## Comment and Response Document

Proposed Revisions to the Infrastructure State Implementation Plans for the

2008 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS);

2010 1

- Hour Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS;

2010 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS; and

2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS;

and Proposed SIP Revision for Clean Air Act Section 128 for A ll NAAQS



## July 2014

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection[This page intentionally left blank.]- 1

-

On May 3, 2014 , the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) published a notice of public hearing and commenced a 3 5

- day written comment period on the proposed

r evisions to the Infrastructure State Implementation Plans ( i

- SIPs) for the 2008 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS and 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matt er NAAQS; and the proposed SIP r evision for Clean Air Act Section 128 for all NAAQS (all applicable statewide) ( 44 Pa.B. 2707 )

. No member of the public requested a public hearing so the scheduled hearings were cancelled and notice was posted on DEP’s webs ite. The comment per iod closed on June 6, 2014

. This document summarizes the written comments received prior to the close of the public comment period. The list of co mmentators is set forth below:

COMMENTATORS:

1. Diana Esher Director, Air Protection Di vision U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

- 2029

2. Elizabeth Toba Pearlman Office of Elizabeth Toba Pearlman Sierra Club 1523 27 th Street NW Washington, DC 20007- 2

- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

NOTE 1: Commentator No. 2, the Sierra Club

, frequently refers to DEP as ‘PaDEQ’ throughout the comment document. The DEP has never been known as PaDEQ , however. In DEP’s responses, DEP assumes that the commentator is referring to DEP when the commentator refers to PaDEQ.

NOTE 2: Commentator No. 2, t he Sierra Club

, frequently references elements that it asserts must be included in the SIP. DEP would like to clarify that everything that has been approved by EPA and codified in 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart NN , Section 52.2020, is Pennsylvania’s SIP, which includes but is not limited to numerous Pennsylvania regulations ; Pennsylvania’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Review, and permitting program s ; and Pennsylvania’s attainment demonstrations, mainte nance plans, inventories, and other SIP revisions. Different types of SIP revisions address different requirements under the CAA, and are generally divided into ‘planning’ SIPs (including infrastructure SIPs)

, and ‘control strategy’ SIPs. Inclusion in Pe nnsylvania’s SIP is not limited to items listed in infrastructure SIP revisions. This note applies to all Responses to Commentator No. 2 in this Comment and Response Document.

COMMENTS:

1. COMMENT: 110(a)(2)(B)

– In the discussion of how this element is addressed in part by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) and Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS), the proposed revisions state “The 30

- day public comment period for the ACHD and Philadelphia AMS network design plans is provided by the E PA pursuant to 40 CFR § 58.10(a)(2).” The public comment period for network design plans for these local i ties is provided by the localities and not by EPA. EPA does however review the plans and as indicated in the proposal, correspondence related to the reviews is included in Appendix A of the proposed submittals. (1 )

RESPONSE: DEP agrees with commentator. The i

- SIP revision s for the 2008 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS and 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS ha ve been revised to reflect that both ACHD and AMS provide public comment periods on their respective proposed network design plans. The SIP revision also explains that, if the local agencies fa il to provide a public comment period, a 30

- day comment period would be provided by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 58.10(a)(2).

2. COMMENT: 110(a)(2)(D)(i )

– EPA recognizes that there was likely an overlap in time during which these revisions were being readied and a legal opinion was issued. On April 29, 2014, the United States Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the D. C. Circuit Court in EME Homer Cit y Generation, L. P. v EPA v, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which- 3

-

had vacated EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CS A PR) and remanded the matter to the D. Dc. Ci rcuit for further proceedings. (1)

RESPONSE: DEP has removed all language relating to 110(a)(2 )(D)(i)(I) in t he i

- SIP revision s for the 2008 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour NO 2 NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour SO 2 NAAQS and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS and will address the requirements of that section in a future SIP revision.

3. COMMENT: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

– On April 30, 2014, EPA reissued its final limited approval of Pennsylvan i a SIP revision to implement the Commonwealth’s regional haze program for the first planning period through 2018 (79 FR 24340). EPA is currently reviewing the legal opinion discussed above for im plications on the regional haze
program. (1)

RESPONSE: DEP has revised the i

- SIP revisions for the 2008 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour NO 2 NAAQS, 2010 1

- Hour SO 2 NAAQS and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS to update the date EPA issued the limited approval of Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP revision and to remove references to the earlier limited approval dated July 13, 2012, and the petition for review of it

, filed on September 11, 2012

.

4. COMMENT: SO 2 Infrastructure SIP Revision

– The document indicates in element F(iii) that “DEP also supplies EPA with an annual stationary source inventory for major emitters of NO X ... and VOC...”. If appropriate, the Commonwealth could indicate if it also includes sources that emit SO 2
. (1)

RESPONSE: DEP does not submit an annual stationary source inventory to EPA based on SO 2 emissions. DEP does, however, include reporting requirements for SO 2 in permits issued to stationary sources in the Commonwealth. Stationary facilities are required to submit a n Annual Emission Statement (AES) ; nitrogen oxides ( NO X )

, sulfur oxides ( SO X )

, volatile organic compounds ( VOC )

, course particulate matter ( PM 10 )

, fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) , ammonia (NH 3 ) and carbon monoxide ( CO ) emissions of 1.0 ton per year or more per sub facility must be reported on a sub facility by sub facility basis . DEP supplies facilities with reporting instructions in the document “Instructions for Completing the Annual Emission Statement Reporting Forms

– rev 11/2007” (DEP Document # 2700

- BK

- DEP1936 ). All emissions reported on the AES are entered into DEP’s computer system: Air Information Management System / environment, Facility, Application, Compliance Tracking System (AIMS/eFACTS) . The public can search the eFACTS system online at the website http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eFACTSWeb/default.aspx to find facility specific reports or reports of all facilities emitting a specific pollutant. The public can request copies of permi ts or other non

- confidential information by contacting DEP directly. Additionally, AIMS/eFACTS data is provided to the federal National Emission Inventory (NEI) database and to other state agencies and the public upon request. DEP revised the SO 2 i

- SIP revision to incorporate this information.- 4

-

5. COMMENT: PM 2.5 Infrastructure SIP Revision

– The document indicates in element F(iii) that “DEP also supplies EPA with an annual stationary source inventory for major emitters of NO X ... and VOC...”. If appropr iate, the Commonwealth could indicate if it also includes sources that emit PM 2.5 . (1)

RESPONSE: DEP does not submit an annual stationary source inventory to EPA based

on PM 2.5 emissions. DEP does, however, include reporting requirements for PM 2.5 in
pe rmits issued to stationary sources in the Commonwealth. Stationary facilities are required to submit an Annual Emission Statement (AES); nitrogen oxides ( NO X )

, sulfur oxides ( SO X )

, volatile organic compounds ( VOC )

, course particulate matter ( PM 10 )

, fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) , ammonia (NH 3 ) and carbon monoxide ( CO ) emissions of 1.0 ton per year or more per sub facility must be reported on a sub facility by sub facility basis. DEP supplies facilities with reporting instructions in the document

, “Instr uctions for Completing the Annual Emission Statement Reporting Forms

– rev 11/2007” (DEP Document #2700

- BK

- DEP1936). All emissions reported on the AES are entered into DEP’s computer system: Air Information Management System / environment, Facility, Appl ication, Compliance Tracking System (AIMS/eFACTS). The public can search the eFACTS system online at the website http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eFACTSWeb/default.aspx to find facility specific re ports or reports of all facilities emitting a specific pollutant. The public can request copies of permits or other non

- confidential information by contacting DEP directly. Additionally, AIMS/eFACTS data is provided to the federal National Emission Inven tory (NEI) database and to other state agencies and the public upon request. DEP revised the PM 2.5 i

- SIP revision to incorporate this information.

6

. COMMENT: The plain language and legislative history of the Clean Air Act require that Infrastructure S

IPs must impose emission limits adequate to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment. (2)

RESPONSE: DEP disagrees with the commentator and the commentator’s narrow interpretation of the CAA. An infrastructure SIP is only the first step in a state’s planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS. S ee Note 2, above. DEP believes the requirement in S ection 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the SIP provide for “ implementation, maintena nce and enforcement ” mean s for purposes of S ection 110 that a state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. This is consistent with EPA’s expressed interpreta tion of Section 110 , as explained in EPA’s approval of the Delaware 1 and Virginia 2 i

- SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

. 3 DEP agrees with EPA that, i n light of

1

. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 79 FR 18644 (April 3, 2014) hereafter referred to as the Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval. 2

. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 17043 (M arch 27, 2014), hereafter referred to as the Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval. 3

. See Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section III(C)(a)

– Response 2 on page s 18648

- 18649 and Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval Section II(B)(1)

– Response 2 on page 17047.- 5

-

the structure of the CAA, infrastructure SIPs are general planning SIPs to ensure that a state has a dequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. 4 The two legislative history references presented by the commentator only indicat e that states should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs (not specifically in their infrastructure SIPs) and do not address whether states are required to include maintenance plans for all areas of the state as part of the infrastructure SIP. 5 Additionally, the two legislative history references pertain to S ection 110 as promulgated in 1970 and not to Section 110 as amended in 1990.

7

. COMMENT: EPA regulations implementing the Clean Air Act r equire that Infrastructure SIPs impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated as nonattainment. The commentator cites 40 CFR § 51.112(a) to support this comment

. (2)

RESPONSE: DEP disagrees. S ee Note 2 and the r esponse to Comment 6, above. In addition, EPA h as determined that 40 CFR § 51.112(a) , cited by the commentator, applies when states are developing control strategy SIPs, such as detailed attainment or maintenance plan SIPs

. 6 EPA considers i

- SIPs to be general planning SIPs, not control strategy SIPs, and as such, the specific requirements of the section cited are not applicable. 7 DEP agrees with EPA’s approach.

8

. COMMENT: Prior EPA interpretations of the Act require that Infrastructure SIPs impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment. The commentator cites two EPA actions in support of this comment

, namely EPA’s partial approval and partial disapproval of a Missouri SIP revision pertaining to the previous (1971) SO 2 standard (71 FR 126 23 (March 13, 2006))

, and EPA’s proposed disapproval of Indiana’s SO 2 SIP revision (78 FR 78720 (December 27, 2013)). (2)

RESPONSE: DEP disagrees that prior EPA interpretations of the CAA require that infrastructure SIPs impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment

. S ee Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 and 7

, above. It is clear from EPA’s final rule on the Missouri SIP revision that the agency was taking action on an attainment (or control s trategy) SIP revision, and not on an i

- SIP revision. 8 Therefore

, EPA ’s action is not applicable to the i

- SIPs being submitted to EPA

4

. See Dela ware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section III ( C )

– Response 1 on page 18648 and Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval Section II(B)(1)

– Response 1 on page 17046. 5

. See Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section III(C) (b)

– Response 3 on page 18649 and Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval Section II(B)(2)

– Response 3 on page 17047. 6

. See Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section III(C)(d)

– Response 5 on page 18650 and Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval Section II(B)(4)

– Response 5 on pages 17048

- 17049. 7

. See footnote 4

. 8

. See Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section III(C)(e)

– Response 6 on page 18651 and Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval on page 17049.- 6

-

by DEP. EPA’s proposed disapproval of Indiana’s SO 2 SIP revision is a proposal and cannot be used as evidence of final EPA actions. It is also clear in Section I of that proposal, entitled

, “ What is the background for this action? ”, that EPA is proposing disapprov al of the Indiana SIP revision because it fails to meet the requirements of CAA S ection 110(l), not S ection 110(a). In addition to that, EPA’s proposed action on the Indiana SIP revision relate s to a proposed revision to Indiana’s approved SO 2 attainment plan, not the SO 2 i

- SIP

, 9 and is therefore not applicabl e to the i

- SIPs being submitted to EPA by DEP.

9

. COMMENT: Supreme and Appellate Court opinions hold that Infrastructure SIPs must impose emission limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment. (2)

RESPONSE: DEP disagrees . None of the cases cited by the commentator support the commentator’s contention regarding infrastructure SIPs

. DEP incorporates EPA’s analysis of the cases in EPA’s final actions on the Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval and the Virginia Ozone i

- SI P approval. 10 S ee Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 8 , above.

10

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft SO 2 I

- SIP fails to include enforceable one

- hour SO 2 emission limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance of the primary SO 2 NAAQS. Pennsylvania’s draft SO 2 I

- SIP must be revised to include enforceable one

- hour SO 2 emission limitations for sources currently allowed to cause exceedances of the NAAQS. (2)

RESPONSE: DEP disagrees

. S ee Note 2 and the r esponses to C omment s 6 through 9

, above . In addition, t he CAA requires states with areas designated as nonattainment under a NAAQS to submit an applicable implementation plan meeting the requirements of P art D of the CAA by deadlines established in the CAA or EPA regulations

. According to EPA’s “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(A)(2)” issued in September 2013, “emission limitations and other control measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated

as nonattainment for that NAAQS will be due on a different schedule from the S ection 110 infrastructure elements and will be reviewed and acted upon with regard to approvability for the specific purpose of such an attainment plan under CAA T itle I P art D t hrough a separate process at a later time.” 11 DEP is not adding new emission limitations in the i

- SIPs being submitted to EPA; emission limitations will be addressed , as necessary and appropriate, through mechanism s that may include but are

9 See footnote 8

. 10 See Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section III(C)(c)

– Response 4 on pages 18649

- 18650 and Virginia Ozone i

SI P approval Section (II)( B)(3)

– Response 4 on page 17048.
11 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) , page 18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards; September 13, 2013.- 7

-

not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof. This approach is supported by EPA ’s long

- standing position regarding i

- SIPs

, which is that “they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authorit y to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.” 12 DEP’s i

- SIPs demonstrate that Pennsylvania has adequate resources and authority.

11

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft SO 2 i

- SIP must include emission limitations and should use modeling to show that the emission limitations (source

- specific one

- hour SO 2 emission limits) show no exceedances of the SO 2 NAAQS when modeled. (2)

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs. DEP will evaluate all available tools, including modeling data and analysis

, through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof

, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the SO 2 NAAQS

.

12

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft SO 2 I

- SIP must include enforceable SO 2 emission limits with a one

- hour averaging period that apply at all times. (2)

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs. DEP will evaluate requirements relating to emission limitations, including averaging periods

, through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof

, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for th e SO 2 NAAQS.

13. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft SO 2 I

- SIP must require monitoring of SO 2 emission limits on a continuous basis using a continuous emission monitor system or systems. (2)

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10, above. DEP will evaluate monitoring requirements through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the SO 2 NAA QS.

1 4

. COMMENT: PaDEQ must establish enforceable emission limits at major sources and must amend Pennsylvania’s draft SO 2 I

- SIP to include those limits, to ensure that large sources of SO 2 cannot cause exceedances of the one

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. Commentator made the same comment relating to the draft ozone I

- SIP , relating to emission limits for ozone precursor pollutants

. (2 )

12

. See footnote 4

.- 8

-

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs. DEP will evaluate requirements relating to emission limitations at major sources through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revisio n, or a combination thereof, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the SO 2 NAAQS.

1 5

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft Ozone I

- SIP fails to include enforceable emission limitations needed to address significant monitored violations of the primary ozone NAAQS. (2)

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s posit ion on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs. DEP will evaluate all available tools, including monitoring data

, through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof,

as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the ozone NAAQS.

1 6

. COMMENT: Monitoring data demonstrates that at least one county in Pennsylvania is exceeding the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. Pennsylvania’s draft Ozone I

- SIP should be revised to addres s these exceedances and ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. (2)

RESPONSE: EPA has stated that

, “ States must develop SIPs based on the information they had during the SIP development process and data that becomes available after that process is completed cannot undermine the reasonable assumptions that were made by the state based on the information it had available as it developed the plan.” 13 Additionally, the CAA has provisions to address changes in air quality over time, inclu ding ‘provisions providing for redesignation in S ection 107(d) of the CAA and provisions in S ection 110(k)(5) of the CAA allowing EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, as appropriate.” 14 If EPA chooses to redesignate areas currently designated as
att ainment as nonattainment based on later years ’ data, DEP would address nonattainment area SIP requirements , as necessary, for those areas at the time revised designations would become final. S ee Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10, above.

1 7

. COMMENT: Adding control devices and emission limitations on electric generating units are a cost effective option to reduce NO X and attain and maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. (2)

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs. DEP will address

13

. See Delaware Ozone i

- SIP approval Section (III)(C)

– Response 1 on page 18647 and Virginia Ozone i

- SIP approval Section (II)(B)

– Response 1 on page s 17045

- 17046

. 14

. See footnote 13

.- 9

-

control strategies, cost

- effectiveness and emission limitations through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the

ozone NAAQS.

1 8

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania should use the Ozone I

- SIP process to address current ozone exceedances in Dauphin, Erie, Indiana, Mercer and York counties and prevent these counties from being redesignated as nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, or designated as nonattainment for the forthcoming Ozone NAAQS (referencing the current EPA review of the Ozone NAAQS, initiated in September 2008

– ht tp://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_2008_pd.html ), by adding appropriate enforceable emission limits on NO X sources. (2)

RESPONSE: See the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in I

- SIP s. See Comment 16 for DEP’s position on using the i

- SIP to address NAAQS exceed ances.

1 9

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft NO 2 I

- SIP fails to include enforceable one

- hour NO 2 emission limitations to ensure attainment and mainten ance of the primary NO 2 NAAQS. (2)

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs.

20

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft PM 2.5 I

- SIP fails to include enforceable PM 2.5 emission limitations, with annual averaging periods, that apply at all times, to ensure attainment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. (2 )

RESPONSE: See Note 2 and R esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10 , above, for DEP’s position on the inclusion of emission limitations in i

- SIPs. DEP will evaluate requirements relating to emission limitations, including averaging periods, through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment o r SIP revision, or a combination thereof, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the PM 2.5 NAAQS.

2 1

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’ s draft PM 2.5 I

- SIP must require monitoring of PM 2.5 emission limits on a continuous basis using a continuous emission monitor system or systems. (2)

RESPONSE: DEP will evaluate monitoring requirements through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a- 10

-

combination thereof, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. See Note 2 and the r esponse s to Comment s 6 through 10, above.

2 2

. COMMENT: The statutory and regulatory sections that PaDEQ incorporated into its d raft I

- SIPs (2008 Ozone, 2010 NO X , 2010 SO X

, and 2012 PM

2.5 ) are insufficient to ensure compliance with the 2010 N O 2 , 2010 S O 2 , 2008 ozone, and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS

. N one of the rules and regulations cited in Pennsylvania's d raft I

- SIPs include appropriate emission limits for the 2010 N O 2 , 2010 S O 2 , 2008 ozone, an d 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, as shown by modeling and monitoring data. Pennsylvania must revise its I

- SIP to include enforceable emission limits that address the exceedances shown by the monitor data and that otherwise address the 2010 NO 2 , 2010 SO 2 , 2008 Ozone, and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and it must update its emission regulations to ensure that proper mass limitations and short term averaging periods are imposed on large sources of pollution. (2)

RESPONSE: The i

- SIP process is not the appropriate tool to address p otential regulatory revisions for the purposes suggested by the commentator

. See Note 2 and Response s to Comment s 6 through 10, above , for DEP’s position on including emission limitations in the i

- SIP

. DEP will address mass limitations and averaging peri ods through mechanisms that may include but are not limited to rulemaking, permit amendment or SIP revision, or a combination thereof, as necessary and appropriate, to meet CAA requirements for the NAAQS cited in the comment

.

23

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft I

- SIPs (2008 Ozone, 2010 NO X , 2010 SO X

, and 2012 PM

2.5 ) fail to address sources significantly contributing to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states [relating to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)]

. (2)

RESPONSE: DEP has not addressed S ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) in the final i

- SIPs submitted to EPA for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO X , 2010 SO X , and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. DEP intends to submit a separate SIP revision in the future to address S ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)( I)

.

24

. COMMENT: Pennsylvania’s draft I

- SIPs (2008 Ozone, 2010 NO X , 2010 SO X

, and 2012 PM

2.5 ) fail to protect visibility in other states by relying on Pennsylvania’s Regional Haze SIP [relating to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)]

. (2)

RESPONSE: EPA issued a limited disapproval and limited approval of Pennsylvania’s Regional Haze SIP revision on June 7, 2012, and April 30, 2014, respectively (77 FR 33642 and 79 FR 24340). The limited disapproval resulted from Pennsylvania’s reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address regional emission transport. The limited disapproval included a Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Pennsylvania, which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on the Cross

- State Air- 11

-

Pollution Rule (C SAPR). The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated CS AP R in August 2012 and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. EME Homer City Generation L.P. v EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2857 (2013). The Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2014

, reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The commentator is incorrect that the April 2014 court d ecision reinstated CSAPR. Pennsylvania’s Regional Haze SIP, along with Pennsylvania’s SIP provisions to implement CAIR, adequately prevents sources in Pennsylvania from interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility. If CSAPR is reinstated or if a new interstate transport rule is promulgated, DEP will address any new requirements under it, as necessary and appropriate

.