Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58955 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE DELAWARE SIP—Continued 

State regulation (7 

DNREC 1100) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

1124 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

*******

Section 2.0 .............. Definitions .............................................. 4/11/10 9/25/12 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

Amended to add 

definitions. 

*******

Section 12.0 ............ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts ............ 10/11/11 9/25/12 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

*******

Section 19.0 ............ Coating of Metal Furniture ..................... 10/11/11 9/25/12 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

Section 20.0 ............ Coating of Large Appliances ................. 10/11/11 9/25/12 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

*******

Section 22.0 ............ Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts ... 10/11/11 9/25/12 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23495 Filed 9–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0159; FRL–9731–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving submittals 

from the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements including, but not limited to, 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. 

Pennsylvania has made submittals 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This action approves those submittals, 

or portions thereof. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0159. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by 

email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. Background 

On September 1, 2011 (76 FR 54410), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

NPR proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s submittals that provide 

the infrastructure elements specified in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or 

portions thereof, necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submittals by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania dated December 7, 2007 

and June 6, 2008 addressed the section 

110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The submittals 

dated December 7, 2007, June 6, 2008, 

and April 26, 2010 addressed the 

section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, the 

submittals dated April 26, 2010 and 

May 24, 2011 addressed the section 

110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The submittals referenced in the 

Background section above address the 

infrastructure elements specified in 

CAA section 110(a)(2) as applicable. 

These submittals provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The rationale 

supporting EPA’s proposed action 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

including the scope of infrastructure 

SIPs in general is explained in the NPR 

and the technical support document 

(TSD) accompanying the NPR and will 

not be restated here. The TSD is 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR– 

2010–0159. On October 3, 2011, EPA 

received public comments on its 

September 1, 2011 NPR from the Clean 

Air Council and the Sierra Club 

(referred to herein as Commenter). A 

summary of the comments submitted 

and EPA’s responses are provided in 

Section III of this action. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The Commenter raises 

concerns relating to Pennsylvania’s 

ambient air monitoring system. 

According to the Commenter, ‘‘The 

current monitoring system does not 

account for the Marcellus Shale 

industry and therefore the ambient air 

quality monitoring plan is inadequate to 

monitor, collect and analyze the 

NAAQS.’’ The Commenter provides 

descriptions of one study and one event 

to support a general concern that 

‘‘impacts of oil and gas development on 

air quality are by no means 

insignificant.’’ The Commenter does not 

identify any specific Federally 

enforceable air quality monitoring 

requirement with which Pennsylvania’s 

monitoring system fails to comply for 

either the 1997 ozone NAAQS or for the 

1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter concerning the statutory 

infrastructure requirements for 

monitoring. The infrastructure 

requirement at issue is set forth at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) and requires that, 

for each NAAQS at issue, 

Pennsylvania’s SIP must ‘‘provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality * * *’’ EPA has documented 

in the TSD and the administrative 

record supporting the rulemaking that 

Pennsylvania has met this statutory 

requirement. In the course of evaluating 

the submittals, EPA confirmed that the 

Commonwealth has met the monitoring 

requirements for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Pennsylvania has three Federally 

approved air quality monitoring plans. 

The Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

establishes, operates and maintains a 

network of ambient air monitors 

throughout Pennsylvania, excluding 

Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. 

Both Philadelphia Air Management 

Services (AMS) and the Allegheny 

County Health Department (ACHD) 

operate separate air monitoring 

networks and collect data pursuant to 

the Federally approved monitoring 

plans within these areas. Each annual 

monitoring network plan is made 

available for public inspection for at 

least 30 days prior to submission to 

EPA. See 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1). 

Additionally, as required in 40 CFR 

58.10, each state is required to submit 

an annual network design plan to the 

EPA Regional Administrator by July 1 of 

each year. The most recent monitoring 

plans approved by EPA were submitted 

by PADEP on August 4, 2011, by AMS 

on July 1, 2011 and by ACHD on July 

1, 2011. EPA approved each of these 

plans and notified the appropriate entity 

of the approval on December 6, 2011. 

These approval letters may be found in 

the docket supporting this action. The 

Commenter raises no issue as to 

whether the regulatory requirements set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 58, Subpart B have 

been met or whether the public has had 

opportunities to submit comments on 

each annual network plan or 

modifications to such plans in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58.14. Rather, 

the Commenter seems to request EPA to 

expand the statutory requirement for the 

infrastructure SIP set forth in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(B) to include air 

quality monitoring criteria for a specific 

industry that goes beyond the current 

regulatory requirements for monitoring 

networks for ozone and PM2.5. EPA 

continues to believe that the relevant 

ambient air quality monitoring and data 

systems in Pennsylvania meet the 

statutory requirement that a state’s SIP 

must provide for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices, 

methods, systems and procedures to 

monitor, compile and analyze data on 

ambient air quality because the 

monitoring network meets current 

regulatory requirements and is 

consistent with applicable EPA 

guidance. The Commenter may submit 

comments and suggestions concerning 

the monitoring networks in another 

more appropriate forum by submitting 

comments on future annual monitoring 

network plan submissions prepared by 

PADEP, AMS or ACHD which are open 

to public comment prior to being 

submitted to EPA. 

Comment: After summarizing the 

statutory language of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), the Commenter raises 

concerns about Pennsylvania’s current 

permitting program and states that, 

‘‘The current permitting program is 

inadequate to assure that the NAAQS 

are achieved because it exempts all 

engines less than 100 horsepower 

associated with oil and gas industry.’’ In 

support of this general concern, the 

Commenter cites to 25 Pa. Code section 

127.14 (relating to exemptions) and 

states, ‘‘PADEP may determine sources 

or classes of sources to be exempt from 

the plan approval and permitting 

requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

127 (relating to construction, 

modification, reactivation, and 

operation of sources).’’ The Commenter 

asserts that, ‘‘The blanket exemption for 

oil and gas exploration and production 

facilities and operation except for gas 

compressor station engines equal to or 

greater than 100 HP or gas extraction 

wells at landfills is inconsistent with 

the CAA.’’ The Commenter also raises 

concerns relating to ozone maintenance 

plans that were submitted by 

Pennsylvania in accordance with a 

separate statutory requirement. The 

Commenter claims such plans are 

inadequate due to recent gas and oil 

activity. 

Response: The comments at issue 

acknowledge that Pennsylvania has a 

program as described by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) which is ‘‘a program to 

provide for the * * * regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within [Pennsylvania] 

as necessary to assure that the NAAQS 

are achieved.’’ The comments focus on 

the adequacy of such a program, rather 

than the existence of such a program. 

The Commenter’s conclusory statements 

that specific exemptions in 

Pennsylvania’s regulations governing 

the modification and construction of air 

contamination sources cause the 

program to be ‘‘inadequate to assure that 

the NAAQS are achieved’’ are not 

supported by any data. The Commenter 

asserts without any support that, in 

order to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved, Pennsylvania should not 

exempt gas compressor stations engines 

less than 100 HP or gas extraction wells 

at landfills. However, the Commenter 

has not provided, and EPA is not aware 

of, any data indicating that, as a direct 

result of the exemption set forth at 25 

Pa. Code section 127.14, there is an area 

of Pennsylvania that is not achieving 

any NAAQS at issue (the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). EPA has no data 

indicating that the emissions from the 

activities subject to the cited exemption 

are preventing Pennsylvania from 

achieving any NAAQS at issue. The 

Commenter has not provided sufficient 

information to support a conclusion that 

the cited exemption is ‘‘inconsistent 

with the CAA.’’ Furthermore, although 

the Commenter raises concerns about 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58957 

ozone maintenance plans, which have 

been previously approved by EPA, the 

Commenter does not explain how such 

SIP approved maintenance plans relate 

to Pennsylvania’s compliance with CAA 

110(a)(2)(A) or (C) for the NAAQS at 

issue. Ozone maintenance plans are 

approved by EPA pursuant to CAA 

section 175A. These plans were subject 

to public notice and comment as part of 

EPA’s approval process. The proper 

forum to raise concerns relating to such 

plans would have been during such 

public comment periods. These 

maintenance plans are not subject to 

review and comment during this agency 

action. EPA disagrees with any assertion 

that the SIP approved ozone 

maintenance plans referred to by the 

Commenter provide adequate 

justification for finding that 

Pennsylvania has failed to meet its 

obligations for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and (C). 

Pennsylvania’s plan approval 

requirements for new sources or 

modifications at existing sources are 

included in its SIP. On July 30, 1996, 

EPA approved Pennsylvania’s Minor 

New Source Review (NSR) program into 

its SIP. See 61 FR 39597. The 

Commonwealth and EPA have relied on 

the existing state NSR program to assure 

that new and modified sources do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA has 

determined that Pennsylvania’s minor 

NSR program adopted pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) regulates emissions 

of PM2.5 and ozone and their precursors. 

For the 1997 PM2.5, 1997 ozone and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Pennsylvania’s 

NSR program meets the statutory 

requirement that a state include in its 

SIP ‘‘a program to provide for the * * * 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within [Pennsylvania] as necessary to 

assure that the NAAQS are achieved.’’ 

In this action, EPA is approving 

Pennsylvania’s infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to 

the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. Even in those situations 

where EPA has identified that a state’s 

minor NSR provisions may be contrary 

to the existing EPA regulations, EPA has 

repeatedly taken the position that, as 

part of infrastructure SIP approvals, 

EPA is not proposing to approve or 

disapprove a state’s existing minor NSR 

program itself to the extent that it is or 

may be inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. EPA 

has indicated that it intends to work 

with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. EPA has 

taken this position because the statutory 

requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) 

provide for considerable flexibility in 

designing minor NSR programs. The SIP 

provision cited by the Commenter (25 

Pa. Code section 127.14) is not 

inconsistent with EPA’s NSR regulatory 

provisions and is not inconsistent with 

the statutory requirements of section 

CAA 110(a)(2)(C). EPA believes that, 

while assuring reasonable consistency 

across the country in protecting the 

NAAQS with respect to new and 

modified minor sources, Pennsylvania 

should be given an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets its particular air quality concerns. 

EPA will continue to monitor 

Pennsylvania’s NSR program to ensure 

that this program regulates the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. 

Comment: The Commenter expresses 

concern that ‘‘PADEP requires little to 

no monitoring or reporting for criteria 

and hazardous air pollutants associated 

with the drilling, extracting, and 

processing of natural gas from the 

Marcellus Shale’’ and asserts that these 

alleged monitoring or reporting 

deficiencies are the result of PADEP’s 

failure to aggregate sources in 

accordance with requirements in NSR, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD), and Title V of the CAA. The 

Commenter refers to the September 22, 

2009 Memo from Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation, 

‘‘Withdrawal of Source Determinations 

for Oil and Gas Industries.’’ The 

Commenter states that, as part of the 

Commenter’s review of thirty plan 

approval files in 2011, it found only 

three aggregation analyses by PADEP 

and asserts that PADEP should conduct 

such analyses on every plan approval 

application. 

Response: The statutory requirement, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), at issue as 

cited by the Commenter requires that 

each SIP for each NAAQS ‘‘require, as 

may be prescribed by the 

Administrator—(i) the installation, 

maintenance, and replacement of 

equipment, and the implementation of 

other necessary steps, by owners or 

operators of stationary sources to 

monitor emissions from such sources, 

(ii) periodic reports on the nature and 

amounts of emissions and emissionsrelated data from such sources, and (iii) 

correlation of such reports by the State 

agency with any emissions limitations 

or standards established pursuant to this 

chapter, which reports shall be available 

at reasonable times for public 

inspection.’’ See CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F). EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s statements under section 

110(a)(2)(F) which are related to source 

determinations under Pennsylvania’s 

NSR, PSD and Title V programs. The 

narrow issue raised by the Commenter 

relates to implementation of 

Pennsylvania’s Federally approved 

program. The issue raised goes beyond 

the basic statutory requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) that, as part of its 

SIP, the Commonwealth include certain 

general requirements. Pennsylvania 

incorporates by reference the Federal 

PSD regulations and has a SIP approved 

NSR program. Therefore, EPA believes 

there is no question that the 

Commonwealth meets this general 

statutory requirement. EPA’s 

administrative record, including the 

TSD for this action, provides sufficient 

support for the finding that 

Pennsylvania’s SIP for each of the 

relevant NAAQS meets the statutory 

requirement set forth at CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F). 

Comment: The Commenter states that 

PADEP does not have enough personnel 

to properly implement its SIP. The 

Commenter relies upon an undated 

Clean Water Action report which 

summarizes the reduction in PADEP’s 

overall budget during the period of 2000 

through 2011. The Commenter also 

relies upon an April 13, 2011 local 

newspaper article reporting that four 

Pennsylvania environmental regulators 

indicated that they ‘‘spend as little as 35 

minutes reviewing each of the 

thousands of applications for natural gas 

well permits * * *’’ 

Response: EPA understands the 

concern that reductions in a state’s 

budget may impede the state’s ability to 

fulfill its obligations. However, a 

reduction in a state’s budget allocated to 

environmental protection is by itself an 

insufficient basis for finding that a state 

has failed to meet its statutory 

obligations to ‘‘provide (i) necessary 

assurances that the State * * * will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under State law to carry out 

such implementation plan * * *’’ See 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). The 

administrative record for this action 

identifies several funding sources 

including Title V permit fees, federal 

funds under CAA sections 105 and 103 

and funds from the Clean Air Fund and 

supports a finding that Pennsylvania 

has provided EPA with such assurances 

that it has adequate personnel and 

funding to carry out its SIP. If, in the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA notes that Pennsylvania’s incorporation by 

reference of 40 CFR 52.21 includes 40 CFR 

51.21(k)(1) which provides that the ‘‘owner or 

operator of the proposed source or modification 

shall demonstrate that allowable emission increases 

from the proposed source or modification * * * 

would not cause or contribute to air pollution in 

violation of’’ any NAAQS. 

future, EPA determines that the 

Commonwealth does not have adequate 

personnel or funding to carry out its 

SIP, or for any other reason fails to meet 

any requirement of its approved SIP, 

then EPA may exercise its authority 

pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E), 

179 or 110(k)(5). The action that EPA is 

taking today does not limit EPA’s 

authority pursuant to those CAA 

sections. 

Comment: The Commenter expresses 

concern that ‘‘PA DEP does not have an 

adequate plan to deal with the 

emergency situations associated with 

Marcellus Shale operations.’’ The 

Commenter relies upon an Internet 

news article and its experience of 

receiving complaints from citizens 

living near natural gas operations. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter and believes Pennsylvania 

has met the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G). The Commenter 

raises a general concern regarding 

general emergency situations, including 

those situations unrelated to air quality. 

The TSD and administrative record 

supporting EPA’s action support a 

finding that Pennsylvania has met its 

obligations to provide adequate 

contingency plans to implement 

authority comparable to that in CAA 

section 303, as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). The TSD clearly sets forth 

the relevant statutory and regulatory 

emergency authority. Furthermore, the 

TSD sets forth how the Commonwealth 

followed EPA’s September 25, 2009 

guidance, entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ which 

provides EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency 

Episodes’’ rules at 40 CFR 51.150 and 

criteria for which states must develop 

emergency episode contingency plans. 

The Commenter does not assert that the 

Commonwealth has not met its statutory 

and regulatory obligations. Here, the 

Commenter seeks an expansion of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

relating specifically to adequate 

contingency plans for any type of 

emergency situation. However, the 

purpose of EPA’s action is to determine 

whether the Commonwealth has met the 

basic infrastructure requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and related 

regulatory requirements. Therefore, 

there is no basis for finding that 

Pennsylvania’s SIP fails to meet such 

requirements. Pennsylvania’s SIP 

contains the requisite general 

emergency authority to address urgent 

air quality situations but is not required 

to have specific contingency plans for 

all situations and specifically does not 

require a plan for PM2.5 as per EPA 

guidance. 

Comment: The Commenter provides a 

summary of the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II). The 

remaining portion of the comment 

focuses upon concerns that emissions 

from ‘‘Marcellus Shale operations’’ may 

impact Pennsylvania and states adjacent 

to or downwind of Pennsylvania due to 

concerns relating to source 

determinations and ambient air quality 

monitoring. The Commenter claims 

‘‘[t]he proposed SIP fails to take into 

account the impact that Marcellus Shale 

operations are having on areas 

downwind from shale activity.’’ 

Response: This comment appears to 

address requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II). As explained 

in the NPR (76 FR 54410) and the TSD, 

EPA’s action is limited to a 

determination of whether the 

Commonwealth has met its obligations 

pursuant to the portion of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to the part C 

permit program (or the PSD permit 

requirements). Therefore, any comment 

relating to additional requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is not 

relevant to this action. With respect to 

the PSD requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), it is EPA’s position 

that this sub-element may be met by a 

state’s confirmation in an infrastructure 

SIP submission that new major sources 

and major modifications in the state are 

subject to PSD requirements consistent 

with the CAA. Pennsylvania has made 

this confirmation. Pennsylvania’s SIP 

incorporates by reference all Federally 

enforceable PSD regulations for the 

NAAQS at issue.1 For Allegheny 

County, the PSD requirements have 

been addressed by an existing Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). The TSD 

and the administrative record clearly 

support a finding that Pennsylvania has 

met its statutory obligations to include 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source within Pennsylvania from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will interfere with PSD measures 

required by any other state. The 

Commenter does not explain how any 

emissions from any source in 

Pennsylvania may interfere with 

another state’s PSD SIP requirements. 

As explained above, Pennsylvania has 

met its statutory obligations relating to 

its PSD Program as required by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Many of the 

CAA 110(a)(2) SIP elements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), relate to the 

general information and authorities that 

constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program. 

The CAA 110(a)(2) SIP submissions that 

EPA is acting upon are not required to 

address specific industry sources. 

Rather, these submissions are required 

to demonstrate the general statutory and 

regulatory infrastructure a state has to 

implement to meet the requirements of 

Subchapter I (Programs and Activities) 

of the CAA. 

Comment: The Commenter generally 

asserts that EPA cannot fully approve 

Pennsylvania’s infrastructure SIPs for 

several reasons. First, the Commenter 

generally asserts that the process was 

not sufficiently transparent because the 

NPR did not include all of the relevant 

information, including references to all 

relevant rules, EPA’s analysis of such 

rules, and links to all relevant data that 

may be available on the Internet. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter. The Commenter is 

interested in transparency and 

interested in the Agency providing 

substantially more information in the 

Federal Register. The Commenter does 

not assert that the NPR in conjunction 

with the TSD and other materials in the 

docket for the proposals were 

inadequate to promote an appropriate 

public process on the Commonwealth’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals. EPA 

believes that the NPR in conjunction 

with the information provided in the 

supporting administrative docket were 

adequate to allow the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on 

EPA’s proposed action. 

The Commenter raises a procedural 

issue that is separate and distinct from 

the substantive issue addressed by 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking which is 

whether the SIP submissions at issue 

meet the criteria of the portions of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) addressed in the NPR. 

The Commenter has not provided EPA 

with sufficient information supporting a 

finding that Pennsylvania has failed to 

meet any of its obligations pursuant to 

the portions of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

addressed in EPA’s proposed action. 

As a general matter, the Commenter 

seems to interpret the EPA 

Administrator’s goal of transparency as 

a mandate that all information for any 

EPA proposed administrative 

rulemaking must be set forth in the NPR 

itself, with no reliance on an 

administrative record. EPA appreciates 

the Commenter’s interest in a ‘‘one-stopshop’’ for all information (even 

tangential information) related to its 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58959 

proposed action. However, the proposed 

interpretation of ‘‘transparent’’ would be 

unduly burdensome and contrary to the 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 533(b). 

EPA followed the APA and provided 

sufficient information to support its 

proposed administrative action and a 

public comment period on its proposed 

action. The documents contained in the 

docket provided numerous references to 

specific regulations and the Code of 

Federal Regulations. The docket also 

includes EPA’s analysis of such rules 

relevant to this action along with 

relevant guidance and data. With 

respect to ‘‘links to all relevant data that 

may be available on the Internet,’’ EPA 

does not typically include detailed 

information when it’s otherwise 

publicly available. With respect to 

analysis of data, there is no requirement 

that detailed technical information must 

be included in the NPR. EPA often 

includes a TSD as part of its 

administrative rulemaking actions. By 

including a TSD, in addition to the NPR, 

the public may more easily understand 

the basic action EPA is proposing to 

take and access more detailed 

information if desired. By making a TSD 

available on-line, by request, and as a 

hardcopy in the paper docket, EPA has 

made this important underlying 

technical information available to the 

public and has eliminated unnecessary 

costs associated with the overall 

rulemaking action. EPA’s NPR and 

additional information contained in the 

docket for public review are in 

accordance with the APA and fulfill the 

Administrator’s interest in transparency 

as well as Federal law requirements. 

Comment: The Commenter states that 

the CAA requires that the infrastructure 

SIPs include an adequate PSD 

permitting program needed to address 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and 

(J) and expresses concern that 

Pennsylvania’s PSD program may not be 

‘‘approved’’ if it lacks significant 

emission rates found in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) [2011] and PM2.5

increments found in 40 CFR 52.21(c) 

[2011]. The Commenter states it is not 

clear whether the Pennsylvania PSD 

program incorporates by reference the 

version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations that existed at the time EPA 

approved Pennsylvania’s PSD program 

into the SIP or automatically 

incorporates the current version of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. The 

Commenter requests that EPA either 

clarify that 25 Pa. Code Section 127.83 

incorporates the most recent version of 

40 CFR 52.21 automatically or, 

alternatively, the Commenter indicates 

that EPA cannot approve the 

Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS until the SIP is updated to 

incorporate the PM2.5 increments which 

were effective December 20, 2010. 

Response: EPA believes Pennsylvania 

has a PSD permitting program sufficient 

to meet the requirements in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). 

Pennsylvania has met the requirements 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS embodied in the 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule (see 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008)), as well as the 

increment requirements of EPA’s 

October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 

64864) by virtue of its incorporation by 

reference of 40 CFR 52.21 in its entirety. 

EPA’s approval of 25 Pa. Code Section 

127.83 on August 21, 1984 (49 FR 

33127) explains that Pennsylvania’s 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

52.21 does not identify a specific 

edition of 40 CFR 52.21 and that all 

future changes thereto would 

automatically be incorporated by 

reference. Therefore, Pennsylvania’s SIP 

approved PSD program clearly includes 

the Federal regulations identified by the 

Commenter. 

Comment: The Commenter states that 

EPA cannot approve Pennsylvania’s SIP 

with regard to CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). 

The Commenter states that the NPR and 

TSD give no indication that 

Pennsylvania has adopted emergency 

episode plans. The Commenter 

references the portion of EPA’s 

September 25, 2009 guidance entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS)’’ which states that states have 

to establish their own priority action 

levels and emergency action levels for 

PM2.5 ‘‘through their public processes.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s view that Pennsylvania’s 

infrastructure SIP submission is not 

consistent with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As the 

Commenter noted, EPA has not 

amended the regulations of 40 CFR 

51.151 to include a significant harm 

level or priority cut point for PM2.5. In 

the absence of such regulations, EPA 

issued guidance to states to recommend 

how they could comply with CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G). Also, although the 

regulations have not changed, a state 

still needs to meet the statutory 

requirement, and EPA provided an 

approach states could use to meet the 

requirements. The Commenter refers to 

the September 25, 2009 ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).’’ This 

document is part of the docket 

supporting the proposed action and is 

the document that indicates the 

approach a state could take to meet the 

requirement. This document may be 

found in hard copy in the paper docket 

file and in the electronic docket at 

Document ID Number EPA–RO3–0AR– 

2010–0159–0008. The Commenter refers 

to a portion of this guidance, but fails 

to include other relevant portions of this 

guidance. The relevant portion of this 

guidance recommends: 

To address the section 110(a)(2)(G) 

element, states with air quality control 

regions identified as either Priority I, Priority 

IA, or Priority II by the ‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’’ rules at 40 

CFR 51.150, must develop emergency 

episode contingency plans. Currently, those 

regulations do not specifically address PM2.5

* * * [F]or the purposes of satisfying the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G), states 

would develop emergency episode plans for 

any area that has monitored and recorded 24- 

hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140.4 ug/m3

since 2006V If this level was never exceeded 

in any area of the state, the state can certify 

that it has appropriate general emergency 

powers to address PM2.5 related episodes, 

and that no specific emergency episode plans 

are necessary at this time, given the existing 

monitored levels. States should develop 

submissions to meet this requirement 

through appropriate public processes. 

In accordance with this guidance, 

Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision 

addressing the contingency plan portion 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on April 

26, 2010. This submittal states in 

relevant part, ‘‘For both the 2006 and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, no specific 

emergency episode plans are necessary 

given that existing monitored levels 

have not exceeded the level of 140.4 

micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) 

identified by EPA in its September 25, 

2009 ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), pp. 6–7.’’ This 

submittal was subject to the appropriate 

public processes. The transmittal letter 

states that the ‘‘public participation 

process for this SIP revision included a 

30 day written comment period and an 

opportunity for public hearing * * * 

The DEP did not receive any comments 

during the public comment period.’’ 

This letter from Pennsylvania is 

contained in the docket with Document 

ID Number EPA–RO3–0AR–2010–0159– 

0003. A copy of the April 26, 2010 SIP 

submittal and the notices of opportunity 

for public comments are included as 

attachments to the electronic copy of the 

document identified above (EPA–R03– 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

OAR–2010–0159–0003). Pennsylvania’s 

submittals identified in the electronic 

docket with Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0159 meet the 

requirements in the EPA’s guidance 

document that the Commenter 

references. Based upon such submittals, 

Pennsylvania has submitted sufficient 

information to support a finding that the 

monitored data throughout the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 

2006 through April 2010 have not 

exceeded 140.4 ug/m3. Accordingly, 

EPA has concluded that Pennsylvania’s 

infrastructure SIPs are consistent with 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

Comment: The Commenter seeks 

EPA’s review of Pennsylvania’s ambient 

air quality monitoring data for the 

limited purpose of determining whether 

Pennsylvania is accurately asserting that 

it has not monitored any PM2.5 readings 

above 140.4 ug/m3. 

Response: EPA agrees that the Agency 

as a matter of general practice should 

review state monitoring data in 

conjunction with its review of a state’s 

assertions relating to such data. A state 

is required to certify all air monitoring 

data on a yearly basis (see 40 CFR 58.15) 

and EPA reviews this data each year. 

EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania’s 

certified ambient air quality monitoring 

data and as part of that independent 

review has determined that 

Pennsylvania’s assertion is correct. 

Pennsylvania’s highest PM2.5 reading 

since 2006 was at Liberty, PA. The 

sampled value occurred in 2006 and 

was 100.7 ug/m3. The relevant 

monitoring data is also accessible to the 

public at various web sites including 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata. Based upon 

its review of Pennsylvania’s ambient air 

quality monitoring data since 2006, EPA 

has determined that Pennsylvania has 

correctly indicated that it has not 

monitored any 24 hour PM2.5 readings 

above 140.4 ug/m3. 

Comment: The Commenter raises two 

issues related to the definitions 

provided in 25 Pa. Code Section 121.1. 

The Commenter states that with regard 

to ozone, the definitions of marginal, 

serious, and severe ozone 

nonattainment areas in the SIP 

approved version of 25 Pa. Code Section 

121.1 are based on 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS rather than the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and that these 

definitions need to be updated. Also, 

the Commenter states that there is no 

definition of PM2.5 in 25 Pa. Code 

Section 121.1 and that Pennsylvania 

needs one. 

Response: EPA agrees that as a general 

matter the absence or inadequacy of 

definitions could be relevant to review 

of a SIP submittal pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2), however, EPA 

disagrees that the specific issues raised 

by the Commenter support a finding 

that the SIPs at issue fail to meet the 

applicable 110(a)(2) requirements. EPA 

has considered the concerns raised by 

the Commenter and finds that the 

Commenter has not identified a defect 

in the SIP approved version of 25 Pa. 

Code Section 121.1 that, in and of itself, 

is sufficient to support a finding that 

Pennsylvania has not met its obligations 

pursuant to the portions of section 

110(a)(2) addressed herein. The SIP 

submissions at issue which EPA is 

approving do not directly address and 

do not modify the definitions set forth 

in 25 Pa. Code Section 121.1. Therefore, 

these specific definitions are not 

directly a part of this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, the statutory provisions at 

issue do not expressly set criteria for the 

state regulatory definition provisions. 

The Commenter has not explained how 

the issues raised relating to specific 

definitions relate to Pennsylvania’s 

compliance with its obligations 

pursuant to the portions of CAA section 

110(a)(2) at issue in this rulemaking. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter 

concerning the ozone classification 

definitions because these terms are not 

directly relevant to the issues germane 

to the infrastructure SIP action. The 

definitions relating to ozone 

nonattainment areas may be relevant to 

Pennsylvania’s compliance with CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(I). However, as 

indicated in EPA’s NPR, the SIP 

submittals at issue do not pertain to 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) and EPA’s 

action does not pertain to the applicable 

requirements of CAA Chapter I, part D 

(relating to nonattainment areas). These 

requirements, and issues pertaining 

only to nonattainment areas for a 

specific NAAQS, are not required to be 

addressed on the same schedule as 

issues pertaining to other general 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2). Therefore, this comment 

is not relevant to EPA’s action and EPA 

does not have any obligation to respond 

to such comments. EPA disagrees with 

the Commenter concerning the PM2.5

definition issue because the 

Pennsylvania SIP currently includes a 

definition of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 

121.1 defines the term NAAQS as 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. In accordance with 25 Pa. 

Code section 131.2, as EPA promulgates 

new or revised NAAQS, Pennsylvania 

incorporates the NAAQS by reference. 

Therefore, the Pennsylvania SIP 

provides a definition of the PM2.5

NAAQS that is consistent with the CAA. 

As a related matter, Pennsylvania 

recently revised its nonattainment NSR 

rules. Section 121.1 contains a specific 

entry for PM2.5 which states ‘‘PM2.5— 

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to a 

nominal 2.5 micrometer body as 

measured by the applicable reference 

method or an equivalent method.’’ 

These revised rules were subject to 

public comment and became effective 

on September 3, 2011. Pennsylvania 

submitted these NSR revisions 

including, but not limited to, 25 Pa. 

Code Section 121.1 to EPA for inclusion 

into the SIP on September 23, 2011, and 

EPA approved this revision on July 13, 

2012. (See 77 FR 41276). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania’s submittals that 

provide the infrastructure elements 

specified in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M), or portions thereof, necessary 

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made 

completeness findings for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 

(73 FR 16205) and on October 22, 2008 

(73 FR 62902) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. These findings pertained only 

to whether the submissions were 

complete, pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(1)(A), and did not constitute EPA 

approval or disapproval of such 

submissions. For the geographic area of 

Allegheny County, the completeness 

finding of March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205) 

noted Pennsylvania’s failure to submit a 

SIP revision addressing the portion of 

110(a)(2)(C) relating to the Part C permit 

programs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA recognized that such requirement 

has already been addressed by a FIP that 

remains in place, and concluded that 

the finding of incompleteness would not 

trigger any additional FIP obligation for 

Pennsylvania. For all other areas of 

Pennsylvania, except for Allegheny 

County, EPA found that the 

Commonwealth had a SIP approved 

PSD program in place and found that 

the CAA section 110(a)(2) submittals at 

issue were complete. 

Two elements identified in CAA 

section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the 

three year submission deadline of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the time the nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due pursuant to 

CAA section 172. These elements are: (i) 

Submissions required by section 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58961 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that the 

subsection pertains to a permit program 

in Part D Title I of the CAA; and (ii) any 

submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

Part D Title I of the CAA. This action 

does not cover these specific elements. 

This action also does not address the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action pertaining to 

Pennsylvania’s section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 7, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding entries at 

the end of the table for Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of 

non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure 

Requirements 

for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 12/7/07, 6/6/08 ................... 9–25–12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of 

non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure 

Requirements 

for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 12/7/07, 6/6/08, 4/26/10 ..... 9–25–12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure 

Requirements 

for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 4/26/10, 5/24/11 ................. 9–25–12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23497 Filed 9–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0458; FRL–9730–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a state 

implementation plan revision submitted 

by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality to address the 

moderate area PM10 (particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter of less 

than or equal to a nominal ten 

micrometers) planning requirements for 

the Nogales nonattainment area. 

Consistent with this final action, EPA is 

approving the following plan elements 

as meeting the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act: The Nogales 

nonattainment area 2008 and 2011 

emission inventories; the demonstration 

that the Nogales nonattainment area is 

attaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for PM10, but for 

international emissions sources in 

Nogales, Mexico; the demonstration that 

reasonably available control measures 

sufficient to meet the standard have 

been implemented in the nonattainment 

area; the reasonable further progress 

demonstration; the demonstration that 

implementation of measures beyond 

those needed for attainment meet the 

contingency measure requirement; and, 

the motor vehicle emissions budget for 

the purposes of determining the 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects with this PM10

plan. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on October 25, 2012. 

Docket: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0458 for 

this action. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information or CBI). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule 

an appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Wamsley, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

telephone number: (415) 947–4111, or 

email address, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. We are providing the following 

table of contents for ease of locating 

information in this proposal. 

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Arizona’s Submittal of the Final Nogales 

2012 Plan 

A. Arizona’s Submittal of the Final Nogales 

2012 Plan and Clean Air Act Procedural 

Requirements 

B. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budget 

C. Revisions to the 2008 and 2011 

Emissions Inventories’ Mobile Source 

Emissions Estimates 

III. Public Comments 

IV. EPA’s Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

On June 27, 2012, EPA proposed to 

approve the proposed state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on May 

29, 2012 to address the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for areas 

classified as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

for the PM10 national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS), in this case, 

Nogales, Arizona. ADEQ submitted a 

plan for the Nogales nonattainment area 

(NA) entitled Proposed State 

Implementation Plan Nogales PM10

Nonattainment Area, referred to as the 

‘‘Nogales 2012 Plan’’ here and in our 

proposal. See 77 FR 38400; (June 27, 

2012). Specifically, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), EPA proposed to approve the 

following elements of the Nogales 2012 

Plan: 

(1) The 2008 base year and 2011 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

(2) The demonstration of attainment 

but for international emissions as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 179B(a)(1); 

(3) The implementation of paving 

projects and capital improvement 

projects at the Ports of Entry within the 

Nogales NA prior to the CAA’s 1994 

attainment deadline as meeting the 

reasonably available control measure/ 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT) requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 

189(c)(1)(C); 

(4) The implementation of paving 

projects and capital improvement 

projects at the Ports of Entry to meet the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstration requirement of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2); 

(5) The implementation of post-1994 

paving projects as meeting the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 179B(a)(2); 

and, 

(6) The 2011 attainment year motor 

vehicle emissions budget if revised to 

include road construction PM10, 

because, as revised, it is derived from 

the section 179B demonstration and 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

176(c) and 40 CFR 93, subpart A. 

To summarize our proposal, first, we 

described the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 

its application to the Nogales NA and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES