
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3984-3997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    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, (215) 814-2096, or by 
email at mailto:linden.melissa@epa.gov.

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

[[Page 3985]]

    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,

[[Page 3986]]

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

[[Page 3987]]

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

[[Page 3988]]

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

[[Page 3989]]

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.

[[Page 3990]]

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

[[Page 3991]]

 
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

[[Page 3992]]

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.

[[Page 3993]]



                                   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.

[[Page 3994]]

 
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).

[[Page 3995]]

 
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).

[[Page 3996]]

 
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

[[Page 3997]]

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


