled and confirmed to
meet the RA goals for soil and used as backfill. In accordance with the
SAP, one grab sample was collected for every 2,000 cubic yards of
overburden, unstained soil or clean backfill. A total of 8,160 cubic
yards of additional soil was imported for use as backfill, yielding a
total of 11,508 yards of backfill used to replace the stained soil and
sludge removed from the site. The site was recontoured to provide
better drainage, enabling use of a smaller amount of soil required for
backfill (11,508 cubic yards backfilled as compared to 14,633 cubic
yards removed). A total of seven samples were collected from the
overburden and imported backfill and confirmed the backfill material
met the soil remedial clean-up requirements for the Site.
    The 8,553 cubic yards of stained soil was stockpiled, sampled to
confirm disposal in accordance with ADEQ requirements and disposed in
two Subtitle D Landfills upon confirmation of soil constituent levels.
In accordance with the SAP, at a minimum, one grab sample was collected
for every 500 cubic yards of stained soil. A total of 26 samples were
collected from the stained soil to confirm this material met the
disposal requirements for the permitted landfill. The weigh tickets
from the Subtitle D Landfills confirm the disposal of the 8,553 cubic
yards or 14,599 tons (1.7 tons/cubic yard) of stained soil as part of
the Soil RA. A total of 11,621 tons of stained soil was transported and
disposed at the Butler County Landfill in Poplar Bluff, Missouri and
2,978 tons of stained soil were transported and disposed at the Waste
Management--Two Pines Landfill in North Little Rock, Arkansas.
    The 2,732 cubic yards of sludge removed was stabilized with
approximately 241 tons of quicklime and stockpiled in an on-site lined
containment cell. In accordance with the SAP, at a minimum, one grab
sample was collected for every 500 cubic yards of stabilized sludge. A
total of seven samples were collected from the stabilized sludge to
provide the basis for preparation of a petition for de-listing of this
material. The 2,723 cubic yards of sludge removed was based on field
measurements prior to stabilization. Surveying of this material after
stabilization and consolidation over several months after placement in
the containment cell yielded a volume of 1,798 cubic yards. A De-
listing Petition (Petition) was prepared by the PRP in August 2000. The
Petition was approved by EPA and subsequently by the ADEQ in an August
27, 2001 letter entitled Exclusion of F006 Waste at the Tenneco/Monroe
Facility from the Definition of Hazardous Waste. Upon approval of the
Petition, the 1,798 cubic yards or 3,243 tons (1.8 tons/cubic yard) of
stabilized sludge was transported and disposed of at the Waste
Management--Two Pines Landfill in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The
bottom and sidewalls of the sludge pit excavation were extended until
the visually impacted material had been removed. Prior to the
collection of verification samples, an additional 1-foot of material
was removed and disposed as stained soil. In accordance with the SAP, a
verification soil sample was collected for every 500 square feet of
sidewall or floor. A total of 81 verification samples were collected
which confirmed that the excavation activities met the RA Goals for
Soil at the site. In accordance with oral field instructions by the EPA
Remedial Project Manager (RPM), and later included in the amendment to
the ROD, the PRP excavated all of the stained soil and sludge until
levels were at or below the RA Goals for Soil at the site. The stained
soil that had concentrations of the COCs below the TCLP levels and the
EPA Region 6's Medium Specific Health Based Screening Levels was
excavated and disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill. The final shipment of
stained soil was on December 16, 1999. The contractor also stabilized
all of the contaminated soil and sludge which exhibited contaminant
levels above the TCLP levels. The final shipment of the stabilized
material was on September 13, 2001. The final inspection was conducted
on September 14, 2001, and the Preliminary Close Out Report was signed
on September 19, 2001.

Groundwater Remedial Implementation History

    Natural attenuation and monitoring was the remedy selected in the
ROD to address the groundwater contamination on and offsite. The ROD
amendment did not change the groundwater remedy. The ROD required the
PRP to develop and implement a Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP) and
beginning in September 2001, semiannual monitoring of eighteen (18)
wells began. The PRP conducted groundwater monitoring events through
March 2009. The PRP has discontinued monitoring groundwater at the
Site.
    The Groundwater Remedy portion of the September 26, 1996 ROD and
the 2000 ROD Amendment included conducting long-term groundwater
monitoring of wells at the Site and local private wells located in the
vicinity of the Site. As part of the Groundwater Remedy, a Groundwater
Monitoring Plan (GMP) was prepared for the Site. The GMP specified
procedures to be followed for long-term groundwater monitoring to
ensure compliance with the requirements of the ROD and the ROD
Amendment. Tenneco initiated GMP activities in September 2001. The GMP
also specified quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols
for ground water sampling. The EPA Remedial Project Manager and State
regulators visited the site during ground water monitoring activities
to observe ground water sampling. ADEQ also took independent samples to
that confirmed the results of the samples taken by the PRP. No
deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols, or specifications were
identified.
    Based on analysis of semi-annual groundwater sampling results since
March 2001, a request was made and approved to reduce the number of
groundwater monitoring wells and COCs included in the Site GMP. The
requested revised GMP focused only on volatile organic chemicals (VOCs)
at six select groundwater monitoring well locations. A request to
remove the requirements for sampling of the private wells was submitted
to EPA and ADEQ on March 31, 2002. The request was approved following
submittal of the Private Well Report in 2004. The Private Well Report
provided a summary of available information for each of the twenty-nine
(29) wells and presented a comparative analysis of the analytical
results from over ten (10) years of sampling the private wells relative
to the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Based on the findings
presented in the report, no VOCs were detected in any of the private
wells above the MCLs over the past ten (10) years. Select inorganics,
primarily lead, were detected at varying concentrations, periodically
exceeding the respective MCL in select samples collected prior to 1996.
These detections of lead however were within background concentration

levels for the surrounding area and not believed to have resulted from
contamination at the site. Based on the data review presented in the
Private Well Report, none of the private wells located within one-half
mile of the site have been impacted by contamination from the site.
    The results of the semi-annual/annual sampling events are presented
in respective Semi-Annual/Annual Sampling Reports. Based on the most
recent groundwater sampling results from the site groundwater
monitoring wells, presented in the March 2009 Comprehensive Summary
Report Annual Groundwater Sampling Event for the Monroe Superfund Site,
the concentrations of VOCs continue to remain below the remedial goals
for the Site in all of the groundwater monitoring wells sampled with
the approved groundwater monitoring program. The concentrations in all
of the Site groundwater monitoring wells have continued to exhibit
concentrations of VOCs below the remedial goals established in the ROD
over the past eight semi-annual and two annual sampling events. The
results of the groundwater monitoring since July 2003 confirm the
effectiveness of the completed soil remedy and demonstrates site RA
goals for groundwater are maintained through natural degradation and
attenuation.

Demonstration That Remedial Activities Met Cleanup Criteria for Soils/
Sludges

    The soil/sludge remedial action at the Site consisted of the
sampling, excavation, solidification, and proper disposal of
contaminated soils/sludges. The EPA and ADEQ reviewed the remedial
action report and the construction work for compliance with quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols. Construction
activities at the Site were determined to be consistent with the ROD
and ROD Amendment and adhered to the approved quality assurance plan
which incorporated all EPA and State requirements. Confirmatory
inspections, independent testing, audits, and evaluations of materials
and workmanship were performed in accordance with the technical
specifications and plans. The EPA Remedial Project Manager and State
regulators visited the site during construction activities to review
construction progress and evaluate and review the results of QA/QC
activities. No deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols, or
specifications were identified.
    The Remedial Design contained provisions for performing sampling
during all remedial activities in order to verify that remedial
objectives were met, to ensure quality control and assurance for all
excavation and construction activity, and to ensure protection and
safety of the public, the environment, and the onsite worker. Sampling
was conducted in accordance with the Site Field Sampling Plan and all
analytical results are below the established cleanup levels for a
residential reuse scenario. In addition, all backfill confirmation
sample results met the established cleanup levels for a residential
reuse scenario. All analytical data was independently validated, and
the EPA and the State determined that analytical results were accurate
to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA.

Operation and Maintenance

    The ROD specified monitored natural attenuation as the remedy for
ground water remediation based on implementation of a containment
onsite of contaminated soils. The soil remedy was modified in the ROD
Amendment to include removal of stained soil and sludge from the site
to below the Site RA Goals for Soil. The results of groundwater
monitoring since removal of the stained soil and sludge demonstrate
that the natural attenuation remedy was effective and that the remedial
goals for the groundwater as stated in the ROD have been achieved.
Groundwater monitoring at the Site was discontinued after the Second
Five Year Review in 2009. The monitoring wells were properly plugged
and abandoned in 2010. There are no operation and maintenance
activities required at the Site.

Institutional Controls

    The ROD required that restrictions on the use of ground water be
placed on the Site. A deed notice/covenant identifying restrictions on
the Site was filed by the PRP with the Greene County Clerk in November
2003. The covenant prohibited the installation of any private,
commercial, industrial or other water well or other device for the
removal or extraction of subsurface water. The only ground water
allowed to be extracted from beneath the property is for the purpose or
purposes associated with environmental sampling and testing of the
property. The RA goals for the groundwater have been met and the
monitor wells have been removed. No restrictions on the use or sale of
the property are necessary and the existing restrictions may be removed
by the PRP.

Five-Year Review

    Five-Year Reviews were statutorily required because hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remained at the Site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. There
have been two five-year reviews conducted at the Site, with the last
one in 2009. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 6 and the ADEQ conducted the second five-year review for the
response action implemented at the Monroe Auto Pit Superfund Site. Also
participating in the five-year inspection were representatives of
Tenneco.
    The 2009 Five Year Review found that all hazardous substances in
the groundwater had naturally attenuated at the Site below clean up
levels. The remedial action of natural attenuation for the groundwater
is completed and no hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
remain above levels that could prevent unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. Per the 2009 Five Year Review, unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure has been achieved: therefore, additional Five Year Reviews
will not be required for the Site after its deletion from the NPL.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been
interested and involved with Site activity. The EPA has kept the
community and other interested parties updated on Site activities
through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings.
Documents in the deletion docket which the EPA relied on for
recommendation for the deletion from the NPL are available to the
public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of
the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in the Paragould
Daily Press to satisfy public participation procedures required by 40
CFR 300.425(e)(4).

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in
the ROD and ROD Amendment for all pathways of exposure. All selected
remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with
agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed
to protect human health and the environment at the Site.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from

the NPL where no further response is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Arkansas, through the
ADEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
September 15, 2014. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR Part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``AR'', ``Monroe Auto Equipment (Paragould Pit),'' ''Paragould.''

[FR Doc. 2014-19270 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34584-34586]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13598]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0055; FRL-9820-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Reasonably Available Control Technology
Under the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted by Allegheny County
Health Department (ACHD). This SIP revision consists of a demonstration
that Allegheny County's portion of the Pennsylvania requirements of
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) satisfy the RACT
requirements set forth

by the Clean Air Act (CAA). This SIP revision demonstrates that all
requirements for RACT are met through: Certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in Pennsylvania's SIP that were approved by EPA
under the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
are based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls, and that they continue to represent RACT for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; a negative declaration demonstrating that no
facilities exist in Allegheny County for certain control technology
guideline (CTG) categories; and a new RACT determination for a specific
source. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0055. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Allegheny County Health Department,
Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201. Copies are also available at
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On February 26, 2013 (78 FR 13007), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Allegheny County's SIP
revision addressing the RACT requirements under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on May 5, 2009.
    EPA requires for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that states meet the CAA
RACT requirements, either through a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour ozone
NAAQS attainment purposes or through the establishment of new or more
stringent requirements that represent RACT control levels. See Final
Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990
Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and
Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 2 Rule), (70
FR 71612, 71655, November 29, 2005).

II. Summary of the SIP Revision

    On May 5, 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted on behalf of ACHD a SIP revision
addressing the RACT requirements for Allegheny County under the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS set forth by the CAA. Allegheny County's SIP revision is
consistent with the Phase 2 Rule and satisfies the requirements of RACT
set forth by the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through: (1)
Certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Allegheny
County's SIP, which were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
are based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls and continue to represent RACT for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities
exist in Allegheny County for the applicable CTG categories; and (3) a
new RACT determination for a single source based upon reliance on the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard as allowed in the
Phase 2 Rule. Additional details on the SIP revision as well as the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are included in the NPR and will
not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Allegheny County's 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration
submitted to EPA on May 5, 2009 as a revision to the Allegheny County's
portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's SIP.

A. General Requirements

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2013. 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, which approves Allegheny County's 8-hour ozone
RACT demonstration, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
W.C. Early,
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, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Allegheny County at
the end of the table. The added text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

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

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

                                                                      * * * * * * *
RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Allegheny County.....          5/5/09  6/10/13 [Insert page number where the   .....................................
                                                                            document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-13598 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P