Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 41279-41284 [2012-16428]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41279-41284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16428]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002; FRL-9695-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the limited approval of the Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter RH SIP) revision submitted 
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). EPA is taking this 
action because Pennsylvania's SIP revision, as a whole, strengthens the 
Pennsylvania SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for states to 
prevent and remedy future and existing anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas

[[Page 41280]]

through a regional haze program. EPA is also approving 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.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic 
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the 
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, (215) 814-2096, or by 
email at linden.melissa@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA. On January 26, 2012, EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania (77 FR 3984). The NPR 
proposed limited approval of Pennsylvania's RH SIP. The formal SIP 
revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection (PADEP) on December 20, 2010. This revision also meets the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J), relating 
to visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision includes a long term strategy with enforceable 
measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the reasonable 
progress goals for the first planning period through 2018. 
Pennsylvania's RH SIP contains the emission reductions needed to 
achieve Pennsylvania's share of emission reductions for the Class I 
areas they impact. The specific requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999) and the rationale for 
EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and are not restated 
here. EPA received several adverse comments and one letter of support 
on the January 26, 2012 NPR. One of those adverse comments requested a 
change to PADEP's best available retrofit technology (BART) 
determination for GenOn Energy's Cheswick Generating Station. 
Pennsylvania can revise this determination in a future SIP revision to 
address comments raised by GenOn Energy. A summary of the comments 
submitted and EPA's responses are provided in section III of this 
document.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's RH SIP on January 
26, 2012 with a docket that includes most of the RH SIP submission from 
PADEP except Appendix Z, which is the comment and response document.
    Response: PADEP did not submit an Appendix Z, nor was it referenced 
in the rulemaking. The PADEP comment and response document is Appendix 
AA and can be found in the EPA docket for this action, docket No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0002.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Pennsylvania has 15 BART-
eligible electric generating units (EGUs) that include 28 individual 
units that are among the largest uncontrolled sources for nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The 
commenter claimed PADEP did not conduct any five-step determinations 
for BART at these EGUs for NOX and SO2. It relied 
upon the pending ``cross state air pollution rule (CSAPR) Better than 
BART'' determination.
    Response: In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval 
of Pennsylvania's RH SIP based on its reliance on the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA did not propose to find that participation 
in the Transport Rule\1\ is an alternative to BART in this action. EPA 
addressed these comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART 
alternative in a final action that was published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 
33642). EPA's response to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Transport Rule is also known as the Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and was proposed by EPA to help states reduce 
air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 
2010) (proposal) and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter stated that BART determinations must 
consider filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable 
PM. The commenter stated that the PADEP BART determinations are 
expressed in total PM, but the cost analyses were conducted based on 
filterable PM10. The commenter requested EPA to disapprove 
PADEP's determinations and adopt a FIP that establishes BART limits for 
filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable PM because 
PADEP set BART limits for filterable PM10 and filterable PM.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the PM BART limits 
should be disapproved. The controls on the facilities considered by 
PADEP for the emission limits in the BART determinations are effective 
in reducing filterable and condensable particulates. Separate emission 
limits for each are not required for BART.
    Comment: The commenter claimed PADEP's BART determinations and 
EPA's proposed approval of these determinations are fundamentally 
flawed, arbitrary, and unlawful. The commenter stated that source-
specific process design information is required to make BART 
determinations which PADEP did not provide. One commenter stated 
PADEP's BART determinations were fundamentally flawed for steps one 
through four of the BART determination process. The commenter stated 
the flaw in step one was that PADEP did not address all available 
technologies for each BART determination. The commenter stated the flaw 
in step two was that PADEP did not appropriately interpret technical 
feasibility of control options in accordance with the Guidelines for 
BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 
CFR part 51 (hereafter the BART Rule). See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 
The commenter stated the flaw in step three was that PADEP did not rank 
the control effectiveness for all EGU and most non-EGU BART 
determinations. The commenter stated the flaw in step four was that 
PADEP eliminated technologies based on non-air quality environmental 
impacts that are common throughout the industry.
    Response: Congress crafted the CAA to provide for states to take 
the lead in developing implementation plans but balanced that decision 
by requiring EPA to review the plans to determine whether a SIP meets 
the requirements of the CAA. In undertaking such a review, EPA does not 
usurp a state's authority

[[Page 41281]]

but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised. BART 
determinations under the regional haze program are the responsibility 
of the states, which have the freedom to determine the weight and 
significance of the statutorily required five-factors in a BART 
determination. EPA then reviews a state's determination as included in 
its regional haze plan. Pennsylvania performed the required BART 
determinations for its BART-eligible sources. In Appendix J of its RH 
SIP submittal, Pennsylvania considered the required five-factors and 
explained its conclusions for each specific source. As identified in 
Appendix J, Pennsylvania performed its BART determinations evaluating 
the five-factors required. Appendix J describes the steps Pennsylvania 
took in evaluating BART and provides a basis for Pennsylvania's BART 
determinations based on those five- factors. The modeling of source 
impacts and technology reviews for specific source categories can be 
found in Pennsylvania's Appendices I, P and Q respectively, which 
support Pennsylvania's BART determinations found in Appendix J. EPA 
determined that PADEP did address all available technologies and 
appropriately determined technical feasibility of those technologies. 
The ranking of control technologies is not a requirement of step three 
(evaluating the control effectiveness) in BART determinations. The 
evaluation of non-air quality impacts as part of step four of the BART 
determination should be made based on a consideration of the specific 
circumstances of that source, so the same technology may have a 
different degree of impact dependent on the source. EPA determined that 
PADEP did address step four for the BART determinations in accordance 
with the BART Rule.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the PM limit for EGUs is invalid 
for BART. Pennsylvania used an outdated 0.1 pound per million British 
thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) limit for filterable PM. The proposed BART 
limit is much higher than accepted as BART (or as best available 
control technology known as BACT), and much higher than levels 
currently being achieved at many other similar facilities.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the PM BART limits are invalid. While 
BACT is similar to BART, BACT has a four factor analysis of 
environmental impact, energy consumption, economic impact, and other 
costs. BART determinations however involve a five factor analysis of 
all technologies available for retrofit, consideration of current 
control technologies, cost of compliance of controls, remaining useful 
life of the facility, energy and non air-quality environmental impacts, 
and visibility impacts. BART is not a required top-down evaluation like 
BACT. As stated in the BART Rule, the states should retain the 
discretion to evaluate control options in whatever order they choose, 
so long as the state explains its analysis of the CAA factors. PADEP 
did address each of the five factors in its BART determination 
summaries in Appendix J of the PADEP December 20, 2010 RH SIP 
submittal. Because BART and BACT involve different evaluations, EPA 
believes it is reasonable to have different outcomes and different 
limits for each review. The specific BACT limits cited by the commenter 
cannot automatically be considered valid for BART.
    Comment: BART guidelines provide that maximum available control 
technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) should be taken 
into account for determining BART as stated in 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
Y, Section IV.C. The commenter stated that Pennsylvania EGUs are 
subject to EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS Rule) which was 
published on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). The commenter stated that 
EPA must take these requirements into account in approving any BART 
determination because all statutory factors should be included. The 
commenter stated that PADEP's BART determinations for PM limits of 0.1 
lb/MMBtu cannot be approved because those limits are much higher than 
the 0.03 lb/MMBtu limit in the final MATS Rule as a surrogate limit for 
non-mercury metal HAPs.
    Response: EPA agrees that we do require all statutory factors to be 
included in the BART determinations that are applicable at the time the 
determinations are done. EPA cannot require BART determinations to 
predict future requirements and to include those as BART. When EPA 
issues new rules, the states must adopt them as appropriate. The final 
MATS Rule was promulgated after the proposed limited approval of the PM 
BART determinations in the Pennsylvania RH SIP on January 26, 2012.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA claimed it included all 
BART-eligible sources in the CSAPR Better-than-BART analysis, but the 
analysis omitted the BART-eligible oil-fired EGUs as identified by 
PADEP. These facilities in Pennsylvania are Trigen/Edison Station Units 
3 and 4; Trigen/Schuylkill Station Unit 26; Eddystone Units 3 and 4; 
and Martins Creek Units 3 and 4. EPA's CSAPR Better-than-BART analysis 
compared projected EGU emissions at the presumptive EGU BART limits to 
projected emissions under CSAPR. EPA then modeled these scenarios 
against the 2014 baseline that excludes both BART and CSAPR. The 
visibility benefits from this modeling were then averaged across all 
Class I areas. The commenter stated that EPA claims this analysis shows 
that CSAPR will result in more emissions reductions than BART and cites 
to 76 FR 82225. The commenter claimed that CSAPR will not achieve 
greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than 
source-specific BART for EGUs in Pennsylvania. Even if CSAPR could 
lawfully substitute for BART, the commenter claimed the instant 
rulemaking would have to include separate NOX and 
SO2 BART determinations for Pennsylvania EGUs because CSAPR 
does not in fact perform better than BART.
    Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
EPA's response to comments concerning the ``CSAPR is Better-than-BART'' 
action can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at 
www.regulations.gov.
    Comment: The commenter stated that PADEP evaluated step five of the 
BART determinations in a piecemeal fashion, considering the visibility 
impact to each Class I area separately and determined controls based on 
the most highly impacted Class I area. PADEP's approach resulted in 
significantly underestimating visibility improvements compared to 
implementing BART for PA sources. Most of the BART-eligible sources are 
clustered in the southwest corner of the state, near four Class I 
areas. Most of the remaining BART-eligible sources are clustered in the 
southeast region of the state, near Brigantine Class I area, with 
Montour in the middle of the state. The federal land managers (FLMs) 
made similar comments on the draft Pennsylvania RH SIP. PADEP responded 
that the BART Rule does not require a ``cumulative'' impact analysis 
and stated that EPA has provided no guidance on this issue. The 
commenter disagreed and stated that the BART Rule is clear that 
multiple sources and Class I areas are to be considered. The commenter 
cited to 70 FR 39161-62. The commenter claimed EPA recommended that 
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) consider 
calculating the visibility improvement at multiple Class I areas.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment in general. The BART Rule 
pages referred to by the commenter

[[Page 41282]]

address determining whether a facility is BART-eligible and not the 
applicable approach defined later in the guidelines for BART-subject 
sources. EPA agrees with PADEP that the BART Rule does not require a 
``cumulative'' impact analysis as part of the BART determination for a 
specific source. The guidelines do give the option to evaluate 
cumulative impacts to multiple Class I areas which EPA does recommend 
but does not require the state to do. As noted by the language used by 
EPA to NDEQ, we recommend consideration of the cumulative approach.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the PADEP source-specific 
analyses in Appendix J rejected every single control option as not cost 
effective using one or both of the following two measures: dollar per 
ton or dollar per deciview. However, no significance thresholds were 
established for either. The FLMs also commented on this issue during 
the PADEP review process. PADEP's response to the FLMs was that it did 
not establish or use ``bright line thresholds for cost or for 
visibility improvement in making BART determinations'' in Appendix AA 
of the Pennsylvania RH SIP submittal. The commenter noted that based on 
determinations in other states, the acceptable cost effectiveness value 
ranges from $5,000 per ton to $10,000 per ton. The commenter claimed 
that many of PADEP's ``no control'' determinations fall well below this 
range.
    Response: EPA's BART guidelines in the BART Rule do not require 
Pennsylvania to develop a specific threshold, but rather to evaluate 
each BART determination on a case-by-case basis for each source. EPA 
has not established a specific cost threshold that makes a particular 
control option BART based on just a dollars per ton number. All five 
factors must be compared to determine the level of control that is BART 
on a case-by-case basis. As discussed in the NPR, EPA finds the BART 
determinations from PADEP reasonable.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA unreasonably relies on CSAPR 
for BART and that EPA failed to adequately review Pennsylvania's BART 
determinations.
    Response: For BART determinations of sources other than EGUs, EPA 
reviewed PADEP's BART determinations in the December 20, 2010 
Pennsylvania RH SIP submittal and approves the conclusions as the 
determinations are reasonable. Comments related to CSAPR as an 
alternative to BART for EGUs are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
EPA addressed similar comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART 
alternative in a final action that was signed on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 
33642, June 7, 2012). The EPA's response to these comments can be found 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA's proposed SO2 
reductions from Pennsylvania sources as substitute measures addressing 
Pennsylvania's failure to adopt the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 
Union (MANE-VU) low sulfur fuel oil strategy are largely reliant upon 
the Portland Generating Station SO2 reductions from the 
federally enforceable order from EPA responding to the CAA section 126 
petition from the State of New Jersey. The commenter also states that 
this order has been appealed in the federal Court of Appeals and should 
not be relied upon due to its uncertainty.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The rule issued in 
response to the CAA section 126 petition from the State of New Jersey 
for the Portland Generating Station is federally enforceable and can be 
relied upon because it has not been stayed, nor has it been revoked at 
this time. The reductions can be relied upon for reasonable progress at 
this time because it is a federally enforceable measure. If these 
reductions do not occur, then PADEP may have to address them in the 
five year look back by submitting a SIP revision.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Pennsylvania's failure to adopt 
the low-sulfur fuel oil strategy that was included in New Jersey's 
reasonable progress goals cannot be supplemented by SO2 
emission reductions without modeling the impacts as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iii) provides that a state ``must document the technical 
basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on 
which the State is relying to determine its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in 
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this 
requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the RPO and 
approved by all State participants. The State must identify the 
baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based.'' 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). EPA did identify the baseline emissions for the 
measures substituted to address the SO2 reductions that 
would have come from Pennsylvania's low-sulfur fuel oil strategy, and 
the modeling impact of the MANE-VU rule was done by the regional 
planning organization (RPO). The low-sulfur fuel oil strategy was an 
area source rule and the substituted emission reductions are from 
specific sources that are located closer to the Brigantine Class I 
area. Thus, the substitution of SO2 reductions does meet the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    Comment: The commenter stated that both the EPA proposed action for 
CSAPR Better-than-BART and EPA's proposed action on Pennsylvania's RH 
SIP stated that EPA was taking action on long-term strategy in a 
separate notice. The commenter stated that neither rulemaking acted on 
the long-term strategy for Pennsylvania which is untenable according to 
the commenter.
    Response: The commenter has made an incorrect assumption. The EPA 
stated in the proposed action for CSAPR Better-than-BART that we 
proposed a limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs that have been 
submitted by several states including Pennsylvania and that these 
states ``fully consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time, 
relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals'' (76 FR 82221). We further stated 
that ``CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements, however, will only remain in 
force to address emissions through the 2011 control period and thus 
CAIR cannot be relied upon in a SIP as a substitute for BART or as part 
of a long-term control strategy.'' Id. EPA proposed and finalized a 
limited disapproval for the Pennsylvania RH SIP for the long-term 
strategy due to reliance on CAIR. The other long-term strategy measures 
are covered under the limited approval proposed for Pennsylvania's RH 
SIP in 77 FR 3988. Therefore, all long-term control strategies beyond 
reliance on CAIR are included in the limited approval previously 
proposed, and now finalized, by this action. The final limited 
disapproval and FIP was published on June 7, 2012, addressing the 
deficiencies of the long-term strategy insofar as it relied on CAIR (77 
FR 33642).
    Comment: The commenter requested a conditional approval of 
Pennsylvania's RH SIP requiring the implementation of the lower-sulfur 
fuel strategy since it was relied upon for establishing the reasonable 
progress goals for MANE-VU Class I areas. Multiple commenters also 
stated that EPA's substitution of emission reductions is not permitted 
under the

[[Page 41283]]

Regional Haze Rule for reasonable progress goals for visibility.
    Response: EPA does not agree that a conditional approval is 
appropriate for the Pennsylvania RH SIP given our determination that 
the plan meets the relevant applicable requirements. As set forth in a 
prior response, EPA disagrees that substitution of emission reductions 
is not permitted for reasonable progress goals.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA should have disapproved 
Pennsylvania's RH SIP due to PADEP's failure to implement a proposed 
low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. The commenter stated that EPA should have 
demanded the additional 5,702 tons of SO2 emission 
reductions from Pennsylvania instead of saying that EPA does not 
anticipate the difference will interfere with the ability of other 
states to achieve reasonable progress goals.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Disapproving the entire 
Pennsylvania RH SIP would have slowed implementation of other controls 
listed in the RH SIP. As explained in the NPR, we anticipate that the 
Pennsylvania RH SIP will ensure sufficient emission reductions to meet 
its share needed for nearby states to achieve their reasonable progress 
goals. If it is determined that the shortfall of SO2 
emission reductions impedes the achievement of reasonable progress, 
then at the time of the five year periodic review PADEP may need to 
submit a SIP revision requiring those additional reductions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PADEP BART determination for 
GenOn Energy's Cheswick Generating Station included emission limits 
including PM which were inconsistent with the plant's current permits. 
The commenter requested EPA to require PADEP to revise the BART 
determination.
    Response: EPA evaluated the BART determination and agrees with 
PADEP's determination of the appropriate BART limit based on current 
controls. In setting the BART limits, PADEP appears to have set 
emission limits for the facility that are far more stringent than 
intended. If Pennsylvania submits a revised BART determination for the 
Cheswick Generating Station, EPA commits to act expeditiously on the 
revised SIP submittal.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that PADEP did not address 
reasonable progress requirements for addressing MANE-VU's modeled 
exceedance of the uniform rate of progress (URP) at Dolly Sods Class I 
area.
    Response: Reasonable progress goals are set by the Class I area 
state. West Virginia did not request any reductions from Pennsylvania 
to meet the URP as modeled by Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS). The discrepancies in modeling 
between the two RPOs were addressed in Pennsylvania's RH SIP submittal. 
The requirement for the state consultation process was met, and 
Pennsylvania fulfilled what was requested by West Virginia.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Pennsylvania's modeling for the 
RH SIP submittal did not address the significant growth in emissions 
from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operations and therefore does 
not support reasonable progress.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter because reasonable 
progress goals are set by the Class I area and are evaluated during the 
5 year periodic review. In addition, CAA section 169A(g)(1) requires 
states to take into consideration a number of factors for reasonable 
progress. States have flexibility in how to take into consideration 
these statutory factors and any other factors that are determined to be 
relevant. As previously explained herein and in the NPR, we anticipate 
that the Pennsylvania RH SIP will ensure sufficient emission reductions 
for reasonable progress goals. During the five year periodic review, 
any significant changes in projected emissions can be addressed.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing its limited approval of the revision to the 
Pennsylvania SIP submitted on December 20, 2010 that addresses regional 
haze for the first implementation period in Pennsylvania. EPA is 
issuing a limited approval of the Pennsylvania SIP because overall the 
SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the 
implementation of those measures by Pennsylvania and because the SIP 
will be stronger with federal approval and enforceability of 
Pennsylvania's RH SIP than it would without those measures being 
included in the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has already finalized the limited 
disapproval of Pennsylvania's RH SIP in a separate rulemaking (77 FR 
33642, June 7, 2012). EPA is also approving this revision as meeting 
the applicable visibility related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 
including, but not limited to, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 
(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

[[Page 41284]]

costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 11, 2012. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action finalizing the limited approval of the Pennsylvania 
Regional Haze SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce 
its requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN-- Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for Regional Haze Plan at the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State
  Name of non-regulatory SIP revision     Applicable geographic       submittal        EPA approval date                Additional explanation
                                                   area                 date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan....................  Statewide................        12/20/10  7/13/12 [Insert page       Sec.   52.2042; Limited Approval.
                                                                                    number where the
                                                                                    document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-16428 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P