[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3984-3997]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1512]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002, FRL-9622-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing limited approval of a revision to the
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on December 20, 2010 that addresses
regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules
that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to
implement the regional haze requirements for Pennsylvania on the basis
that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
also proposing to approve this revision as meeting the infrastructure
requirements relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. In a separate
action, EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of the
Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
Commonwealth's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to
EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), see 76 FR 82219, December
30, 2011. Consequently, we are not taking action in this notice to
address the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional
haze requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0002 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
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-R03-OAR-
2012-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy 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 Commonwealth's
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 2010, the PADEP submitted a
revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the first
implementation period.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Background Information
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Pennsylvania's regional haze
submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    5. BART
    C. Consultation With States and FLMs
    D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See
64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background Information

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section II of this notice. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\3\ Section 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning organization. MANE-VU is a
collaborative effort of state governments,

tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member states and
tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St.
Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that
within three years of promulgation of a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), a state must ensure that its SIP, among other
requirements, ``contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source or
other types of emission activity within the State from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to
protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that
such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of part C of (Subchapter I)
(relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a
state could meet such visibility requirements through its regional haze
SIP. EPA's rationale supporting this recommendation was that the
development of the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a
collaborative environment among the states, and that through this
process states would coordinate on emissions controls to protect
visibility on an interstate basis. The common understanding was that,
as a result of this collaborative environment, each state would take
action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by other states
in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This
interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the RHR that a
state participating in a regional planning process must include ``all
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that process.'' See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical
Support Committee (TSC) which provides an analysis of the causes of
haze, and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state
to the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU states
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been
prepared by the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the
emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the
MANE-VU process.
    Pennsylvania submitted a regional haze SIP on December 20, 2010, to
address the requirements of the RHR. On December 7, 2007, Pennsylvania
submitted its original 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP revisions. On June 6, 2008, Pennsylvania submitted
amendments for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. On April 26, 2010, Pennsylvania submitted the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On May 24, 2011,
Pennsylvania submitted an amendment to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. In these submittals, Pennsylvania stated that their
regional haze SIP would meet the requirements of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Pennsylvania also
indicated it will meet the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), and
specifically references the regional haze SIP submitted on December 20,
2010. EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP and, as
explained in section IV of this action, proposes to find that
Pennsylvania's regional haze submittal meets the portions of the
requirements of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light

extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful
measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light
extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect
a change in visibility at one deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals toward meeting the national visibility goal), defining
baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in
visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure
``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by
anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'')
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress that states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount
of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with
one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with
potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with
emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the
state's Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources\5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater

reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required,
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005.
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states
were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from
EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. On December 30, 2011, EPA
proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would
achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than
would BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR
82219. EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to meet the
requirements of an alternative program in lieu of BART by participation
in the trading programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken
final action on that rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
    As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the RHR
(76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011) a number of states, including
Pennsylvania, fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time,
relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement

and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the
state-adopted reasonable progress goals. In that notice, we proposed a
limited disapproval of Pennsylvania's long-term strategy and for that
reason are not taking action on the long-term strategy in this notice.
Comments on that proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met. The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Pennsylvania's regional haze submittal?

    On December 20, 2010, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Pennsylvania has no Class I areas within its borders, but has been
identified as influencing the visibility impairment of all MANE-VU
Class I areas (Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; Acadia
National Park, Moosehorn Wilderness Area, and Roosevelt/Campobello
International Park in Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness Area and
Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; Lye
Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont; Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek
Wilderness Area in West Virginia; and Shenandoah National Park and
James River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia). Pennsylvania is
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these
Class I areas, that describes its long-term emission strategy, its role
in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets the other
requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. However, since
Pennsylvania has no Class I areas within its borders, Pennsylvania is
not required to address the following regional haze SIP elements: (a)
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, (b)
establishment of reasonable progress goals, (c) monitoring
requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section II. E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, the Class
I area states. Pennsylvania's LTS for the first implementation period
addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and local
controls that take effect in the Commonwealth from the baseline period
starting in 2002 until 2018.

Pennsylvania participated in the MANE-VU regional strategy development
process. As a participant, Pennsylvania supported a regional approach
towards deciding which control measures to pursue for regional haze,
which was based on technical analyses documented in the following
reports: (a) Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic United States; (b) Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of
BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting BART
Determinations; and (d) Assessment of Control Technology Options for
BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers,
Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp Facilities.
    The LTS was developed by Pennsylvania, in coordination with MANE-
VU, identifying the emissions units within Pennsylvania that likely
have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the MANE-VU Class I
areas, estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all controls
required under federal and state regulations for the 2002-2018 period
(including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement with
the uniform rate of progress for the MANE-VU Class I areas.
    Pennsylvania's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with
Class I area states and includes enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established by MANE-VU for the Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from
Pennsylvania. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions and assuming emissions growth due to projected increases
in economic activity as well as applying reductions expected from
federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct states
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in section
III.B.3, below, MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of
sulfates are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic region and it was also determined that the total ammonia
emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) area sources, (3)
off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources. The New York
Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an inventory of
biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. Stationary point
sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage
per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the
facility level. Stationary area sources are those sources whose
individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number
of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category
could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment that can
move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road
type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, grasses,
and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission data is
tracked at the facility level. For all other source types emissions are
summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and state control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Pennsylvania anticipate will reduce emissions between
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement
by 2018 in the MANE-VU Class I areas. To assess emissions reductions
from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and reasonable
progress goals MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections called Best
and Final. The emissions inventory provided by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for the Best and Final 2018 projections is based on
adopted and enforceable requirements.
    Pennsylvania also relied on emission reductions from various
federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules in the
development of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT
rules include the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal
combustion engines MACT, the industrial boiler and process heaters MACT
and the 2, 4, 7, and 10 year MACT standards.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\6\ This MACT was
vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition
Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the
vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The MANE-VU modeling included emission
reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Pennsylvania
did not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued.
However, the expected reductions in SO2 and PM are small
relative to the Pennsylvania inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the
expected reductions of the new rule acceptable since the final rule
requires compliance by 2014, it provides Pennsylvania time to assure
the required controls are in place prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018. In addition, the RHR requires that any
resulting differences between emissions projections and actual
emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-
year review prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. Tables 1 and 2
are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emissions
inventories for Pennsylvania. The 2018 estimated emissions include
emission growth as well as emission reductions due to ongoing emission
control strategies, BART, and reasonable progress goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.

                                       Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for Pennsylvania in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          37,323         297,379          20,115          40,587           1,388         995,175
Area....................................................         240,785          47,591          74,925         391,897          79,911          63,679
On-Road Mobile..........................................         176,090         346,472           5,450           7,468          10,497          10,882

Off-Road Mobile.........................................         102,331         103,824           8,440           9,738              55           7,915
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         556,529         795,266         108,930         449,690          91,851       1,077,651
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                            Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for Pennsylvania in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          46,004         162,067          39,468          60,480           3,381         266,455
Area....................................................         230,011          50,829          50,842         195,467         117,400          42,072
On-Road Mobile..........................................          78,624          91,516           2,064           2,148          13,933           1,436
Off-Road Mobile.........................................          69,956          55,771           5,808           6,949              73             607
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         424,595         360,183          98,182         265,044         134,787         310,570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid model that was
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU states modeling
was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-
454/B-07-002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,
located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-
454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling
Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment,
demonstrated

that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than 50
percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as much as or more than 80 percent
on the haziest days. The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by
MANE-VU predict that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources will result in the greatest
improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region,
more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the
dominant role of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective
emissions management approach would rely heavily on broad-based
regional SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    Since the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have a Class I
area, it is not required to establish RPGs. However, Pennsylvania has
been identified as influencing the visibility impairment of MANE-VU
Class I Areas; Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek Wilderness Area in
West Virginia; and Shenandoah National Park and James River Face
Wilderness Area in Virginia. As such, Pennsylvania participated in
consultations to discuss the reasonable progress goals considered by
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) Class I area states, West Virginia and Virginia. West Virginia
and Virginia wrote emails to Pennsylvania stating no additional
reductions were needed from the Commonwealth to meet their RPGs. See
Appendix D of the Pennsylvania submittal. West Virginia and Virginia
determined that Pennsylvania met their RPGs with just the
implementation of CAIR. See Appendix K of the Pennsylvania submittal.
The VISTAS modeling that was done is different from the MANE-VU
modeling because they used different assumptions about the efficiency
of CAIR. EPA has determined that both RPOs modeling are acceptable. See
EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Modeling Portions of
Pennsylvania's Regional Haze SIP. As a result, the MANE-VU Class I area
states adopted four RPGs that will provide for reasonable progress
towards achieving natural visibility (MANE-VU ``Asks''): timely
implementation of BART requirements; a 90 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks (15 of which are located in
Pennsylvania); adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and
continued evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions. States were required to reduce
SO2 emissions from the highest emission stacks in the
eastern United States by 90 percent or if it was infeasible to achieve
that level of reduction, an alternative had to be identified which
could include other point sources. Table 3 shows Pennsylvania's 15
stacks identified and the anticipated controls.

           Table 3--EGU Stacks in Pennsylvania and Controls Identified From the MANE-VU 167 Stack List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Anticipated
  Facility name & stack ID in    Facility ID                                      Anticipated      reduction in
           appendix I               ORISPL      Unit ID        Unit type       controls & permit   SO2 emissions
                                                                                status           (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong......................         3178            2  Coal Steam.......                                * 90
Brunner Island PA--26..........         3140            2  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               2009 Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 67-
                                                                               05005D.
Brunner Island.................         3140            3  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               2009 Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 67-
                                                                               05005D.
Cheswick AC--04................         8226            1  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               2010.
Hatfields Ferry PA--35.........         3179            2  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               2009 Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 30-
                                                                               00099F.
Homer City PA--37..............         3122            1  Coal Steam.......  ..................           ** 95
Homer City PA--37..............         3122            2  Coal Steam.......  ..................           ** 95
Keystone PA--39................         3136            1  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               2009 Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 03-
                                                                               00027B.
Keystone PA--39................         3136            2  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               2010 Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 03-
                                                                               00027B.
Martins Creek PA--08...........         3148            2  Coal Steam.......  N/A.
Montour PA--07.................         3149            1  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               operation. Plan
                                                                               Approval No.: 47-
                                                                               00001B.
Montour PA--07.................         3149            2  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
                                                                               operation. Plan
                                                                               Approval No.: 47-
                                                                               00001B.
Portland PA--09................         3113            1  Coal Steam.
Portland.......................         3113            2  Coal Steam.
Shawville......................         3131            1  Coal Steam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The PADEP is currently in litigation with Allegheny Energy, owner of Armstrong, to require SO2 controls as
  part of NSR and PSD alleged violations by the Department.
** In June 2008, May and November 2010, EPA issued notices of violation to EME Homer City Generating Facility to
  require SO2 controls as part of NSR alleged violations under the Clean Air Act. In addition, the PADEP,
  together with New York State in July 2010, filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue related to these violations.

    Pennsylvania also identified additional EGUs that would be
controlled to meet the reductions required in the MANE-VU Asks for the
167 stacks. These additional sources are listed in Table 4.
Pennsylvania averaged the EGU emission reductions for the 15 identified
stacks and an additional 6 EGU stacks to meet the 90 percent control
needed. EPA agrees that Pennsylvania has met the MANE-VU ``Ask'' of 90
percent control on its share of the 167 stacks identified. EPA's
analysis of Pennsylvania's averaging can be found in the TSD
accompanying this rulemaking.

                                   Table 4--Additional EGU Stacks and Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Anticipated
                                 Facility ID                                      Anticipated      reduction in
         Facility name              ORISPL      Unit ID        Unit type       controls & permit   SO2 emissions
                                                                                status           (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPS Res. Sunbury Six Boilers            3152          1-4  Coal Steam.......  Wet Scrubber in                 95
 (Units 1-4).                                                                  2010 with a new
                                                                               stack that will
                                                                               exhaust all six
                                                                               boilers. Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 55-
                                                                               00001C.
Reliant Shawville Units 3 & 4..         3131         3, 4  Coal Steam.......  FGD--Dry Scrubber               95
                                                                               (spray dryer
                                                                               absorber) in
                                                                               2010. Plan
                                                                               Approval No. 17-
                                                                               00001D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) proposed the Commonwealth's statewide low-sulfur heating and
distillate oil regulation, in response to the MANE-VU ``Ask'' that
states adopt a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. The Commonwealth has not
finalized this strategy at the time of this proposal. However,
following Pennsylvania's SIP submittal on December 20, 2010, additional
point sources have become subject to federally enforceable
SO2 emission limits due to facility closures and federal
actions. In addition, controls on Pennsylvania's EGUs that are included
on the list of 167 stacks have resulted in emissions reductions greater
than the 90 percent reduction of the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' These additional
point source SO2 reductions are somewhat less than the
reductions projected to result from adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil
strategy. However, this shortfall is not anticipated to interfere with
the ability of other states to meet their respective reasonable
progress goals. Consequently, EPA is proposing to find that for the
first planning period the enforceable emission reductions and potential
visibility benefits achieved by reducing SO2 emissions at
additional point sources adequately substitute for the emission
reductions and potential visibility benefits that would have been
achieved by Pennsylvania's adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy.
A detailed discussion of this aspect of our proposal can be found in
the TSD for this notice. We also note that implementation of recent
federal measures is expected to result in further SO2
emission reductions during the first planning period. Although expected
emission reductions cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that
Pennsylvania has obtained its share of the emission reductions needed
to meet the RPGs for the area, once these measures are implemented and
the reductions quantified, EPA expects that Pennsylvania's overall
SO2 emission reductions will exceed those agreed to in the
RPO process.
5. BART
    BART is an element of Pennsylvania's LTS. The BART regional haze
requirement consists of three components: (a) Identification of all the
BART eligible sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BART eligible
sources are subject to BART; and (c) the determination of the BART
controls.
    The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the
BART eligible sources. The BART eligible sources were identified by
utilizing the criteria in the BART Guidelines as follows:
     Determine whether one or more emissions units at the
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
     Determine whether the emission unit(s) was in existence on
August 7, 1977 and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
     Determine whether potential emissions of SO2,
NOX, and PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or
more per year.
    The BART Guidelines recommend addressing SO2,
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment pollutants
and leave it up to the discretion of states to evaluate VOC or ammonia
emissions. Because of the lack of tools available to estimate emissions
and subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility
Pennsylvania did not address them for BART. Pennsylvania identified 34
sources as BART-eligible as listed in Table 5. Pennsylvania also
identified nine sources that are relatively small emission sources with
the potential emissions that exceed the 250 tons per year or more, but
have actual emissions well below 250 tons per year to accept federally
enforceable limits to make them not BART-eligible which are listed in
Table 6. If any of the sources in Table 6 request an increase in
NOX, SO2 and PM emissions greater than 250 tons
per year of any one of these pollutants the facility would become
subject to BART.

               Table 5--Pennsylvania BART-Eligible Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facility                              County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXELON GENERATION CO/EDDYSTONE...  Delaware.
ISG PLATE LLC/COATESVILLE........  Chester.
SUNOCO INC (R&M)/MARCUS HOOK       Delaware.
 REFINERY.
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO/TRAINER REF....  Delaware.
PPL MONTOUR LLC/MONTOUR SES......  Montour.
PPL MARTINS CREEK LLC/MARTINS      Northampton.
 CREEK.
RELIANT ENERGY/PORTLAND            Northampton.
 GENERATING STATION.
LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHALL PLT.......  Lehigh.
KEYSTONE PORTLAND CE/EAST ALLEN..  Northampton.
ORION POWER MIDWEST/NEW CASTLE     Lawrence.
 PLT.
CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT......  Lawrence.
ESSROC/BESSEMER..................  Lawrence.
AK STEEL CORP/BUTLER WORKS.......  Butler.
UNITED REFINING CO/WARREN PLT....  Warren.

PPL BRUNNER ISLAND LLC/BRUNNER     York.
 ISLAND.
APPLETON PAPERS INC/SPRING MILL..  Blair.
PH GLATFELTER CO/SPRING GROVE....  York.
LEHIGH CEMENT CO/EVANSVILLE        Berks.
 CEMENT PLT.
CARMEUSE LIME INC/MILLARD LIME     Lebanon.
 PLT.
LEHIGH CEMENT CO/YORK OPERATIONS.  York.
ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY/HATFIELDS  Greene.
 FERRY POWER STA.
ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY/MITCHELL   Washington.
 POWER STA.
EME HOMER CITY GEN LP............  Indiana.
RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST/          Indiana.
 CONEMAUGH PLT.
RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST MGMT/     Armstrong.
 KEYSTONE POWER PLT.
FIRSTENERGY GEN CORP/BRUCE         Beaver.
 MANSFIELD PLT.
DYNO NOBEL INC/DONORA............  Washington.
RELIANT/CHESWICK.................  Allegheny.
US STEEL/CLAIRTON WORKS..........  Allegheny.
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM/BRACKENRIDGE....  Allegheny.
SUNOCO CHEMICALS/FRANKFORD PLANT.  Philadelphia.
SUNOCO INC (R&M)/PHILADELPHIA      Philadelphia.
 REFINERY.
TRIGEN/EDISON STATION............  Philadelphia.
TRIGEN/SCHUYLKILL STATION........  Philadelphia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 6--Pennsylvania Facilities Not BART-Eligible Due to Federally
                     Enforceable Permit Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Facility                              County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTAULIC CO AMER/FORKS FACILITY...........  Northampton.
AMERICAN REFINING GR/BRADFORD..............  McKean.
MERCER LIME & STONE/BRANCHTON..............  Butler.
DUFERCO FARRELL CORP/FARRELL PLT...........  Mercer.
INMETCO/ELLWOOD CITY.......................  Lawrence.
INDSPEC CHEM CORP/PETROLIA.................  Butler.
LWB REFRACTORIES CO/W MANCHESTER...........  York.
EXIDE TECH/READING SMELTER.................  Berks.
HORSEHEAD CORP/MONACA SMELTER..............  Beaver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second component of the BART evaluation is to identify those
BART eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area are subject to
BART. As discussed in the BART Guidelines, a state may choose to
consider all BART eligible sources to be subject to BART (70 FR 39161).
Consistent with the MANE-VU Board's decision in June 2004 that because
of the collective importance of BART sources, BART determinations
should be made by the MANE-VU states for each BART eligible source.
Pennsylvania identified each of its BART eligible sources as subject to
BART.
    The final component of a BART evaluation is making BART
determinations for all BART subject sources. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states
consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. Section (e)(2) of the RHR provides that a state
may opt to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative
measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install,
operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the state must demonstrate that
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART. The 34 sources in Pennsylvania that
the Commonwealth found to be subject to BART are discussed below in
Table 7. For the EGUs, Pennsylvania relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX. As CAIR does not
address PM emissions, Pennsylvania conducted BART analyses for PM for
these EGUs subject to BART.

             Table 7--Pennsylvania BART Limits and Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       BART Source name & unit ID          Pollutant and emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID    SO2: 25 parts per million
 C01.                                     volumetric dry (ppmvd) (365-
                                          day rolling average).
                                         PM: 0.5 pound (lb)/1000 lb coke
                                          burn (3-hr average).
                                         NOX: 121.1 ppmvd (365-day).
                                            155.3 ppmvd (7-day).
ConocoPhillips Platform Feed Heater      NOX: 0.12 pound per million
 Unit ID 738.                             metric british thermal units
                                          (lb/MMBtu).
                                         SO2: 0.011 lb/MMBtu (both
                                          limits are on an annual
                                          basis).

Sunoco Inc. Marcus Hook Refinery FCCU/   SO2: 25 ppmvd (365-day rolling
 CO Boiler Unit ID 101 and COB1.          average).
                                         NOX: 20 ppmvd (365-day rolling
                                          average).
                                         PM: 1.0 lb/1000 lb coke burn.
Sunoco Inc. Marcus Hook Refinery 17-2A,  NOX: 0.25 lb/MMBtu (24-hr
 H-01 Heater.                             basis).
                                         SO2: 500 ppmvd.
United Refining Co. Boiler 4...........  NOX: 0.173 lb/MMBtu.
                                         SO2: 24.3 lbs/hr.
United Refining Co. Crude Heater--North  NOX: 0.226 lb/MMBtu.
                                         SO2: 207.7 lbs/hr.
Carmeuse Lime Inc. Kiln Number 5.......  NOX: 6.0 lb/ton lime.
                                         SO2: 500 ppmvd.
Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville Plant Kiln  NOX: 367.7 pound per hour (lbs/
 Number 1.                                hr).
                                         SO2: 59.4 lbs/hr.
                                         PM: 34.8 tons/12-month period.
                                         PM10: 87.4 tons/12-month
                                          period.
Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville Plant Kiln  NOX: 367.7 lbs/hr.
 Number 2.                               SO2: 59.4 lbs/hr.
                                         PM: 34.8 tons/12-month period.
                                         PM10: 87.4 tons/12-month
                                          period.
Lehigh Cement Co. York Operations White  NOX: 8.2 lbs/ton.
 Cement Kiln.
                                         SO2: 500 ppmvd.
                                         PM: 0.02 grains per dry
                                          standard cubic foot (grains/
                                          dscf).
Lafarge Corp. Whitehall Plant Kiln K-2.  NOX: 297.7 lbs/hr.
                                         NOX: 260.5 lbs/hr.
                                         SO2: 362 lbs/hr.
                                         PM: 14.8 lbs/hr.
Lafarge Corp. Whitehall Plant Kiln K-3.  NOX: 202.3 lbs/hr.
                                         NOX: 166.0 lbs/hr.
                                         SO2: 195.0 lbs/hr.
                                         PM: 7.3 lbs/hr.
CEMEX Inc. Wampum Plant Kiln No. 3.....  NOX: 6.2 lbs/ton clinker. (May-
                                          Sep 6.0 lbs/ton).
                                         SO2: 500 ppmvd.
                                         PM: 0.02 grains/dscf.
ESSROC Cement Bessemer Plant Kiln No. 5  NOX: 476 lbs/hr.
                                         SO2: 500 ppmvd.
                                         PM: 0.02 grains/dscf.
Keystone Cement Co. East Allen Plant     NOX: 529 lbs/hr.
 Kiln No. 2.                             SO2: 500 ppmvd.
                                         PM: 0.02 grains/dscf.
ISG Plate LLC Coatesville Plant          SO2: 500 ppmvd.
 Electric Arc Furnace D.                 PM: 0.02 grains/dscf (primary
                                          baghouse).
                                         PM: 0.0052 grains/dscf
                                          (secondary baghouses).
AK Steel Corp. Butler Works Electric     NOX: 75 lbs/hr.
 Arc Furnaces: 2, 3,   SO2: 500 ppmvd.
 and 4.                         PM: 0.0036 grains/dscf.
PH Glatfelter Co. Spring Grove Plant     NOX: 0.66 lb/MMBtu (30-day
 No. 1 Power Boiler.                      rolling average).
                                         SO2: 3.7 lb/MMBtu (30-day
                                          rolling average).
                                         PM: 3.6 x Heat Input (lbs/
                                          MMBtu) raised to a negative
                                          0.56 power.
Appleton Papers Inc. Spring Mill Plant   NOX: 0.63 lb/MMBtu.
 No. 3 Power Boiler.                     SO2: 4.0 lb/MMBtu (over any 1-
                                          hr period).
                                         PM: 3.6 x Heat Input (lbs/
                                          MMBtu) raised to a negative
                                          0.56 power.
Dyno Nobel Inc. Donora Plant Ammonia     NOX: 396 tons/12-month period.
 Oxidation Plant.                        NO2: 5.5 lb/ton acid product
                                          (expressed as 100% HNO3).
Allegheny Energy Hatfields Ferry Power   PM: 0.075 lb/MMBtu for each
 Main Boilers (1, 2,    boiler.
 and 3).
PPL Brunner Island Brunner Island        PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers 2 and 3.                         boiler.
Exelon Generation Eddystone Plant        PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers 3 and 4.                         boiler.
EME Homer City Homer City Plant Main     PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers (1, 2,         boiler.
 3).
PPL Montour LLC Montour SES Boilers 1    PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 and 2.                                   boiler.
Reliant Energy LLC Portland Generating   PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
 Boiler 2.
First Energy Corp. Bruce Mansfield Plt   PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Main Boilers (1, 2,    boiler.
 3).
Allegheny Energy Mitchell Power Station  PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
 Boiler 3.
Orion Power Midwest New Castle Plant     PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
 Boiler 5.
Reliant Energy NE Keystone Power Plant   PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers 1 and 2.                         boiler.
PPL Martins Creek Martins Creek Plant    PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers 3 and 4.                         boiler.
Reliant Energy NE Conemaugh Plant        PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers 1 and 2.                         boiler.
Trigen Edison Station Philadelphia       NOX: 0.5 lb/MMBtu for each
 Boilers 3 and 4.                         boiler.
                                         PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each
                                          boiler.
                                         SO2: 0.5% sulfur (6
                                          fuel oil), 0.2% sulfur (2 oil).
Trigen Schuylkill Station Philadelphia   NOX: 0.36 lb/MMBtu (30-day
 Boiler 26.                      rolling avg).
                                         PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
                                         SO2: 0.5% sulfur (6
                                          fuel oil).

Sunoco Chemicals Frankfort Plant         NOX: 0.3 lbs/MMBtu.
 Philadelphia Boiler No. 3.              PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
                                         SO2: 0.52 lbs/MMBtu.
Sunoco Refinery, Inc Philadelphia FCCU/  SO2: 25 ppmvd (365-day rolling
 CO Boiler Unit ID 1232.                  average).
                                         NOX: 20 ppmvd (365-day rolling
                                          average).
                                         PM: 0.5 lb/1000 lb coke burn.
Sunoco Refinery Inc. Philadelphia        NOX: 0.020 lb/MMBtu (24-hr
 Process Heaters.                         basis).
                                         SO2: 500 ppmvd.
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. Allegheny County
Basic Oxygen Furnaces..................  PM: 68 tons per year (tpy).
Slab Grinder...........................  PM: 230 tpy.
Plate Burner/Torch Cutter..............  PM: 13 tpy.
Loftus Soaking Pits....................  PM: 14 tpy, NOX: 194 tpy.
US Steel Clairton, Allegheny County,
 Clairton Coke Works
Desulfurization Plant..................  SO2: 590 tpy; NOX: 27 tpy.
Boiler 2......................  SO2: 1508 tpy; NOX: 1285 tpy.
R1 Boiler..............................  SO2: 796 tpy: NOX: 525 tpy.
T1 Boiler..............................  SO2: 572 tpy; NOX: 358 tpy.
Orion Power Cheswick Plant Allegheny     SO2: 67,452 typ; NOX: 10,840
 County Boiler No. 1.                     tpy.
                                         PM10: 361 tpy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees with PADEP's analyses and conclusions for the BART
emission units located in Table 7 above. EPA has reviewed the
Pennsylvania analyses and concluded they were conducted in a manner
that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. EPA has determined that
Pennsylvania's submittals meet the requirements of section 169A(g)(2)
of the CAA to consider available technology, the cost of compliance,
the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any
pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful
life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. Therefore, the conclusions reflect a reasonable application
of EPA's guidance to these sources. EPA's analysis of these BART
determinations can be found in the accompanying TSD for this
rulemaking. The BART determinations for each of the facilities
discussed above and the resulting BART emission limits were adopted by
Pennsylvania into its regional haze SIP. PADEP incorporated the BART
emission limits into Title V permits. The BART units in Pennsylvania
are required to comply with these emission limits no later than five
years after publication in the Federal Register of EPA's final approval
of the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, to allow time for needed
operational changes.

C. Consultation With States and FLMs

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional haze planning, and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU states held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from VISTAS, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land Managers were
also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls and meeting,
the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment on each of
the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
    Pennsylvania submitted a draft regional haze SIP to the relevant
FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLM
provided comments on the draft regional haze SIP in accordance with 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the FLMs were addressed
and incorporated in Pennsylvania's SIP revision. The FLM's comments and
PADEP's responses can be found in Appendix AA of the Pennsylvania
submittal. The PADEP provided public notice of the opportunity to
comment on the SIP revision and provided public notice of public
hearing on October 9, 2010. The PADEP did not receive any comments
during the public comment period. Pennsylvania commits in their SIP to
ongoing consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout
the implementation.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Pennsylvania
has committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the
form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the
initial submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the MANE-VU
Class I areas influenced by Pennsylvania.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of the revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through
the PADEP on December 20, 2010 as meeting some of the applicable
regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of
the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in this
action. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find that this revision meets
the applicable visibility related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)
including but not limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J),
relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action. In a separate action, EPA has
previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Pennsylvania regional
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the Commonwealth's regional haze
SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR

82219. Consequently, we are not taking action in this notice to address
the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 proposed limited approval of Pennsylvania's
Regional Haze Plan 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-1512 Filed 1-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P