Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 41279 

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 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 September 11, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action, pertaining to Maryland’s 

RACT provisions for NOX and VOCs 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 27, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

‘‘RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.

Statewide ........................................ 10/17/11 7/13/12 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

[FR Doc. 2012–16949 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002; FRL–9695–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the limited 

approval of the Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter RH 

SIP) revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

(Pennsylvania). EPA is taking this action 

because Pennsylvania’s SIP revision, as 

a whole, strengthens the Pennsylvania 

SIP. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules for 

states to prevent and remedy future and 

existing anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41280 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Transport Rule is also known as the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and was proposed 

by EPA to help states reduce air pollution and 

attain CAA standards. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010) (proposal) and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) 

(final rule). 

through a regional haze program. EPA is 

also approving this revision as meeting 

the infrastructure requirements relating 

to visibility protection for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 

1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the Commonwealth’s 

submittal are available at the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by 

email at linden.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On January 26, 2012, EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania (77 

FR 3984). The NPR proposed limited 

approval of Pennsylvania’s RH SIP. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) on 

December 20, 2010. This revision also 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J), relating to 

visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision includes a long term 

strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first planning period through 

2018. Pennsylvania’s RH SIP contains 

the emission reductions needed to 

achieve Pennsylvania’s share of 

emission reductions for the Class I areas 

they impact. The specific requirements 

of the CAA and EPA’s Regional Haze 

Rule (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999) and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPR and are not 

restated here. EPA received several 

adverse comments and one letter of 

support on the January 26, 2012 NPR. 

One of those adverse comments 

requested a change to PADEP’s best 

available retrofit technology (BART) 

determination for GenOn Energy’s 

Cheswick Generating Station. 

Pennsylvania can revise this 

determination in a future SIP revision to 

address comments raised by GenOn 

Energy. A summary of the comments 

submitted and EPA’s responses are 

provided in section III of this document. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: EPA proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s RH SIP on January 26, 

2012 with a docket that includes most 

of the RH SIP submission from PADEP 

except Appendix Z, which is the 

comment and response document. 

Response: PADEP did not submit an 

Appendix Z, nor was it referenced in 

the rulemaking. The PADEP comment 

and response document is Appendix 

AA and can be found in the EPA docket 

for this action, docket No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2012–0002. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

Pennsylvania has 15 BART-eligible 

electric generating units (EGUs) that 

include 28 individual units that are 

among the largest uncontrolled sources 

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). The commenter claimed 

PADEP did not conduct any five-step 

determinations for BART at these EGUs 

for NOX and SO2. It relied upon the 

pending ‘‘cross state air pollution rule 

(CSAPR) Better than BART’’ 

determination. 

Response: In today’s action, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of 

Pennsylvania’s RH SIP based on its 

reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). EPA did not propose to find that 

participation in the Transport Rule1 is 

an alternative to BART in this action. 

EPA addressed these comments 

concerning the Transport Rule as a 

BART alternative in a final action that 

was published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 

33642). EPA’s response to these 

comments can be found in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

BART determinations must consider 

filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable 

PM. The commenter stated that the 

PADEP BART determinations are 

expressed in total PM, but the cost 

analyses were conducted based on 

filterable PM10. The commenter 

requested EPA to disapprove PADEP’s 

determinations and adopt a FIP that 

establishes BART limits for filterable 

PM10, PM2.5 and condensable PM 

because PADEP set BART limits for 

filterable PM10 and filterable PM. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the PM BART limits 

should be disapproved. The controls on 

the facilities considered by PADEP for 

the emission limits in the BART 

determinations are effective in reducing 

filterable and condensable particulates. 

Separate emission limits for each are not 

required for BART. 

Comment: The commenter claimed 

PADEP’s BART determinations and 

EPA’s proposed approval of these 

determinations are fundamentally 

flawed, arbitrary, and unlawful. The 

commenter stated that source-specific 

process design information is required 

to make BART determinations which 

PADEP did not provide. One commenter 

stated PADEP’s BART determinations 

were fundamentally flawed for steps 

one through four of the BART 

determination process. The commenter 

stated the flaw in step one was that 

PADEP did not address all available 

technologies for each BART 

determination. The commenter stated 

the flaw in step two was that PADEP did 

not appropriately interpret technical 

feasibility of control options in 

accordance with the Guidelines for 

BART Determinations under the 

Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 

CFR part 51 (hereafter the BART Rule). 

See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). The 

commenter stated the flaw in step three 

was that PADEP did not rank the control 

effectiveness for all EGU and most nonEGU BART determinations. The 

commenter stated the flaw in step four 

was that PADEP eliminated 

technologies based on non-air quality 

environmental impacts that are common 

throughout the industry. 

Response: Congress crafted the CAA 

to provide for states to take the lead in 

developing implementation plans but 

balanced that decision by requiring EPA 

to review the plans to determine 

whether a SIP meets the requirements of 

the CAA. In undertaking such a review, 

EPA does not usurp a state’s authority 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 41281 

but ensures that such authority is 

reasonably exercised. BART 

determinations under the regional haze 

program are the responsibility of the 

states, which have the freedom to 

determine the weight and significance 

of the statutorily required five-factors in 

a BART determination. EPA then 

reviews a state’s determination as 

included in its regional haze plan. 

Pennsylvania performed the required 

BART determinations for its BARTeligible sources. In Appendix J of its RH 

SIP submittal, Pennsylvania considered 

the required five-factors and explained 

its conclusions for each specific source. 

As identified in Appendix J, 

Pennsylvania performed its BART 

determinations evaluating the fivefactors required. Appendix J describes 

the steps Pennsylvania took in 

evaluating BART and provides a basis 

for Pennsylvania’s BART 

determinations based on those fivefactors. The modeling of source impacts 

and technology reviews for specific 

source categories can be found in 

Pennsylvania’s Appendices I, P and Q 

respectively, which support 

Pennsylvania’s BART determinations 

found in Appendix J. EPA determined 

that PADEP did address all available 

technologies and appropriately 

determined technical feasibility of those 

technologies. The ranking of control 

technologies is not a requirement of step 

three (evaluating the control 

effectiveness) in BART determinations. 

The evaluation of non-air quality 

impacts as part of step four of the BART 

determination should be made based on 

a consideration of the specific 

circumstances of that source, so the 

same technology may have a different 

degree of impact dependent on the 

source. EPA determined that PADEP did 

address step four for the BART 

determinations in accordance with the 

BART Rule. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the PM limit for EGUs is invalid for 

BART. Pennsylvania used an outdated 

0.1 pound per million British thermal 

unit (lb/MMBtu) limit for filterable PM. 

The proposed BART limit is much 

higher than accepted as BART (or as 

best available control technology known 

as BACT), and much higher than levels 

currently being achieved at many other 

similar facilities. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the PM 

BART limits are invalid. While BACT is 

similar to BART, BACT has a four factor 

analysis of environmental impact, 

energy consumption, economic impact, 

and other costs. BART determinations 

however involve a five factor analysis of 

all technologies available for retrofit, 

consideration of current control 

technologies, cost of compliance of 

controls, remaining useful life of the 

facility, energy and non air-quality 

environmental impacts, and visibility 

impacts. BART is not a required topdown evaluation like BACT. As stated 

in the BART Rule, the states should 

retain the discretion to evaluate control 

options in whatever order they choose, 

so long as the state explains its analysis 

of the CAA factors. PADEP did address 

each of the five factors in its BART 

determination summaries in Appendix J 

of the PADEP December 20, 2010 RH 

SIP submittal. Because BART and BACT 

involve different evaluations, EPA 

believes it is reasonable to have 

different outcomes and different limits 

for each review. The specific BACT 

limits cited by the commenter cannot 

automatically be considered valid for 

BART. 

Comment: BART guidelines provide 

that maximum available control 

technology (MACT) for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) should be taken into 

account for determining BART as stated 

in 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, Section 

IV.C. The commenter stated that 

Pennsylvania EGUs are subject to EPA’s 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS Rule) which was published on 

February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). The 

commenter stated that EPA must take 

these requirements into account in 

approving any BART determination 

because all statutory factors should be 

included. The commenter stated that 

PADEP’s BART determinations for PM 

limits of 0.1 lb/MMBtu cannot be 

approved because those limits are much 

higher than the 0.03 lb/MMBtu limit in 

the final MATS Rule as a surrogate limit 

for non-mercury metal HAPs. 

Response: EPA agrees that we do 

require all statutory factors to be 

included in the BART determinations 

that are applicable at the time the 

determinations are done. EPA cannot 

require BART determinations to predict 

future requirements and to include 

those as BART. When EPA issues new 

rules, the states must adopt them as 

appropriate. The final MATS Rule was 

promulgated after the proposed limited 

approval of the PM BART 

determinations in the Pennsylvania RH 

SIP on January 26, 2012. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

EPA claimed it included all BARTeligible sources in the CSAPR Betterthan-BART analysis, but the analysis 

omitted the BART-eligible oil-fired 

EGUs as identified by PADEP. These 

facilities in Pennsylvania are Trigen/ 

Edison Station Units 3 and 4; Trigen/ 

Schuylkill Station Unit 26; Eddystone 

Units 3 and 4; and Martins Creek Units 

3 and 4. EPA’s CSAPR Better-thanBART analysis compared projected EGU 

emissions at the presumptive EGU 

BART limits to projected emissions 

under CSAPR. EPA then modeled these 

scenarios against the 2014 baseline that 

excludes both BART and CSAPR. The 

visibility benefits from this modeling 

were then averaged across all Class I 

areas. The commenter stated that EPA 

claims this analysis shows that CSAPR 

will result in more emissions reductions 

than BART and cites to 76 FR 82225. 

The commenter claimed that CSAPR 

will not achieve greater reasonable 

progress toward the national visibility 

goal than source-specific BART for 

EGUs in Pennsylvania. Even if CSAPR 

could lawfully substitute for BART, the 

commenter claimed the instant 

rulemaking would have to include 

separate NOX and SO2 BART 

determinations for Pennsylvania EGUs 

because CSAPR does not in fact perform 

better than BART. 

Response: These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

EPA’s response to comments concerning 

the ‘‘CSAPR is Better-than-BART’’ 

action can be found in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

PADEP evaluated step five of the BART 

determinations in a piecemeal fashion, 

considering the visibility impact to each 

Class I area separately and determined 

controls based on the most highly 

impacted Class I area. PADEP’s 

approach resulted in significantly 

underestimating visibility 

improvements compared to 

implementing BART for PA sources. 

Most of the BART-eligible sources are 

clustered in the southwest corner of the 

state, near four Class I areas. Most of the 

remaining BART-eligible sources are 

clustered in the southeast region of the 

state, near Brigantine Class I area, with 

Montour in the middle of the state. The 

federal land managers (FLMs) made 

similar comments on the draft 

Pennsylvania RH SIP. PADEP 

responded that the BART Rule does not 

require a ‘‘cumulative’’ impact analysis 

and stated that EPA has provided no 

guidance on this issue. The commenter 

disagreed and stated that the BART Rule 

is clear that multiple sources and Class 

I areas are to be considered. The 

commenter cited to 70 FR 39161–62. 

The commenter claimed EPA 

recommended that Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(NDEQ) consider calculating the 

visibility improvement at multiple Class 

I areas. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment in general. The BART Rule 

pages referred to by the commenter 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41282 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

address determining whether a facility 

is BART-eligible and not the applicable 

approach defined later in the guidelines 

for BART-subject sources. EPA agrees 

with PADEP that the BART Rule does 

not require a ‘‘cumulative’’ impact 

analysis as part of the BART 

determination for a specific source. The 

guidelines do give the option to evaluate 

cumulative impacts to multiple Class I 

areas which EPA does recommend but 

does not require the state to do. As 

noted by the language used by EPA to 

NDEQ, we recommend consideration of 

the cumulative approach. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the PADEP source-specific analyses in 

Appendix J rejected every single control 

option as not cost effective using one or 

both of the following two measures: 

dollar per ton or dollar per deciview. 

However, no significance thresholds 

were established for either. The FLMs 

also commented on this issue during the 

PADEP review process. PADEP’s 

response to the FLMs was that it did not 

establish or use ‘‘bright line thresholds 

for cost or for visibility improvement in 

making BART determinations’’ in 

Appendix AA of the Pennsylvania RH 

SIP submittal. The commenter noted 

that based on determinations in other 

states, the acceptable cost effectiveness 

value ranges from $5,000 per ton to 

$10,000 per ton. The commenter 

claimed that many of PADEP’s ‘‘no 

control’’ determinations fall well below 

this range. 

Response: EPA’s BART guidelines in 

the BART Rule do not require 

Pennsylvania to develop a specific 

threshold, but rather to evaluate each 

BART determination on a case-by-case 

basis for each source. EPA has not 

established a specific cost threshold that 

makes a particular control option BART 

based on just a dollars per ton number. 

All five factors must be compared to 

determine the level of control that is 

BART on a case-by-case basis. As 

discussed in the NPR, EPA finds the 

BART determinations from PADEP 

reasonable. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

EPA unreasonably relies on CSAPR for 

BART and that EPA failed to adequately 

review Pennsylvania’s BART 

determinations. 

Response: For BART determinations 

of sources other than EGUs, EPA 

reviewed PADEP’s BART 

determinations in the December 20, 

2010 Pennsylvania RH SIP submittal 

and approves the conclusions as the 

determinations are reasonable. 

Comments related to CSAPR as an 

alternative to BART for EGUs are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

EPA addressed similar comments 

concerning the Transport Rule as a 

BART alternative in a final action that 

was signed on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 

33642, June 7, 2012). The EPA’s 

response to these comments can be 

found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0729 at www.regulations.gov. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

EPA’s proposed SO2 reductions from 

Pennsylvania sources as substitute 

measures addressing Pennsylvania’s 

failure to adopt the Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy are largely 

reliant upon the Portland Generating 

Station SO2 reductions from the 

federally enforceable order from EPA 

responding to the CAA section 126 

petition from the State of New Jersey. 

The commenter also states that this 

order has been appealed in the federal 

Court of Appeals and should not be 

relied upon due to its uncertainty. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. The rule issued in response 

to the CAA section 126 petition from the 

State of New Jersey for the Portland 

Generating Station is federally 

enforceable and can be relied upon 

because it has not been stayed, nor has 

it been revoked at this time. The 

reductions can be relied upon for 

reasonable progress at this time because 

it is a federally enforceable measure. If 

these reductions do not occur, then 

PADEP may have to address them in the 

five year look back by submitting a SIP 

revision. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

Pennsylvania’s failure to adopt the lowsulfur fuel oil strategy that was included 

in New Jersey’s reasonable progress 

goals cannot be supplemented by SO2

emission reductions without modeling 

the impacts as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iii). 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) 

provides that a state ‘‘must document 

the technical basis, including modeling, 

monitoring and emissions information, 

on which the State is relying to 

determine its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations 

necessary for achieving reasonable 

progress in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area it affects. The State may 

meet this requirement by relying on 

technical analyses developed by the 

RPO and approved by all State 

participants. The State must identify the 

baseline emissions inventory on which 

its strategies are based.’’ 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iii). EPA did identify the 

baseline emissions for the measures 

substituted to address the SO2

reductions that would have come from 

Pennsylvania’s low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy, and the modeling impact of the 

MANE–VU rule was done by the 

regional planning organization (RPO). 

The low-sulfur fuel oil strategy was an 

area source rule and the substituted 

emission reductions are from specific 

sources that are located closer to the 

Brigantine Class I area. Thus, the 

substitution of SO2 reductions does 

meet the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iii). 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

both the EPA proposed action for 

CSAPR Better-than-BART and EPA’s 

proposed action on Pennsylvania’s RH 

SIP stated that EPA was taking action on 

long-term strategy in a separate notice. 

The commenter stated that neither 

rulemaking acted on the long-term 

strategy for Pennsylvania which is 

untenable according to the commenter. 

Response: The commenter has made 

an incorrect assumption. The EPA 

stated in the proposed action for CSAPR 

Better-than-BART that we proposed a 

limited disapproval of the regional haze 

SIPs that have been submitted by 

several states including Pennsylvania 

and that these states ‘‘fully consistent 

with the EPA’s regulations at the time, 

relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy 

the BART requirement and the 

requirement for a long-term strategy 

sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals’’ (76 FR 

82221). We further stated that ‘‘CAIR 

and CAIR FIP requirements, however, 

will only remain in force to address 

emissions through the 2011 control 

period and thus CAIR cannot be relied 

upon in a SIP as a substitute for BART 

or as part of a long-term control 

strategy.’’ Id. EPA proposed and 

finalized a limited disapproval for the 

Pennsylvania RH SIP for the long-term 

strategy due to reliance on CAIR. The 

other long-term strategy measures are 

covered under the limited approval 

proposed for Pennsylvania’s RH SIP in 

77 FR 3988. Therefore, all long-term 

control strategies beyond reliance on 

CAIR are included in the limited 

approval previously proposed, and now 

finalized, by this action. The final 

limited disapproval and FIP was 

published on June 7, 2012, addressing 

the deficiencies of the long-term strategy 

insofar as it relied on CAIR (77 FR 

33642). 

Comment: The commenter requested 

a conditional approval of 

Pennsylvania’s RH SIP requiring the 

implementation of the lower-sulfur fuel 

strategy since it was relied upon for 

establishing the reasonable progress 

goals for MANE–VU Class I areas. 

Multiple commenters also stated that 

EPA’s substitution of emission 

reductions is not permitted under the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 41283 

Regional Haze Rule for reasonable 

progress goals for visibility. 

Response: EPA does not agree that a 

conditional approval is appropriate for 

the Pennsylvania RH SIP given our 

determination that the plan meets the 

relevant applicable requirements. As set 

forth in a prior response, EPA disagrees 

that substitution of emission reductions 

is not permitted for reasonable progress 

goals. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

EPA should have disapproved 

Pennsylvania’s RH SIP due to PADEP’s 

failure to implement a proposed lowsulfur fuel oil strategy. The commenter 

stated that EPA should have demanded 

the additional 5,702 tons of SO2

emission reductions from Pennsylvania 

instead of saying that EPA does not 

anticipate the difference will interfere 

with the ability of other states to achieve 

reasonable progress goals. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. Disapproving the entire 

Pennsylvania RH SIP would have 

slowed implementation of other 

controls listed in the RH SIP. As 

explained in the NPR, we anticipate that 

the Pennsylvania RH SIP will ensure 

sufficient emission reductions to meet 

its share needed for nearby states to 

achieve their reasonable progress goals. 

If it is determined that the shortfall of 

SO2 emission reductions impedes the 

achievement of reasonable progress, 

then at the time of the five year periodic 

review PADEP may need to submit a SIP 

revision requiring those additional 

reductions. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the PADEP BART determination for 

GenOn Energy’s Cheswick Generating 

Station included emission limits 

including PM which were inconsistent 

with the plant’s current permits. The 

commenter requested EPA to require 

PADEP to revise the BART 

determination. 

Response: EPA evaluated the BART 

determination and agrees with PADEP’s 

determination of the appropriate BART 

limit based on current controls. In 

setting the BART limits, PADEP appears 

to have set emission limits for the 

facility that are far more stringent than 

intended. If Pennsylvania submits a 

revised BART determination for the 

Cheswick Generating Station, EPA 

commits to act expeditiously on the 

revised SIP submittal. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that PADEP did not address reasonable 

progress requirements for addressing 

MANE–VU’s modeled exceedance of the 

uniform rate of progress (URP) at Dolly 

Sods Class I area. 

Response: Reasonable progress goals 

are set by the Class I area state. West 

Virginia did not request any reductions 

from Pennsylvania to meet the URP as 

modeled by Visibility Improvement 

State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS). The discrepancies 

in modeling between the two RPOs were 

addressed in Pennsylvania’s RH SIP 

submittal. The requirement for the state 

consultation process was met, and 

Pennsylvania fulfilled what was 

requested by West Virginia. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

Pennsylvania’s modeling for the RH SIP 

submittal did not address the significant 

growth in emissions from Marcellus 

Shale natural gas drilling operations and 

therefore does not support reasonable 

progress. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter because reasonable progress 

goals are set by the Class I area and are 

evaluated during the 5 year periodic 

review. In addition, CAA section 

169A(g)(1) requires states to take into 

consideration a number of factors for 

reasonable progress. States have 

flexibility in how to take into 

consideration these statutory factors and 

any other factors that are determined to 

be relevant. As previously explained 

herein and in the NPR, we anticipate 

that the Pennsylvania RH SIP will 

ensure sufficient emission reductions 

for reasonable progress goals. During the 

five year periodic review, any 

significant changes in projected 

emissions can be addressed. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing its limited approval 

of the revision to the Pennsylvania SIP 

submitted on December 20, 2010 that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period in Pennsylvania. 

EPA is issuing a limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania SIP because overall the 

SIP will be stronger and more protective 

of the environment with the 

implementation of those measures by 

Pennsylvania and because the SIP will 

be stronger with federal approval and 

enforceability of Pennsylvania’s RH SIP 

than it would without those measures 

being included in the Pennsylvania SIP. 

EPA has already finalized the limited 

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s RH SIP in 

a separate rulemaking (77 FR 33642, 

June 7, 2012). EPA is also approving this 

revision as meeting the applicable 

visibility related requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) including, but not 

limited to, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 11, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

finalizing the limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze SIP may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 15, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

Regional Haze Plan at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e)* * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ................. Statewide ................................ 12/20/10 7/13/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

§ 52.2042; Limited Approval. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16428 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0398; FRL–9352–2] 

Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. Interregional Research 

Project Number 4 (IR–4) and Syngenta 

Crop Protection requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

13, 2012. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 11, 2012, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0398; 

FRL–9352–2, is available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OPP Docket in the Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Ertman, Registration Division, 

(7505P) Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9367; email address: 

ertman.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES