Federal Register Vol. 83, No.198,

On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.

The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The FBW FCS will contain an advanced flight control system that will alter the nominal flight control laws to ensure that the aircraft remains in a predetermined flight envelope. These Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) features prevent the pilot or autopilot functions from making control commands that would force the aircraft to exceed its structural, aerodynamic, or operating limits. The design and construction standards, specifically 14 CFR Section 29.779(a), require that movement of the flight controls results in a corresponding sense of aircraft motion in the same axis. The airworthiness standards for an automatic pilot system in Section 29.1329 covers design requirements for basic operation of the system but does not address dynamic flight envelope limitations imposed by the automatic pilot system. Currently there are no specific airworthiness requirements that address FBW FCS FEP in rotorcraft. The special conditions will require the minimum safety standard for the FEP features.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31, 2013, the effective date of application to the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: FBW FCS incorporating FEP features. FEP is used to prevent the pilot or an autopilot from making control commands that would force the rotorcraft to exceed its structural, aerodynamic, or operating limits. To accomplish this envelope limiting, the FCS control laws change as the limit is approached or exceeded.

These special conditions require the minimum safety standard for the flight envelope protection features. The FEP features must meet requirements for handling qualities, compatibility of flight parameter limit values, response to dynamic maneuvering, and failure modes.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 29-044-SC for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter was published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26226). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:

The Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) features of the flight control system (FCS) must meet the following requirements:

a. Onset characteristics of each envelope protection feature must be smooth, appropriate to the phase of flight and type of maneuver, and not in conflict with the ability of the pilot to satisfactorily change rotorcraft flight path, speed, or attitude within the approved flight envelope.

b. Limit values of protected flight parameters (and if applicable, associated warning thresholds) must be compatible with:

1. Rotorcraft structural limits;

2. Safe and controllable maneuvering of the rotorcraft;

3. Margins to critical conditions. Dynamic maneuvering, airframe and system tolerances (both manufacturing and in-service), and non-steady atmospheric conditions—in any appropriate combination and phase of flight—must not result in a limited flight parameter beyond the nominal design limit value that would cause unsafe flight characteristics;

4. Rotor rotational speed limits;

5. Blade stall limits; and

6. Engine and transmission torque limits.

c. The aircraft must be responsive to pilot-commanded dynamic maneuvering within a suitable range of the parameter limits that define the approved flight envelope.

d. The FEP system must not create unusual or adverse flight characteristics when atmospheric conditions or unintentional pilot action causes the approved flight envelope to be exceeded.

e. When simultaneous envelope limiting is active, adverse coupling or adverse priority must not result.

f. Following a single FEP failure shown to not be extremely improbable, the rotorcraft must:

1. Be capable of continued safe flight and landing;

2. Be capable of initial counteraction of malfunctions without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength;

3. Be controllable and maneuverable when operated with a degraded FCS, within a practical flight envelope identified in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual;

4. Be capable of prolonged instrument flight without requiring exceptional pilot skill;

5. Meet the controllability and maneuverability requirements of 14 CFR part 29 Subpart B throughout a practical flight envelope; and

6. Be safely controllable following any additional failure or malfunction shown to not be extremely improbable occurring within the approved flight envelope.

On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.

The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The current 14 CFR part 29 regulations do not contain adequate standards for FBW FCS with respect to control margin awareness. The airworthiness standards for controllability and maneuverability of the rotorcraft are contained in § 29.143. These controllability requirements are compatible with most FBW systems, while most of the maneuverability requirements are not affected by FBW systems, except for the control margins. One of the purposes of the rule is to ensure that control margins (at the rotor and the anti-torque system level) are sufficient in the defined flight envelope to avoid loss of control (that is, the rotorcraft has adequate control power for the pilot to exit potentially hazardous flight conditions). Implicit in this purpose is that the pilot is provided with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits. Because § 29.143 was written to address hydro-mechanical flight control systems, through which pilot awareness of control margins is provided by cyclic and pedal position relative to cockpit control stops, the rule is inadequate for certification of a FBW FCS, where there is no mechanical link between the inceptor and the receptor. Without a constant correlation between cockpit control and main or tail rotor actuator positions, the FCS may not provide tactile control margin feedback to the pilot through cockpit control position relative to the control position physical stop or limit, for all flight conditions. The special conditions will require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31, 2013, the effective date of application to the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The BHTI Model 525 helicopter incorporates the following novel or unusual design features: A four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS. Pilot control inputs, through the mechanically linked cockpit controls (cyclic, collective, directional pedals), are transmitted electrically to each of the three Flight Control Computers (FCCs). The pilot control input signals are then processed and transmitted to the hydraulic flight control actuators which affect control of the main and tail rotors.

These special conditions require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter. The system design must provide the pilot with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits, traditionally achieved through conventional flight controls by the pilot's inherent awareness of cyclic stick and pedal position relative to control stops.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 29-045-SC for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter was published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26225). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:

In addition to the existing § 29.143 requirements, the following special condition applies: The system design must ensure that the flight crew is made suitably aware whenever the means of primary flight control approaches the limits of control authority. For the context of this special condition, the term “suitable” indicates an appropriate balance between nuisance and necessary operation.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On February 13, 2018, the Tred Avon Yacht Club of Oxford, MD, notified the Coast Guard through submission of a marine event application that from October 5, 2018, through October 15, 2018, it will be conducting a sailboat regatta, the 2018 Star World Championship on the Choptank River, in Talbot and Dorchester Counties, near Oxford, MD. Race activities on navigable waters are planned each afternoon of the regatta beginning on October 7th. In response, on August 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Talbot and Dorchester Counties, MD” (83 FR 41029). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this sailboat regatta. During the comment period that ended September 17, 2018, we received no comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the date of the event, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to make the regulation effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The regulation must be in place by October 7th in order to protect the public from the hazards associated with this sailing regatta. Therefore, the Coast Guard is making this rule effective immediately.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the sailboat regatta will be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate in or near the race area. The purpose of this rule is to protect event participants, spectators, and transiting vessels on specified waters of the Choptank River before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published August 17, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a special local regulation to be enforced from 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., each day, from October 7, 2018, through October 15, 2018. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Choptank River, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at latitude 38°41′39.02″ N, longitude 076°11′19.18″ W, thence south to latitude 38°37′28.68″ N, longitude 076°11′19.18″ W, thence west to latitude 38°37′28.68″ N, longitude 076°18′18.35″ W, thence north to latitude 38°41′39027″ N, longitude 076°18′18.35″ W, thence east to point of origin, located near Oxford, MD. This rule provides additional information about an area within the regulated area, the “Race Area.” The duration of the special local regulations and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after sail boat races, scheduled from noon until 5 p.m. on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, 2018. Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this special local regulation must immediately depart the regulated area. A spectator must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) to request permission to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The PATCOM can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator may enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the race area.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration and location of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Choptank River for 54 hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe to do so.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.]

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. The temporary regulated area will be enforced daily during a nine-day period during the sailboat regatta. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Memorandum For Record for Categorically Excluded Actions supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) owns and operates the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, at mile 12.1, in Portland, OR. UPRR has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Steel Bridge upper lift span. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Run Like Hell half marathon run event. The Steel Bridge is a double-deck lift bridge and the lower lift span operates independent of the upper lift span. To facilitate this temporary deviation request, the upper lift span is authorized to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to marine vessels from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on October 21, 2018. When the lower span is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. When the upper span is in the closed-to-navigation position, and the lower span is in the open-to-navigation position, the vertical clearance is 71 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The lower lift span of the Steel Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5.

Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridge with the lower deck in the closed-to-navigation position, or in the open-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The lower and upper lift of the Steel Bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard requested objections from known river users groups to this deviation via email. We have not received any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the subject bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone in accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 from 5:30 p.m. through 7 p.m. on November 30, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for firework displays on the Mississippi River in New Orleans specifies the location of the regulated area between mile marker 94 and 97 above Head of Passes on the Lower Mississippi River. During the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of the enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts.

Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject to certain conditions.1 EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there were sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.2

Effective on October 4, 2013, the Warren Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source, United Refining, and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 42-123-0004). The final designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA section 192(a).

For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017 to Pennsylvania, finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that time, the State has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply once this SIP approval action is finalized.

Attainment plans for SO2 must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA, and in EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the statutory requirements for SO2 attainment plans.3 In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); An attainment demonstration that includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the State will provide for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)).

On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12516), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing approval of the Warren area attainment plan. In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy for the primary SO2 source within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy for the primary SO2 source (United Refining), which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date; requirements for RFP toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures; the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NNSR program meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request that emission limitations and compliance parameters for United Refining be incorporated into the SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 23, 2018.

EPA received 28 anonymous comments that were not germane to this rulemaking action and will not be addressed here. EPA received specific comments on this rulemaking action on nine topics. All comments are available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below. For a comprehensive discussion of Pennsylvania's SIP submittal and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval of the State's submittal and attainment demonstration for this area, please refer to EPA's March 22, 2017 NPRM. The remainder of this action contains EPA's response to public comments and provides EPA's final approval of Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Warren Area.

A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are provided in this Section of this rulemaking action. The Sierra Club submitted a comment letter dated April 23, 2018, which contained five substantive comments summarized in comments one through five. Comments labeled six through nine were received from anonymous commenters and a citizen of Warren County, Pennsylvania. Where comments contained similar topics, they were grouped accordingly. To review the full set of comments received, refer to the Docket for this rulemaking action.

Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the emission limits for United Refining would allow emissions above levels reflected in both the 2018 projected emissions inventory and the 2011 baseline emissions inventory. The commenter states that the Attainment Plan for the Warren Area should not be approved because it fails to provide an air quality modeling analysis that demonstrates that the emission limits in the plan will suffice to provide for timely attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including “necessary enforceable limits” sufficient to ensure that the standard is attained and maintained. The commenter states that the emission limits that EPA proposes to approve would allow emissions higher than those that occurred in 2011 when the monitored design value for Warren County was 112 ppb.

Response 1: EPA disagrees that the Warren Area Attainment Plan should not be approved because the emission limits and air quality modeling analysis would not ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is attained and maintained. As described in EPA's NPRM, the hourly emission limits developed for United Refining have been modeled to show attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As described in appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (hereafter appendix W) and the EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the attainment plan should demonstrate through the use of air quality dispersion modeling, using allowable hourly emissions, that the area will attain the standard by its attainment date. The modeling analysis, which EPA found reasonable and in accordance with EPA guidance as discussed in the NPRM in detail, provides for attainment considering the worst-case scenario of both the meteorology and the maximum allowable emissions. The modeling demonstration provided by Pennsylvania followed the recommendations outlined in appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.

In addition, under CAA Section 172(c)(3) and as described in EPA's NPRM, states are required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current accounting of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. In this case, the base year inventory is representative of actual emissions for 2011, and the 2018 projected inventory is a projection based off 2011 base year emissions and business projections. As the commenter correctly noted, the emission limits for United Refining (which are hourly limits expressed in pounds per hour (lbs/hr)) can be converted to an annual value, which equates to approximately 1,274 tons per year (tpy), assuming 8,760 hours of operation. This value is considered the maximum allowable emissions on an annual time frame. As the commenter correctly asserts, the maximum allowable annual emissions for 2018 are greater than the 2011 base year emissions (992 tpy) and the emissions in the 2018 projected inventory (510 tpy); however, the modeled hourly emission limits at United Refining are more stringent than the hourly emission limits that were in place in the 2011 base year. In 2011, a facility-wide SO2 emissions cap of 902.6 lbs/hr was in place at United Refining, as well as unit-specific hourly SO2 emission limits as specified in the PADEP's SO2 Plan Approval for United Refining.4 In the Warren Attainment Plan, PADEP has adopted new, more stringent unit-specific hourly emission limits that add up to approximately 291 lbs/hr (approximately one third of the previous hourly facility-wide limit). The hourly emission limit for United Refining is in accordance with EPA's recommendation that emission limits for attaining the 1-hour 2010 SO2 NAAQS should limit emissions for each hour (and not on an annual basis).

While the calculated annual maximum 2018 emissions using the hourly limit exceed the 2011 inventory on an annual basis and exceed the projected 2018 emissions inventory, our approval of the Warren Area attainment plan, and the modeling demonstration, is based on modeling using hourly limits (not annual values) in accordance with CAA requirements and EPA guidance. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM and the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at www.regulations.gov, Pennsylvania's modeling demonstration was conducted in accordance with CAA requirements and thus, is approvable under CAA Section 172. The attainment modeling demonstrates that the newly adopted hourly emission limit for United Refining provides for protection of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

It is important to note that attainment modeling demonstrations are based on the worst-case emission scenarios, and therefore, demonstrate that if United Refining emitted at their newly established hourly emission limit 8,760 hours per year, they would still reach attainment. Even though the Warren Area design value in 2011 was 94 ppb,5 and the allowable annual emissions in 2018 are greater than the 2011 base year emissions, that does not mean a violation of the NAAQS will occur in 2018 (as the commenter erroneously asserts). In 2011, United Refining was allowed to emit up to 906.2 lbs/hr, and while they obviously did not do this every hour of the year (since their 2011 annual emissions were 992 tons which is less than the allowable 3,951 tons),6 they could have emitted that much during a short time frame which would have contributed to a design value greater than 75 ppb (as design values are based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations). The commenter asserts that the design value was 112 ppb in 2011 in Warren County, which the commenter also assumes is directly correlated to the annual SO2 emissions; neither the design value nor this assumption is accurate. It is incorrect to assume that there is a direct relationship between whether a total annual allowable emissions inventory is higher than base year and projected year actual emissions inventories and whether an area will attain the 1-hour NAAQS based on modeling of allowable hourly emission limits. In fact, in assessing whether an emission limit will provide for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, the total annual allowable emissions under the limit is not a factor in the modeling analysis, as it is irrelevant to determining whether the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations will meet the NAAQS. Ambient concentrations calculated at hourly intervals are correlated with hourly emissions and not annual emissions; and the hourly emission limits set for United Refining in the Consent Order and Agreement (COA) were modeled to show attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

In addition, as noted in EPA's NPRM and as required in the COA, United Refining switched from high sulfur content (2.8 percent (%) sulfur) fuel oil to lower sulfur content fuel oil (0.5%) in 11 combustion units and heaters, which decreased SO2 emissions. As specified in the COA, United Refining increased its use of a flue gas desulfurization additive (De-Sox) for the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit, which also decreased SO2 emissions. These enforceable control measures and the enforceable emission limits, along with compliance parameters, are specified in the COA with United Refining which Pennsylvania requested us to incorporate into the SIP. The SO2 limits in the COA and in United Refining's permit support the modeling demonstration which shows the Warren Area attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. That is, regardless of how the annual total allowable emissions under Pennsylvania's SIP (assuming 8,760 hours per year of operation at that limit) compare to Pennsylvania's estimate of 2011 and 2018 emissions for this facility, the SIP is requiring control measures that will reduce emissions, and Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the emission limitations that produce these emission reductions will improve air quality sufficiently to attain the standard.

Comment 2: The commenter claims that EPA has relied on a modeled attainment analysis that barely attains the standard, and does so with the use of an incorrect background concentration, which was calculated contrary to EPA's Modeling Guidance. The commenter asserts that relying on the average value from a single month of data is not representative of background. The commenter asserts that even if the monthly data were representative, the 99th percentile daily maximum value should have been used as the background concentration (as opposed to the average value). The commenter states that using the 99th percentile daily maximum value of 6 ppb rather than the average value of 2.19 ppb background used by PADEP, results in a modeled design value of 78.5 ppb.

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's arguments, and has determined that the 2.19 ppb background level used by PADEP appropriately represents background concentrations in the Area. As explained in the NPRM and Modeling TSD, Pennsylvania's proposed background concentration used in its modeling demonstration is reasonable and reflective of true background concentrations in the Warren Area. EPA found in the NPRM and in the Modeling TSD, that the background concentration used in the air-dispersion modeling analysis for the Warren, Pennsylvania 1-hour SO2 nonattainment area was reasonable and was determined in accordance with EPA's Appendix W—Guideline on Air Quality Models. EPA believes section 8.3.2 (c) of appendix W provides flexibility in determining the model background concentration and allows for methods other than using a monitor design value as long as the method is fully described and vetted with the reviewing authorities and is judged to provide an appropriate assessment of background concentrations. In this case, the availability of monitored values during a time period of little to no operation of the United Refinery provided a unique opportunity to develop a background concentration. Since the nonattainment area has only one primary SO2 source it was reasonable to assume monitor concentrations within the nonattainment area during this time period would be indicative of the Area's background concentration. This background concentration was compared to other regional values for areas with similar source distributions and shown to be comparable in magnitude. While this approach is not specifically included in EPA's list of possible examples in appendix W, it was fully vetted by the proper reviewing authority as required by appendix W. The development of this background concentration is more fully described in section 4.7 of United Refinery's February 2017 modeling protocol (see Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's SIP documentation) and it has been vetted and approved by EPA in this rulemaking action.

In addition, the commenter's assertion that the 99th percentile value of the monitored daily maximum concentrations during the United Refinery's turnaround period should be used as background as opposed to the average value is not supported by any data or reasoning. There are no stipulations in appendix W that require background concentrations to be based on the 99th percentile of concentrations. Background concentrations must represent the ambient concentrations without the source in question. As discussed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal, during the turnaround period, the United Refinery was mostly off, however, certain maintenance activities occurred which produced SO2 emissions. By taking the average of the daily maximum values, impacts from SO2 emissions generated by the maintenance activities (as detailed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal) would have been minimized and values would be more reflective of true background concentrations in the area. As specified in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal, use of other statistical calculations such as the 99th percentile would include the discrete periods where turnaround activity SO2 emissions were impacting the Warren-Overlook ambient monitor. EPA continues to find Pennsylvania's use of average concentrations (instead of the 99th percentile) reasonable because it is within permissible discretion of appendix W, not prohibited by 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance or appendix W, and because the 99th percentile was affected by some minor operations of the United Refinery that occurred during the shutdown.

EPA has provided additional information supporting our initial determination that the background value utilized in the Warren attainment demonstration is reasonable in a supplemental TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at www.regulations.gov. The supporting information provides an updated comparison of the background concentration used in the Warren modeling analysis to regional SO2 monitored values which shows that the background concentration of 2.19 ppb used by Pennsylvania is similar to monitored values in a nearby similar location to the Area which supports the data used by Pennsylvania for background. The TSD also includes a discussion of the overall downward SO2 emission trends across the United States, resulting from declining consumption of coal as a fuel source by electricity generating plants that are the primary sources of background SO2 emissions, lending more support to the assertion that background concentrations are falling and 2.19 ppb is a reasonable background for the Warren Area. In addition to emission trends, the SO2 ambient concentration trend in the Northeast (which includes Pennsylvania and New York) mirrors the national trend showing an 84% reduction in ambient SO2 concentrations from 2000-2017.7

EPA thus continues to find it reasonable for Pennsylvania to use a background concentration that is based on monitored data from a period when the refinery was shut down because the data used does not include emissions from the primary source (as specified in appendix W), the data are similar to data from nearby areas and based on SO2 emission trends we do not expect background concentrations to go up in the future. In addition, 2017 monitored SO2 concentrations do not show the Warren Area to be violating the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

Comment 3: The commenter claims that the contingency measures specified in the Warren Attainment Plan are inadequate because they are not specific, do not take effect automatically, and count back-to-back days of exceedances as a single day. Per the commenter, the NAAQS is designed to prevent repeated days of high ambient SO2 concentrations and back-to-back days of exceedances would “potentially allow exceedances of the 99th-percentile evaluative criteria for the NAAQS to be met long before any even theoretical remedial effects of the contingency measure could accrue at all.” The commenter states the “measure” is nothing more than requiring United Refining to issue a report including unknown proposed operation changes. The commenter states this lack of specificity is plainly inconsistent with CAA requirements.

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the contingency measures are inadequate. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures are to become effective without further action by the State or EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or, (2) attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These control measures are to consist of other available control measures that are not included in the control strategy for the attainment plan SIP for the affected area.

However, EPA has also explained that SO2 presents special considerations.8 First, for some of the other criteria pollutants, the analytical tools for quantifying the relationship between reductions in precursor emissions and resulting air quality improvements remains subject to significant uncertainties, in contrast with procedures for directly-emitted pollutants such as SO2. Second, emission estimates and attainment analyses for other criteria pollutants can be strongly influenced by overly optimistic assumptions about control efficiency and rates of compliance for many small sources. This is not the case for SO2.

In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO2 control measures are well understood and are far less prone to uncertainty. Since SO2 control measures are by definition based on what is directly and quantifiably necessary to attain the SO2 NAAQS, it would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary emission controls yet fail to attain the NAAQS. Therefore, for SO2 programs, EPA has explained that “contingency measures” can mean that the air agency has a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an “aggressive” follow-up for compliance and enforcement, including expedited procedures for establishing enforceable consent agreements pending the adoption of the revised SIP. EPA believes that this approach continues to be valid for the implementation of contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and consequently concludes that Pennsylvania's comprehensive enforcement program, as discussed below, satisfies the contingency measure requirement. This approach to contingency measures for SO2 does not preclude an air agency from requiring additional measures that are enforceable and appropriate for a particular source category if the State determines such supplementary measures are appropriate. As EPA has stated in our reasonable interpretation of contingency measures for areas coming into attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, in order for EPA to be able to approve the SIP, the supplementary contingency measures would need to be a fully adopted provision in the SIP that becomes effective where the area has failed to meet RFP or fails to attain the standard by the statutory attainment date. The supplementary contingency measures proposed for the Warren Area are in the COA we are incorporating into the Pennsylvania SIP and thus will be fully approved provisions within the SIP.

As noted in EPA's NPRM, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance describes special features of SO2 planning that influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures including a comprehensive enforcement program. Pennsylvania has a comprehensive enforcement program as specified in Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S. section 4004(27). Under this program, PADEP is authorized to take any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement of the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Act. Such actions include the issuance of orders (for example, enforcement orders and orders to take corrective action to address air pollution or the danger of air pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil penalties. Sections 9.1 and 10.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. sections 4009.1 and 4010.1, also expressly authorize PADEP to issue orders to aid in the enforcement of the APCA and to assess civil penalties.

Any person in violation of the APCA, rules and regulations, any order of PADEP, or plan approval or operating permit conditions would also be subject to criminal fines upon conviction under Section 9, 35 P.S. section 4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. section 4007.1, prohibits PADEP from issuing plan approvals and operating permits for any applicant, permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary corporation of the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP's Compliance Docket until the violations are corrected to the satisfaction of PADEP.

EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program by itself suffices to satisfy the contingency measure requirements. Therefore, notwithstanding Sierra Club's concerns about the specificity and triggering of the supplementary measures identified in the United Refining COA, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program, which is enhanced by the supplementary provisions in the United Refining COA, suffice to meet Section 172(c)(9) requirements as interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.

Comment 4: The commenter asserts that EPA's proposed rulemaking includes an improper reference to the Indiana Area in Part III. Section A.

Response 4: EPA agrees with the commenter that the term Indiana Area was inadvertently included in Part III. Section A. of the NPRM. The language should have read, “Pennsylvania's attainment plan appropriately considered SO2 emissions for the Warren Area.”

Comment 5: The commenter asserts that PADEP erroneously calculated emissions of road and non-road sources of 1.380 and 0.337 tons, respectively. They assert that the National Emissions Inventory suggests those same emissions categories were closer to 4.28 and 0.781 tons, respectively. The commenter states that while the Warren Nonattainment Area does not comprise the entirety of Warren County, it does include the vast majority of the county, including the more developed portions, rendering the extremely large emissions discrepancies to be quite concerning.

Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The methodologies used to determine the onroad and nonroad emissions were reviewed and deemed reasonable by EPA. The nonroad emissions are calculated for the nonattainment area (NAA) by using proportional population for the four municipalities that comprise the NAA. Using the 2010 census, approximately 43.18 percent of the population of Warren County lives within the Warren NAA, therefore the total nonroad emissions for the county (0.781 tpy) were multiplied by the percent of the population (43.18%) to get nonroad emissions for the NAA (0.337 tpy). The onroad emissions were calculated using the EPA's MOVES2014 emissions model. The inputs used in the model account for vehicle activity data within the four municipalities within the NAA. The onroad and nonroad emissions contribute to 0.17% and 0.031%, respectively, of the total emissions in the NAA. As stated in the NPRM, EPA reviewed the methodologies for the development of the base year inventory and found them to be reasonable.

Comment 6: The commenter states that EPA's claim of evaluating SO2 emissions in the Warren nonattainment area is not valid because there are only two SO2 ambient air quality monitors within the four municipalities of the Warren Area. The commenter asserts that the ambient air quality data is not representative of the entire nonattainment area or the most populated municipality, and that additional monitor sites must be established in the populated areas. The commenter states that the Warren Overlook monitor is 2.9 miles from the United Refinery and that neither that monitor nor the Warren East monitor are in the direction of the prevailing wind, 229.6 degrees. Therefore, because of the lack of monitoring sites in all municipalities, the “dubious” siting of existing monitors in locations not in the path of prevailing winds, and the vast area of Warren County not proximate to monitors, the claim by EPA that the attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the area is unprovable. The commenter asserts that the plan is not approvable and fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112(a) which requires plans to demonstrate that the measures are adequate to provide for timely attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. The commenter asserts additional “emissions monitors” must be established in populated areas near the refinery where people are most likely exposed to SO2. The commenter urged EPA to reevaluate the number and location of monitors to ensure accurate and timely data regarding SO2 exposure.

Response 6: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA used ambient monitoring data to determine that the Warren Area was not attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 47191), and consistent with EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and EPA's Modeling Guidance, PADEP provided modeling to determine that PADEP's attainment plan will bring the entire nonattainment area into attainment with the NAAQS. The 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS was established to be protective of public health and the Warren Area attainment plan modeling shows that the SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the nonattainment Area. EPA evaluated PADEP's modeling and emissions data and determined that it has met all applicable requirements as described in EPA's NPRM.

PADEP operates more monitors in the area (and throughout the State) than are required by the Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) requirement described in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. PADEP established the Warren Overlook monitor in November 1996 and the Warren East monitor was established in January 2012. The monitors have been sited correctly and in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix E. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must reevaluate the number and location of SO2 monitors in the area and disagrees with the commenter that the siting of ambient monitors in the Area impacts our ability to approve the attainment plan for this area. As Pennsylvania has the legally required monitoring for the Area per 40 CFR part 58 and EPA finds the attainment plan otherwise meets requirements in the CAA, EPA is approving the attainment plan for the Warren Area.

In addition, EPA approved Pennsylvania's November 17, 2017 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan on January 11, 2018 because it meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.10, and has not in this SIP approval action re-opened that prior monitoring plan approval action.9

Comment 7: The commenter asserts that the United Refining COA is designed only to ensure a violation at the monitor is not recorded and that it is not protective of the health of citizens in the area since the monitors are not properly placed. The commenter asserts that the placement of monitors is such that they will have minimal likelihood of detecting an exceedance. The commenter states that as currently constructed, the Attainment Plan “lacks sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS, and, more importantly, lacks essential safeguards to trigger protection of public health and welfare across the entire nonattainment area.”

Response 7: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS was established to be protective of public health and the Warren Area attainment plan modeling shows that the SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the nonattainment area.

The COA between PADEP and United Refining was signed on September 29, 2017 and is included in the Docket in Appendix B of Pennsylvania's submittal. The emissions limitations agreed to in the COA were modeled by Pennsylvania to show that at the worst case (maximum allowable emissions) scenario, emissions from United Refining will not be causing nonattainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS anywhere in the Warren Area. In addition, as discussed in Response 6, PADEP meets the requirements for ambient monitoring as established in 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. Thus, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Warren Area.

Comment 8: Two commenters addressed the NNSR Program in Pennsylvania, as it relates to the addition of sour tip stripper units that were installed at the United Refining plant in March 2018. The first commenter asserts that while Pennsylvania concluded the modification of the sour tip stripper unit to the Facility did not trigger NNSR, the restart of the refinery after the modification, should have prompted PADEP regulators “to conduct the NNSR.” The commenter asked how EPA could conclude Pennsylvania's SIP meets requirements of CAA 172(c)(5) for the Area and states that EPA should pause approval of the attainment plan to conduct an audit of PADEP compliance with NNSR regulations. The second commenter asks if the modified sour tip units were taken into account with regard to the proposed attainment plan and if United Refining is subject to the NNSR program for the Warren Area.

Response 8: EPA disagrees with the commenters, and notes that several of the points they raise are outside the scope of this attainment SIP approval action. Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a NNSR program for criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). PADEP's currently SIP approved NNSR program meets all of the requirements of CAA sections 175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area. EPA does not, as a general matter, evaluate individual permitting actions in the context of a SIP revision. Nor do we “audit” a permitting authority's implementation of already approved regulations in the course of determining whether an individual SIP revision request meets all applicable requirements of the CAA. If a source improperly avoids NNSR permitting, the source is potentially subject to enforcement action. As noted by the commenter, PADEP evaluated the installation of the sour tips stripper unit and determined that the project did not trigger major NNSR. The commenter has provided no evidence to conclude that PADEP did so incorrectly. Regardless, if the commenter took issue with PADEP's determination on the sour tips stripper installation, the time to raise such concerns was during the permitting process, not here, as individual permitting actions are not germane to this SIP action which only evaluates whether the SIP includes the program as required by CAA section 172(c)(5).

In addition, the Warren Attainment Plan was submitted to EPA on September 29, 2017, which was prior to the installation of the sour tip units, and as such that installation was not included in the attainment plan. However, the project was considered under Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations; the project was evaluated and determined by PADEP to not trigger major NNSR. Finally, EPA disagrees that the attainment plan submitted to meet CAA section 172 needs to address any modifications at sources in a nonattainment area that occur after the plan is submitted. CAA section 172(c)(5) specifically requires attainment plans to include NNSR permit programs which will ensure future construction or modifications at sources (such as the sour tip units at United Refining) do not interfere with an area attaining the NAAQS.

Comment 9: Six commenters provided video and photos of a fire at the United Refining facility in spring 2018, with identical comments. The commenters inquired whether EPA or PADEP have been contacted about the fires at the refinery, or if EPA or PADEP have been actively involved in the restart of the refinery. The commenters inquired about the types of pollutants that are being released during the refinery fire, which they assert have been ongoing for three weeks.

Response 9: EPA notes that none of the comments and photos sent by commenters about fires at United Refining are related to the attainment plan EPA has proposed to approve for the Warren Area or to the reasoning EPA provided in the NPRM for our approval of the plan as addressing requirements in CAA sections 110, 172, and 192. The fires do not affect whether the limits that Pennsylvania has adopted suffice to assure attainment or whether the plan more generally satisfies applicable requirements. Thus, these comments are not germane to our proposed rulemaking, and no response is necessary. However, EPA reviewed PADEP's preliminary (yet to be quality assured or certified) hourly SO2 data collected at the Warren Overlook and Warren East monitors for the month of April, when the fires and related flaring were reported to EPA.10 The ambient air quality monitor data reviewed by EPA during this period do not show monitored SO2 concentrations approaching the NAAQS of 75 ppb. The highest hourly concentration at the monitors during April 2018 was 22 ppb on April 23, 2018, which is well below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The commenters have not provided any other information such as modeling of actual emissions during the fire to suggest that there are NAAQS exceedances that the monitors may have not detected.

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

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the portions of the COA entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov/ or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.11

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• 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 Clean Air Act; 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2018. 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 of approving a SIP revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania PADEP, to EPA on September 29, 2017, for attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS in the Warren, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Public water systems are the regulated entities required to measure contaminants in drinking water samples. The EPA Regions as well as states and tribal governments with authority to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may also measure contaminants in water samples. When the EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its national primary drinking water regulations for a given contaminant, the Agency also establishes (in the regulations) standardized test procedures for analysis of the contaminant. This action makes alternative testing methods available for particular drinking water contaminants beyond the testing methods currently established in the regulations. The EPA is providing public water systems, required to test water samples, with a choice of using either a test procedure already established in the existing regulations or an alternative testing method that has been approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. Categories and entities that may ultimately be interested in this expedited methods approval action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides the EPA's guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table may also have some interest. To determine whether this action may concern your facility, you should carefully examine the applicability language in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.2 (definition of a public water system). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

In this action, the EPA is approving 100 analytical methods for determining contaminant concentrations in drinking water samples collected under the SDWA. Regulated entities required to sample and monitor may use either the testing methods already established in existing national primary drinking water regulations or the alternative testing methods being approved under this action or in prior expedited approval actions. The new methods are listed along with other methods similarly approved through previous expedited actions in 40 CFR part 141, Appendix A to subpart C and on the EPA's drinking water methods website at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.

When the EPA determines that an alternative analytical method is “equally effective” (i.e., as effective as a method that has already been promulgated in the regulations), the SDWA allows the EPA to approve the use of the alternative testing method through publication in the Federal Register (see section 1401(1) of the SDWA). The EPA is using this approval authority to make 100 additional methods available for determining contaminant concentrations in drinking water samples collected under the SDWA. The EPA has determined that, for each contaminant or group of contaminants listed in Section III of this action, the additional testing methods being approved are as effective as one or more of the testing methods already approved in the regulations for those contaminants. Section 1401(1) of the SDWA states that the newly approved methods “shall be treated as an alternative for public water systems to the quality control and testing procedures listed in the regulation.” Accordingly, this action makes these additional 100 analytical methods legally available as options for meeting the EPA's monitoring requirements.

This action does not add regulatory language; however, for informational purposes, the action updates an appendix to the regulations at 40 CFR part 141, which lists all methods approved under section 1401(1) of the SDWA. Accordingly, while this action is not a rule, it is updating CFR text and therefore is being published under the “Final Rules” section of the Federal Register.

The EPA is approving 100 methods that are equally effective relative to methods previously promulgated in the regulations. This action adds these 100 methods to Appendix A to subpart C of 40 CFR part 141.

1. EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0, Determination of Gross Alpha and Gross Beta in Drinking Water (USEPA 2018). EPA Method 900.0 (USEPA 1980) was promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a) as a screening method for alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides. EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 was developed in response to comments from radiochemistry stakeholders indicating that the older, approved method does not address newer instrumental capabilities such as simultaneous alpha/beta counting and the concomitant need to properly address crosstalk. Moreover, stakeholders requested that a method revision provide more in-depth calibration details and quality control criteria to assure a more robust procedure capable of yielding improved consistency in generating and evaluating analytical results. EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 addresses those concerns and also corrects specific disparities between requirements in the promulgated Method 900.0 and the criteria defined in the regulations. For example, the approved Method 900.0 defines americium-241 as the gross alpha calibrant. However, americium-241 is not approved in the regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a); footnote 11 to the table at 40 CFR 141.25(a) states that only natural uranium and thorium-230 are approved calibration standards for gross alpha evaporative methods (i.e., Method 900.0). Americium-241 is only approved as an alpha calibrant for co-precipitation methods.

The revised method also addresses the important issue of the time interval involved between sample preparation and counting. Timing events can have a significant impact on gross alpha results. The gross alpha maximum contaminant level specified at 40 CFR 141.66(c) is 15 pCi/L and excludes radon and uranium activity. The promulgated method specifies a minimum 72-hour hold time after preparation before counting the samples. Such a delay can allow radon ingrowth along with its alpha-emitting progeny. The revised method eliminates the hold time in order to more accurately meet the intent of the gross alpha maximum contaminant level specification.

The EPA has determined that EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 is equally as effective for determining gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity as the promulgated method. The basis for this determination is discussed in greater detail in Smith 2018a. Therefore, the EPA is approving EPA Method 900.0, Revision 1.0 for the routine determination of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in drinking water. EPA Method 900.0 Rev 1.0 is available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications.

1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods). The 23rd edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA 2017) was published in July 2017. The EPA compared 89 methods in the 23rd edition to earlier versions of those methods that are promulgated in 40 CFR parts 141 and 143. Changes between the promulgated version and the version of each method published in the 23rd edition are summarized in Smith and Wendelken (2018) and Best (2018). The revisions primarily involve editorial changes (e.g., correction of errors, procedural clarifications, and reorganization of text). Errors in the nitrate methods (4500-NO3 − D, E, and F) have been addressed in an appropriate errata sheet prepared for the 23rd edition (APHL 2018). The methods in the following table are the same as the earlier approved versions with respect to the sample handling protocols, analytical procedures, and method performance data. For these reasons, the EPA has concluded that the versions in the 23rd edition are equally effective relative to the promulgated versions in the regulations. Therefore, the EPA is approving the use of 89 Standard Methods in the 23rd edition for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:

Two additional methods from earlier editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater are being approved under this action: Standard Method 4500-CN− C in the 21st edition (APHA 2005) and Standard Method 4500-CN− C in the 22nd edition (APHA 2012). Also, the identical online version, Standard Method 4500-CN− C-99 (APHA 1999d) is being approved. The originally approved method, Standard Method 4500-CN− C in the 20th edition (APHA 1998) specified addition of magnesium chloride in the distillation. Beginning with the 1999 online method, and in the subsequent 21st and 22nd editions, Standard Methods made the addition of magnesium chloride optional, without providing supporting data to verify that distillation efficiency was not adversely affected when magnesium chloride was not used. As a result, the EPA did not approve Standard Method 4500-CN− C in the 1999 online method and subsequent editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The distillation performed in Standard Method 4500-CN− C is required prior to conducting the analyses for all of the other approved cyanide methods. As a result, laboratories conducting cyanide analyses for drinking water compliance have had to rely on the approved version in the 20th edition. That may result in confusion because laboratories that also conduct cyanide analyses for wastewaters use the more recently published Standard Methods. In order to address this issue, the EPA is approving Standard Method 4500-CN− C in the editions and online version as stated above, but with the requirement to add magnesium chloride in the distillation. The cyanide entry in Appendix A to subpart C of part 141 has been revised to clarify this requirement.

The 23rd edition can be obtained from the American Public Health Association (APHA), 800 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710. Approved online versions are available at http://www.standardmethods.org.

2. ASTM International. The EPA compared the most recent versions of five ASTM International methods to the earlier versions of those methods that are promulgated in 40 CFR part 141. Most of the changes in the updated versions include additional quality control specifications.

Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are described more fully in Smith (2018b). Besides additional quality control, the revisions involve (primarily) editorial changes (e.g., updated references, definitions, terminology, procedural clarifications, and reorganization of text). The revised methods are the same as the promulgated versions with respect to sample collection and handling protocols, sample preparation, analytical methodology, and method performance data; thus, the EPA finds that they are equally effective relative to the promulgated methods.

The EPA is thus approving the use of the following ASTM International methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:

The ASTM methods are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or http://www.astm.org.

1. Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0. Determination of Turbidity by 360° Nephelometry, March 2018 (Hach Company 2018a). In July 2016, Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0 (Hach Company 2016) was approved in an expedited methods approval action (USEPA 2016) as an equally effective alternate method to the Hach FilterTrak Method 10133 (Hach Company 2000), which is approved at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1), for determination of turbidity in drinking water.

Turbidimeter calibration and calibration verification have remained unchanged since promulgation of turbidity methods in 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1). Calibration and quarterly calibration validation through analysis of a Quality Control Sample (QCS) require preparation of a primary calibration standard. Sealed standards are considered as secondary calibration standards and used only as calibration verification checks between the quarterly calibration validation QCS evaluations.

Public water systems utilize multiple turbidimeters and many of the units are in line with process streams. The time and cost associated with preparing quarterly primary calibration standards can be significant. In 2016, Hach Company began to manufacture glass flame-sealed vials prefilled with StablCalTM, which is an approved primary calibration standard. From December 2016 through March 2018, Hach conducted a long-term stability study with a set of sealed vials containing StablCal to determine whether the integrity of the vials and stability of the primary calibration standard could be maintained. After 515 days (1.4 years), the sealed StablCal primary calibration standards exhibited a %bias of <0.1% and relative standard deviation of 0.7% compared to the initial certified turbidity values, indicating that no degradation of the StablCal primary calibration standard occurred. The results of this study are discussed further in the validation report (Hach Company 2018b).

Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 is an updated version of the promulgated Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0. The updated method provides for use of glass flame-sealed vials prefilled with StablCal as primary calibration standards, secondary calibration verification standards, and QCS checks. The EPA has determined that Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 is equally as effective as the promulgated Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2018). Therefore, the EPA is approving Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 for the determination of turbidity in drinking water. Hach Method 10258, Rev. 2.0 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80539.

2. Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0. Determination of Turbidity by Nephelometry, March 2018 (Hach Company 2018c). On April 20, 1998, the EPA Office of Water issued a letter (USEPA 1998) addressing the use of Hach Method 8195 (Hach Company 1997) as an alternate method to EPA Method 180.1 (USEPA 1993) for drinking water compliance monitoring of turbidity. Hach Method 8195 established the same requirements for primary calibration standards, secondary calibration verification standards, and QCS checks as described for Hach Method 10258, Rev. 1.0 in Section III.C.1 of this action. Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0 is an updated version of the 1997 Hach Method 8195. The updated method provides for use of glass flame-sealed vials prefilled with StablCal as primary calibration standards, secondary calibration verification standards, and QCS checks. The EPA has determined that Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0 is equally as effective as the 1997 Hach Method 8195 and EPA Method 180.1. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2018). Therefore, the EPA is approving Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0 for the determination of turbidity in drinking water. Hach Method 8195, Rev. 3.0 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80539.

As noted in Section II of this action, under the terms of the SDWA, section 1401(1), this streamlined method approval action is not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Similarly, this action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. In addition, because this approval action is not a rule, but simply makes alternative testing methods available as options for monitoring under the SDWA, the EPA has concluded that other statutes and executive orders generally applicable to rulemaking do not apply to this approval action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 141 as follows: