67640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

public hearing, contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will arrange the location 

and time of the hearing with those 

persons requesting the hearing. If no one 

requests an opportunity to speak, we 

will not hold a hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at the 

public hearing provide us with a written 

copy of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been given an opportunity to be 

heard. If you are in the audience and 

have not been scheduled to speak and 

wish to do so, you will be allowed to 

speak after those who have been 

scheduled. We will end the hearing after 

everyone scheduled to speak and others 

present in the audience who wish to 

speak, have been heard. 

Public Meeting 

If there is limited interest in 

participation in a public hearing, we 

may hold a public meeting rather than 

a public hearing. If you wish to meet 

with us to discuss the amendment, 

please request a meeting by contacting 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings 

will be open to the public and, if 

possible, we will post notices of 

meetings at the locations listed under 

ADDRESSES. We will make a written 

summary of each meeting a part of the 

Administrative Record. 

V. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Other Laws and Executive Orders 

Affecting Rulemaking 

When a State submits a program 

amendment to OSM for review, our 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require 

us to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register indicating receipt of the 

proposed amendment, its text or a 

summary of its terms, and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

conclude our review of the proposed 

amendment after the close of the public 

comment period and determine whether 

the amendment should be approved, 

approved in part, or not approved. At 

that time, we will also make the 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: July 27, 2011. 

Thomas D. Shope, 

Regional Director, Appalachian Region. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28441 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391; FRL–9485–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the 

Pennsylvania Portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), which was 

submitted to EPA on April 12, 2010 to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for the Pennsylvania portion 

of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware (PANJ-DE) nonattainment area 

(Philadelphia area). This plan (herein 

called the ‘‘attainment plan’’) includes 

the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area’s attainment 

demonstration and motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes an 

analysis of reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) and reasonably 

available control technology (RACT), a 

base year emissions inventory, and 

contingency measures. The requirement 

for a reasonable further progress (RFP) 

plan is not required because 

Pennsylvania projected that attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would have 

occurred in the Pennsylvania portion of 

the Philadelphia area by the attainment 

date, April 2010. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and the Clean Air Fine 

Particulate Implementation Rule (PM2.5

Implementation Rule) issued by EPA on 

April 25, 2007. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0391 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Planning Program, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

0391. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67641 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the 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: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Designation History 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule 

C. Attaining Data Determination and 

Finding of Attainment 

III. What is included in the Pennsylvania 

attainment plan? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

Pennsylvania attainment plan submittal? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Pollutants Addressed 

2. Emission Inventory Requirements 

3. Modeling 

4. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

5. Reasonable Further Progress 

6. Contingency Measures 

7. Attainment Date 

B. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s SIP submission, which 

was submitted by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) to EPA on April 12, 2010 to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area (herein called the 

state’s ‘‘PM2.5 attainment plan’’). This 

PM2.5 attainment plan includes 

Pennsylvania’s attainment 

demonstration and MVEBs used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes a 

base year emissions inventory, an 

analysis of RACM/RACT, and 

contingency measures. RFP plan is not 

required because the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area 

demonstrated that attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS occurred by 

the attainment date, April 2010. 

EPA has determined that the 

Pennsylvania’s PM2.5 attainment plan 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA, as described in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule issued by EPA on 

April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586). EPA’s 

analysis and findings are discussed in 

this proposed rulemaking. In addition, 

technical support documents (TSDs) for 

this proposal are available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0391. These TSDs 

provide additional explanation on 

EPA’s analysis supporting this proposal. 

II. What is the background of EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. Designation History 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including an annual standard of 15.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24- 

hour (or daily) standard of 65 mg/m3

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

EPA established these standards based 

on significant evidence and numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to PM2.5. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and State Air 

Quality Agencies initiated the 

monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS and by January 2001, 

established a complete set of air quality 

monitors. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 

944), EPA promulgated initial air 

quality designations for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which became effective on 

April 5, 2005, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2001–2003. 

On April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844), EPA 

promulgated a supplemental rule 

amending the Agency’s initial 

designations, with the same effective 

date (April 5, 2005) as 70 FR 944. As a 

result of this supplemental rule, PM2.5

nonattainment designations are in effect 

for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties 

within 20 states (and the District of 

Columbia) nationwide, with a combined 

population of about 88 million. The 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area, which is the subject 

of this rulemaking, is included in the 

list of areas not attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area consists of the 

following counties: Bucks, Chester, 

Delaware, Montgomery, and 

Philadelphia. 

It should be noted that on November 

13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA revised the 

existing designation tables in 40 CFR 

part 81.339 to clarify that the 1997 

designations were for both the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The Pennsylvania portion of 

the Philadelphia area was designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule 

On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), EPA 

issued the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The ‘‘PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’ describes the 

CAA framework and requirements for 

developing SIPs for areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. An attainment plan must 

include a demonstration that a 

nonattainment area will meet the 

applicable NAAQS within the 

timeframe provided in the statute. This 

demonstration must include modeling 

(40 CFR 51.1007) that is performed in 

accordance with EPA modeling 

guidance (EPA–454/B–07–002, April 

2007). It must also include supporting 

technical analyses and descriptions of 

all relevant adopted Federal, State, and 

local regulations and control measures 

that have been adopted in order to 

provide attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by the proposed attainment 

date. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, an 

attainment plan must show that a 

nonattainment area will attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable, but within five years of 

designation (i.e. attainment date of April 

2010 based on air quality data for 2007 

through 2009). If the area is not 

expected to meet the NAAQS by April 

2010, a state may request to extend the 

attainment date by one to five years 

based on the severity of the 

nonattainment problem or the feasibility 

of implementing control measures (CAA 

section 172(a)(2)) in the specific area. 

For EPA to approve an extension of the 

attainment date beyond 2010, the state 

must provide an analysis to support the 

request and demonstrate that the 

attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable for the area given the facts 

and circumstances of the area and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

consistent with the statutory criteria for 

an extension. 

For each nonattainment area, the state 

must demonstrate that it has adopted all 

RACM, including all RACT for the 

appropriate emissions sources, needed 

to provide for attainment of the PM2.5

standards in the specific nonattainment 

area ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable.’’ 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

provided guidance for making these 

RACM/RACT determinations (See, 

Section IV.A.4 below). Any measures 

that are necessary to meet these 

requirements that are not already 

Federally promulgated or in an EPAapproved part of the state’s SIP must be 

submitted as part of a state’s attainment 

demonstration. Any state measures must 

meet the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements, and in 

particular, must be Federally 

enforceable. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

included guidance on pollutants that 

states must address in their attainment 

plans. The CAA (section 302(g)) 

authorizes EPA to regulate criteria 

pollutants and their precursors. In the 

case of PM2.5, the main chemical 

precursors are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3), 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

The effect of reducing emissions of 

precursor pollutants that contribute to 

PM2.5 concentrations varies by area, 

however, depending on PM2.5

composition, emission levels, and other 

area-specific factors. For this reason, the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule provided 

guidance recommending that states elect 

direct PM2.5 emissions and the precursor 

that would be most effective for 

attaining the NAAQS within the specific 

area, based upon an appropriate 

technical demonstration. 

In accordance with the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, direct PM2.5

emissions means ‘‘solid particles 

emitted directly from an air emissions 

source or activity, or gaseous emissions 

or liquid droplets from an air emissions 

source or activity which condense to 

form particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. Direct PM2.5 emissions 

include elemental carbon, directly 

emitted organic carbon (OC), directly 

emitted sulfate (SO4), directly emitted 

nitrate (NO3), and other inorganic 

particles (including but not limited to 

crustal material, metals, and sea salt).’’ 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

requires all states to address SO2 as a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and to 

evaluate SO2 for possible control 

measures in all PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. States are required to address 

NOX as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor and evaluate reasonable 

controls for NOX in all PM2.5 attainment 

plans, unless the state and EPA make a 

finding that NOX emissions from 

sources in the state do not significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

relevant nonattainment area. 

Although current scientific 

information shows that certain VOC 

emissions are precursors to the 

formation of secondary organic aerosol, 

and significant progress has been made 

in understanding the role of gaseous 

organic material in the formation of 

organic particular matter (PM), this 

relationship remains complex. Further 

research and technical tools are needed 

to better characterize emissions 

inventories for specific VOC compounds 

and to determine the extent of the 

contribution of specific VOC 

compounds to organic PM mass. 

Because of these factors, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule did not require 

states to address VOCs as PM2.5

attainment plan precursors and evaluate 

them for control measures, unless the 

state or EPA makes a finding that VOCs 

significantly contribute to a PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the specific 

area or to other downwind air quality 

concerns. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

describes the formation of particles 

related to NH3 emissions, which is a 

complex, nonlinear process. Though 

recent studies have improved our 

understanding of the role of NH3 in 

aerosol formation, ongoing research is 

needed to better describe the 

relationships between NH3 emissions, 

PM concentrations, and related impacts. 

Also, area-specific data is needed to 

evaluate the effectiveness of reducing 

NH3 emissions on reducing PM2.5

concentrations in different areas, and to 

determine where NH3 decreases may 

increase the acidity of particles and 

precipitation. For these reasons, in the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, NH3 is 

presumed not to be a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor, meaning that the state is 

not required to address NH3 in its 

attainment plan or evaluate sources of 

NH3 emissions for reduction measures, 

unless the state or EPA makes a finding 

that NH3 significantly contributes to a 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the 

area or to other downwind air quality 

concerns. 

The presumptive inclusion of NOX, 

and the presumptive exclusion of VOC 

and NH3 as attainment plan precursors 

can be reversed based on an acceptable 

technical demonstration for a particular 

nonattainment area by the state or EPA. 

Such a demonstration should include 

information from multiple sources, 

including results of speciation data 

analyses, air quality modeling studies, 

chemical tracer studies, emission 

inventories, or special intensive 

measurement studies to evaluate 

specific atmospheric chemistry in an 

area (See, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule for more information). 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

provided guidance for the other 

elements of a state’s attainment plan, 

including, but not limited to, emission 

inventories, contingency measures, and 

MVEBs used for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

There are, however, three aspects of 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule for 

which EPA received petitions 

requesting reconsideration. These 

pertain to the presumption or advance 

determination that compliance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) automatically satisfies the 

requirements for RACT or RACM for 

NOX or SO2 emissions from electric 

generating unit (EGU) sources 

participating in regional cap and trade 

programs; the suggestion in the 

preamble that the economic feasibility 

element of a RACT determination for 

EGUs should include consideration of 

whether the cost of a measure is 

reasonable in light of the benefits; and 

the policy described in the preamble of 

allowing certain emissions reductions 

from outside the nonattainment area to 

be credited as meeting the RFP 

requirement. EPA is granting these 

petitions and intends to undertake 

rulemaking to change these aspects of 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. The 

attainment plan for the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area did not 

rely on any of these aspects of the rule. 

C. Attaining Data Determination and 

Finding of Attainment 

The data in Table 1 indicates that the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area is meeting the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, 

Table 2 shows that the Philadelphia area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010. More detailed 

information can be found in the TSD 

entitled, ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Modeling Portion of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Fine 

Particulate Matter State Implementation 

Plan,’’ dated October 11, 2011, available 

on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391. 

However, this action does not determine 

that the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

information is included here only to 

support Pennsylvania’s demonstration 

that the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area could meet the 

attainment date of April 5, 2010, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67643 

continues to attain based on the most 

recent data available. EPA plans to take 

action to formally determine the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area’s attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate 

action. 

TABLE 1—2009 ANNUAL AVERAGED PM2.5 DESIGN VALUE

County Site name Site No. Design value 

(μg/m3) 

Bucks ............................................................................ Bristol ............................................................................ 420170012 12.1 

Chester ......................................................................... New Garden ................................................................. 420290100 12.4 

Delaware ....................................................................... Chester ......................................................................... 420450002 13.3 

Montgomery .................................................................. Norristown ..................................................................... 420910013 11.3 

Philadelphia .................................................................. AMS Lab ....................................................................... 421010004 12.9 

Philadelphia .................................................................. NE Airport ..................................................................... 421010024 11.9 

Philadelphia .................................................................. Broad Street ................................................................. 421010047 13.5 

Philadelphia .................................................................. Elmwood ....................................................................... 421010136 12.7 

TABLE 2—2008–2010 MONITORED ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES

County Site name Site No. 

Design value (μg/m3) 

2008 2009 2010 

Bucks ............................................... Bristol ................................................. 420170012 12.6 12.2 11.3 

Chester ............................................ New Garden ...................................... 420290100 13.4 13.9 13.8 

Delaware .......................................... Chester .............................................. 420450002 14.1 13.7 13.1

Montgomery ..................................... Norristown .......................................... 420910013 12.3 11.7 10.5 

Philadelphia ..................................... AMS Lab ............................................ 421010004 13.4 12.5 11.5 

Philadelphia ..................................... NE Airport .......................................... 421010024 12.4 11.5 10.5 

Philadelphia ..................................... Broad Street ...................................... 421010047 14.5 13.0 11.9 

Philadelphia ..................................... Elmwood ............................................ 421010136 13.2 13.3 ........................

III. What is included in the 

Pennsylvania attainment plan? 

In accordance with section 172(c) of 

the CAA and the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, the attainment plan submitted on 

April 12, 2010 by PADEP for the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area included: (1) An 

emissions inventory for the plan’s base 

year (2002); (2) an attainment 

demonstration; and (3) MVEBs for the 

attainment year. The attainment 

demonstration includes: (a) Technical 

analyses that locate, identify, and 

quantify sources of emissions 

contributing to violations of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (b) analyses of 

future year emissions reductions and air 

quality improvements expected to result 

from national and local programs from 

new measures to meet RACM/RACT; (c) 

adopted emission reduction measures 

with schedules for implementation; and 

(d) contingency measures for NOX and 

SO2 to be implemented if the area did 

not meet RFP or did not attain the 

standard by the attainment date. 

To analyze future year emissions 

reductions and air quality 

improvements, Pennsylvania used local, 

regional, and national modeling 

analyses that have been developed to 

support Federal and local emission 

reduction programs. This modeling was 

performed in accordance with EPA’s 

‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Determining 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze’’ 

(EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007). 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

Pennsylvania attainment plan 

submittal? 

A. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Pollutants Addressed 

In accordance with policies described 

in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

Pennsylvania’s PM2.5 attainment plan 

evaluates emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, 

and NOX in the Pennsylvania portion of 

the Philadelphia area. Because of 

uncertainties regarding NH3 emission 

inventories and the efficacy of ammonia 

control technologies as noted earlier in 

this notice, the final rule sets forth the 

presumption that NH3 is not a PM2.5

precursor and that the states are not 

required to address NH3 in their 

attainment plan. Similarly, VOC 

emissions are presumed not to be an 

attainment plan precursor because of 

uncertainties regarding the role of VOC 

in secondary organic aerosol formation. 

Pennsylvania’s attainment plan does not 

reverse this presumption. 

2. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

States are required under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop 

emissions inventories of point, area, 

onroad mobile, and nonroad mobile 

sources for their attainment 

demonstrations. These inventories 

provide a detailed accounting of all 

emissions and emission sources by 

precursor or pollutant. In addition, 

inventories are used to model air quality 

to demonstrate that attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable, and if an attainment 

extension beyond 2010 is needed to 

support the need for such an extension. 

Emissions inventory guidance was 

provided in the April 1999 document 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional 

Haze Regulations’’ (EPA–454/R–99– 

006), which was updated in November 

2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001). Emissions 

reporting requirements were provided 

in the 2002 Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (CERR) (67 FR 39602). 

On December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76539), 

EPA promulgated the Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR) to 

update emissions reporting 

requirements in the CERR, and to 

harmonize, consolidate and simplify 

data reporting by states. 

In accordance with the AERR and the 

November 2005 guidance, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule required states to 

submit inventory information on 

directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors and any additional inventory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

information needed to support an 

attainment demonstration. 

The SIP base year inventory is the 

primary inventory from which other 

inventories (3-year cycle inventories, 

RFP inventories, modeling inventories) 

are derived. The CAA calls for state, 

local, and tribal agencies to ensure that 

the base year inventory is 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

for all actual emissions (EPA–454/R– 

05–001). The base year inventory 

includes emissions estimates from 

stationary point and nonpoint sources, 

onroad mobile sources, and nonroad 

mobile sources. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the pollutants to be inventoried are 

primary emissions (including 

condensables) of PM10 and PM2.5, and 

emissions of SO2, NH3, VOC, and NOX, 

and are reported as actual annual 

weekday emissions. The State Air 

Agencies defined 2002 as the base year 

inventory. The pollutants inventoried 

for the Pennsylvania portion of 

Philadelphia area included PM10, PM2.5, 

SO2, NH3, VOC, and NOX. Information 

on the manmade sources of direct PM 

and its potential precursors, SO2, NH3, 

VOC, and NOX was compiled for: 

Stationary sources (or point sources), 

which are sources for which PADEP 

collects individual emissions-related 

information, generally represent major 

stationary sources but may be smaller. 

The point source data for 2002 is 

derived from the Air Information 

Management System/environment, 

Facility, Application, Compliance 

Tracking System (AIMS/eFACTS). The 

AIMS/eFACTS database is comprised of 

sources identified and inventoried by 

PADEP’s regional and central offices 

through permitting, field inspections, 

and surveys. 

Area sources, which are industrial, 

commercial, and residential sources too 

small or too numerous to be handled 

individually, include, but are not 

limited, to commercial and residential 

open burning, architectural and 

industrial maintenance coatings 

applications and clean-up, consumer 

product use, and vehicle refueling at 

service stations. Where there is overlap 

between stationary point sources and 

stationary area sources, the area source 

values are adjusted to remove any 

double counting. PADEP’s inventory 

contained estimations of emissions by 

multiplying an emission factor by an 

indicator or activity level for each 

category at the county level. These 

emissions are calculated on an annual 

basis since the activity data are 

generally available on an annual basis. 

Area source estimates were provided by 

source classification code (SCC). 

Highway vehicles, which include 

passenger cars and light-duty trucks, 

other trucks, buses, and motorcycles, are 

onroad mobile source emissions 

inventory that was developed using the 

most current version of EPA’s highway 

mobile source emissions model 

MOBILE6.2. PADEP also used PPSUITE, 

an enhanced version of the Post 

Processor for Air Quality software 

systems used for previous inventory 

submissions in Pennsylvania. The 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PennDOT) provided 

estimates of vehicles miles traveled 

(VMT) by vehicle type and roadway 

type. PADEP provided sample 

MOBILE6.2 input files and estimates for 

review. 

Nonroad sources, which encompass a 

diverse collection of engines, including, 

but not limited to, outdoor power 

equipment, recreational vehicles, farm 

and construction machinery, lawn and 

garden equipment, industrial 

equipment, recreational marine vessels, 

commercial marine vessels, 

locomotives, ships, and aircraft were 

estimated using the EPA NONROAD 

2005 model. 

The emissions inventory for the base 

year, 2002, was developed in 

accordance with EPA guidance, 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Regional Haze 

Regulations, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005.’’ 

Table 3 summarizes the emissions for 

2002. 

TABLE 3—2002 ANNUAL EMISSIONS

[Tons per year] 

Philadelphia area 2002 PM2.5 PM10 SO2 NOx VOC NH3

Stationary Point Sources ......................... 2139 3430 23745 22124 8183 256 

Area Sources ........................................... 10020 55224 13153 13029 59227 4821 

Highway Vehicle Sources ........................ 1033 1492 1920 63476 33974 2614 

Nonroad Sources ..................................... 1535 1611 1640 21619 21589 14 

Total .................................................. 14727 61758 40459 120248 122973 7705 

The review and evaluation of the 

methods used for the emissions 

inventory submitted by Pennsylvania 

are found in the attainment plan 

submittal (section III) and a TSD 

entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE 

PM2.5 Noanattainment Area: State 

Implementation Plan Attainment 

Demonstration and Base Year 

Inventory,’’ dated October 11, 2011, 

available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0391. EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for the Pennsylvania portion 

of the Philadelphia area as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. 

PM2.5 is comprised of filterable and 

condensable emissions. Condensable 

particulate matter (CPM) can comprise a 

significant percentage of direct PM2.5

emissions from certain sources, and are 

required to be included in national 

emission inventories based on emission 

factors. Test Methods 201A and 202 are 

available for source-specific 

measurement of condensable emissions. 

However, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule acknowledged that there were 

issues and concerns related to 

availability and implementation of these 

test methods as well as uncertainties in 

existing data for condensable PM2.5. In 

recognition of these concerns, EPA 

established a transition period during 

which EPA could assess possible 

revisions to available test methods and 

to allow time for states to update 

emissions inventories as needed to 

address direct PM2.5, including 

condensable emissions. Because of the 

time required for this assessment, EPA 

recognized that states would be limited 

in how to effectively address CPM 

emissions, and established a period of 

transition, up to January 1, 2011, during 

which state submissions for PM2.5 were 

not required to address CPM emissions. 

Amendments to these test methods were 

proposed on March 25, 2009 (74 FR 

12969), and finalized on December 21, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67645 

2010 (75 FR 80118). The amendments to 

Method 201A added a particle-sizing 

device for PM2.5 sampling, and the 

amendments to Method 202 revised the 

sample collection and recovery 

procedures of the method to reduce the 

formation of reaction artifacts that could 

lead to inaccurate measurements of 

CPM emissions. 

The period of transition for 

establishing emissions limits for 

condensable direct PM2.5 ended on 

January 1, 2011. PM2.5 submissions 

made during the transition period are 

not required to address CPM emissions; 

however, states must address the control 

of direct PM2.5 emissions, including 

condensable emissions, with any new 

action taken after this January 1, 2011. 

Pennsylvania submitted the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area attainment plan prior 

to January 1, 2011 and did not consider 

condensables. 

In July 2008, EarthJustice filed a 

petition requesting reconsideration of 

EPA’s transition period for CPM 

emissions provided in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In January 2009, 

EPA decided to allow states that have 

not previously addressed CPM to 

continue to exclude CPM for Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting during the transition period. 

Today’s action reflects a review of 

Pennsylvania’s submittal based on 

current EPA guidance as described in 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

3. Modeling 

All attainment demonstrations must 

include modeling that is performed in 

accordance with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on 

the Use of Models and Other Analyses 

for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze’’ (EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007). Modeling may be based on 

national (e.g., EPA), regional (e.g., 

Ozone Transport Commission), local 

modeling, or a combination thereof, if 

appropriate. A brief description of 

modeling used to support 

Pennsylvania’s attainment 

demonstration follows. More detailed 

information can be found in the TSD 

entitled, ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Modeling Portion of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Fine 

Particulate Matter State Implementation 

Plan,’’ dated October 11, 2011, available 

on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0391. 

The Philadelphia area’s attainment plan 

addressed the following components of 

a modeled attainment demonstration. 

a. Conceptual Description of the 

Problem 

A conceptual model describes how 

weather patterns affect the formation 

and transport of PM2.5, accounting for 

emissions and photochemistry. A 

conceptual model for the Philadelphia 

area’s attainment plan is described in a 

document prepared by the Northeast 

States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management (NESCAUM), ‘‘The Nature 

of the Fine Particle and Regional Haze 

Air Quality Problems in the MidAtlantic Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) Region: A Conceptual 

Description (NESCAUM), November 

2006,’’ for use by the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) member states 

which provides the conceptual 

description of PM2.5 issues in the OTC 

states and is consistent with EPA’s 

guidance. 

b. The Model Used in the Attainment 

Demonstration 

By agreement of OTC, the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) ran the 

Community Multi-scale Air Quality 

Model (CMAQ) for the states in the 

northeast ozone transport region that 

includes Pennsylvania. EPA agrees 

CMAQ is appropriate for this modeling 

demonstration. The inputs of the model 

are described in section V of the 

attainment plan submittal. 

c. Meteorological Time Periods Used in 

the Modeling 

Since the Philadelphia area’s 

attainment demonstration used a 

resource intensive photochemical grid 

model, EPA accepts the use of single, 

recent representative year to be used for 

an annual simulation. Two factors were 

used in selecting 2002 as the 

representative year. The observed 

annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 are 

close to the 3-year observed design 

value at all, or most monitoring sites, 

and the pattern of quarterly mean values 

is similar to the pattern of quarterly 

mean concentrations averaged over 3 

years. 

d. Meteorological Data Used in the Air 

Quality Model 

The OTC modeling committee 

decided to use a prognostic 

meteorological model that provides lifelike meteorological inputs to the 

photochemical grid model. The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 was chosen for the modeling 

analysis. The MM5 model provides a 

reasonable representation of weather 

conditions at the surface and aloft. 

e. Domain of the Model, Horizontal/ 

Vertical Resolution and the Initial and 

Boundary Conditions 

The modeling domain extends from 

Maine to Florida and out in the Atlantic 

Ocean on the east and west to the 

Mississippi River. The size of the 

modeling domain was made large 

enough to include all emission sources 

that affect PM2.5 concentration in the 

northeastern United States. Even this 

boundary is defined by a larger 

photochemical modeling domain that 

covers much of North America. Over the 

northeastern United States, the model 

used 12 kilometer grid cells. The 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area is included in the 12 

kilometer grid cell area. The OTC 

Modeling Committee used a 12- 

kilometer grid size for the areas in and 

near its states to provide a fine enough 

grid resolution to adequately capture the 

PM patterns experienced in the ozone 

transport region (OTR). Outside the 

local areas the grid resolution used in 

the modeling is 36 kilometers. The 

selection of model domains and 

horizontal grid resolution was deemed 

acceptable to EPA. 

Vertical resolution is the number of 

layers and the size of each layer in the 

model. The layers in the photochemical 

grid model were set up to be compatible 

with the model that produced weather 

conditions for the photochemical grid 

model. The vertical resolution used in 

the modeling exercise followed EPA’s 

modeling guidance and therefore 

adequately represents the atmosphere 

where PM2.5 is emitted, forms and is 

transported. 

f. Emissions Used in the Air Quality 

Model 

The emissions data for 2002 were 

generated by individual states within 

the OTR and assembled and processed 

through Mid-Atlantic Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU), a 

Regional Planning Organization (RPO). 

These emissions were then processed by 

NYSDEC using the sparse matrix 

operator kernel emissions (SMOKE) 

emissions processor to provide CMAQ 

compatible inputs. The 2002 emissions 

for the non-OTR areas within the 

modeling domain were obtained from 

the corresponding RPOs and were 

processed using SMOKE, in manner 

similar to that of the OTR emissions. 

The OTR states, through MANE–VU, 

contracted MACTEC Federal Programs 

(called Contractor) to develop 2009, 

2012 and 2018 inventories based on 

2002 inventories that the states had 

previously developed for the base-year 

model work. The Contractor, in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

consultation with the states, developed 

the necessary growth and control factors 

and applied to the 2002 inventory. 

g. Base Case Run Model Performance 

Evaluation 

NYSDEC performed a model 

evaluation for the OTC to determine 

how well CMAQ reproduced the 2002 

PM2.5 concentrations. CMAQ was 

employed to simulate PM2.5 for the 

calendar year 2002. A review of PM2.5

and its individual species was 

conducted for the study domain. Several 

observations were made with respect to 

model performance: (1) Approximately 

80–90 percent of organic mass (OM) is 

in the primary fraction; (2) CMAQ 

captures seasonal variation in SO4 well; 

(3) CMAQ appears to overestimate 

primary PM2.5 components, especially 

during colder months; and (4) CMAQ 

appears to underestimate secondary OM 

during the summer. 

These issues are not of great 

regulatory concern since attainment 

tests are based on the application of 

relative response factors. Therefore, the 

regional and local model performance is 

acceptable for PM2.5. While there are 

some differences between the spatial 

data between sub-regions, there is 

nothing to suggest a tendency for the 

model to respond in a systematically 

different manner between regions. 

Examination of the statistical metrics by 

sub-region confirms the absence of 

significant performance problems 

arising in one area but not in another, 

building confidence that the CMAQ 

modeling system is operating 

consistently across the full OTC 

domain. This confidence in the 

modeling results allows for the 

modeling system to be used to support 

the attainment plan to meet the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

h. 2009 Control Case Modeling and 

Modeled Attainment Test 

As previously mentioned, the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area has an attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. The PM2.5 NAAQS 

include an annual standard of 15 mg/m3

based on the 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. The 

purpose of a modeling assessment is to 

determine if control strategies currently 

being implemented (‘‘on the books’’) 

will lead to attainment of the annual 

average NAAQS for PM2.5 by 2009. The 

modeling is applied in a relative sense, 

similar to the 8-hour ozone attainment 

test. However, the PM2.5 attainment test 

is more complicated and reflects the fact 

that PM2.5 is a mixture. In the test, 

ambient PM2.5 is divided into major 

components, with a separate relative 

response factor (RRF) and Future Design 

Value (FDV) calculated for each of the 

PM2.5 components. Since the attainment 

test is calculated on a per species basis, 

the attainment test for PM2.5 is referred 

to as the Speciated Modeled Attainment 

Test (SMAT). 

Table 4 presents the results of the 

annual SMAT results for the 

Philadelphia area. The SMAT results 

demonstrate that the projected average 

annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentration calculated at each Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) monitor 

attains the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, all calculations are less 

than15 mg/m3. Table 4 presents the 

results of the annual SMAT results for 

a suite of regional modeling runs 

conducted by OTC each representing 

OTB/OTW—‘‘On the Books, On the 

Way’’ control measures. All runs 

demonstrate compliance with the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 4—ANNUAL SMAT RESULTS FOR PHILADELPHIA-WILMINGTON, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA ON-THEBOOKS-ON-THE-WAY CONTROL MEASURES

AIRS ID Site name County State 

2000–2004 Baseline design value 2009 

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 DVF 

420170012 ........ Bristol ................. Bucks ................. PA ............ 14.14 13.69 14.73 13.85 12.1 

420290100 ........ New Garden ....... Chester ............... PA ............ 14.39 14.73 16.36 13.76 12.4 

420450002 ........ Chester ............... Delaware ............ PA ............ 15.07 15.96 16.34 13.74 13.3 

420910013 ........ Norristown .......... Montgomery ....... PA ............ 12.68 13.62 13.96 12.34 11.3 

421010004 ........ AMS Lab ............ Philadelphia ........ PA ............ 15.99 14.01 15.95 13.82 12.9 

421010024 ........ NE Airport ........... Philadelphia ........ PA ............ 13.58 13.63 14.95 12.96 11.9 

421010047 ........ Broad Street ....... Philadelphia ........ PA ............ 16.59 16.45 15.80 15.37 13.5 

421010136 ........ Elmwood ............ Philadelphia ........ PA ............ 15.70 14.20 15.27 12.99 12.7 

100031003 ........ Bellefonte ........... New Castle ......... DE ............ 14.87 15.16 15.50 13.13 12.6 

100031007 ........ Lums Pond ......... New Castle ......... DE ........... 13.16 14.37 16.05 10.66 11.3 

100031012 ........ Newark ............... New Castle ......... DE ............ 15.27 14.91 16.53 13.14 12.6 

100032004 ........ MLK .................... New Castle ......... DE ........... 16.41 15.40 17.61 14.04 13.3 

340070003 ........ Camden .............. Camden .............. NJ ............ 13.99 14.54 15.76 12.47 12.3 

340071007 ........ Pennsauken ....... Camden .............. NJ ............ 13.99 14.00 14.75 13.59 12.3 

340155001 ........ Gibbstown .......... Gloucester .......... NJ ............ 13.92 13.43 15.08 11.39 11.7 

In summary, the basic photochemical 

grid modeling, presented in the 

Philadelphia area attainment plan, used 

the methods recommended in EPA’s 

modeling guidance. When EPA’s 

attainment test is applied to the 

modeling results, the 2009 annualaverage PM2.5 design value is predicted 

to be 13.5mg/m3 in the Philadelphia 

area. Therefore, based on EPA’s 

modeled attainment test, the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area reached attainment of 

the annual average PM2.5 standard in 

2009 before the attainment date of April 

5, 2010. 

i. Supplemental Analyses and Weight of 

Evidence (WOE) Determination 

EPA’s modeling guidance states that 

additional analyses are recommended to 

determine if attainment will be likely, 

even if the modeled attainment test is 

‘‘passed.’’ The guidance recommends 

supplementary analyses in all cases. 

EPA’s modeling guidance describes how 

to use a photochemical grid model and 

additional analytical methods to 

complete a WOE analysis to estimate if 

emissions control strategies will lead to 

attainment. A WOE analysis is a 

supporting analysis that helps to 

determine if the results of the 

photochemical modeling system are 

correctly (or not correctly) predicting 

future air quality. 

All models, including the CMAQ 

model have inherent uncertainties. Over 

or under prediction may result from 

uncertainties associated with emission 

inventories, meteorological data, and 

representation of PM2.5 chemistry in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67647 

model. Therefore, EPA modeling 

guidance provides for other evidence to 

address these model uncertainties so 

that proper assessment of the 

probability to attain the applicable 

standards can be made. EPA modeling 

guidance states that those modeling 

analyses that show that attainment with 

the NAAQS will be reached in the 

future with some margin of safety (i.e., 

estimated concentrations below 14.5 mg/ 

m3 for annual PM2.5 and 62 mg/m3 for 

24-hour PM2.5) need more limited 

supporting material. 

Due to the fact that the modeling 

results presented in Table 4 fall below 

the aforementioned ‘‘weight of 

evidence’’ thresholds established by 

EPA, a limited supplemental analysis 

was deemed necessary to support the 

2009 attainment demonstration. 

PADEP’s supporting evidence includes 

a brief summary of the modeling 

demonstration, recent trends in the 

Philadelphia area’s monitoring data and 

a brief analysis of some of the largest 

SO2 sources within the nonattainment 

area. 

4. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

a. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable, including 

such reductions in emissions from the 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of RACT, and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ EPA 

interprets RACM including RACT under 

section 172 as measures that a state 

finds are both reasonably available and 

contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the 

nonattainment area. Thus, what 

constitutes RACM or RACT in a PM2.5

nonattainment area is closely tied to the 

expeditious attainment demonstration 

of the plan. See, 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 

20586 at 20612. 

States are required to evaluate RACM/ 

RACT for direct PM2.5 emissions and all 

of the area’s attainment plan precursors. 

See, 40 CFR 51.1002(c); 72 FR 20586 at 

20589–97. Consistent with the guidance 

provided for the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, a state initially must evaluate 

RACM/RACT for sources that emit 

direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. A state may 

establish with an appropriate 

demonstration that it should not 

regulate NOX in the specific 

nonattainment area, so it could thereby 

forgo evaluation of RACM/RACT for 

NOX. Because EPA concluded that VOC 

and NH3 are presumptively not 

regulatory precursors for PM2.5, unless 

the state or EPA determines that it is 

necessary to regulate them in a specific 

nonattainment area, the state is not 

required to evaluate RACM/RACT for 

sources of VOC or NH3 unless there is 

a determination supported by an 

appropriate demonstration that such 

emissions need to be regulated for 

expeditious attainment of the NAAQS 

in the specific area. 

For PM2.5 attainment plans, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule requires a 

combined approach to RACM and RACT 

under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA. 

Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4, does 

not identify specific source categories 

for which EPA must issue control 

technique documents or guidelines, or 

identify specific source categories for 

state and EPA evaluation during 

attainment plan development. See 72 FR 

20586 at 20610. Rather, under subpart 1, 

EPA considers RACT to be part of an 

area’s overall RACM obligation 

consistent with the section 172 

definition. Because of the variable 

nature of the PM2.5 problem in different 

nonattainment areas which may require 

states to develop attainment plans that 

address widely disparate circumstances, 

EPA determined not only that states 

should have flexibility with respect to 

RACM/RACT controls, but also that in 

areas needing significant emission 

reductions, RACM/RACT controls on 

smaller sources may be necessary to 

reach attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. See, 72 FR 20586 at 20612, 

20615. Thus, under the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, RACM and RACT 

are those reasonably available measures 

that contribute to attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in the 

specific nonattainment area. See, 40 

CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. 

Specifically, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule requires that 

attainment plans include the list of 

measures that a state considered and 

information sufficient to show that the 

state met all requirements for the 

determination of what constitutes 

RACM/RACT in a specific 

nonattainment area. See, 40 CFR 

51.1010(a). In addition, the PM2.5

Implementation Rule requires that the 

state, in determining whether a 

particular emissions reduction measure 

or set of measures must be adopted as 

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative 

impact of implementing the available 

measures and to adopt as RACM/RACT 

any potential measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility 

if, considered collectively, they would 

advance the attainment date by one year 

or more. If a measure or measures is not 

necessary for expeditious attainment of 

the NAAQS in the area, then by 

definition that measure is not RACM/ 

RACT for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in that area. Any measures that 

are necessary to meet these 

requirements which are not already 

either Federally promulgated, part of the 

state’s SIP, or otherwise creditable in 

SIPs must be submitted in enforceable 

form as part of a state’s attainment plan 

for the area. See, 72 FR 20586 at 20614. 

Guidance provided in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule for evaluating 

RACM/RACT level controls for an area 

also indicated that there could be 

flexibility with respect to those areas 

that were predicted to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS within five years of 

designation as a result of existing 

national or local measures. See, 72 FR 

20586 at 20612. In such circumstances, 

EPA indicated that the state may 

conduct a more limited RACM/RACT 

analysis that does not involve additional 

air quality modeling. Moreover, the 

RACM/RACT analysis for such area 

would focus on a review of reasonably 

available measures, the estimation of 

potential emissions reductions, and the 

evaluation of the time needed to 

implement the measures. Thus, the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule guidance 

recommended that not all areas would 

need to conduct as rigorous an analysis, 

and suggested that a less rigorous 

analysis would be needed for those 

areas expected to attain within the 

initial five years from designation as a 

nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. A more comprehensive 

discussion of the RACM/RACT 

requirement for PM2.5 attainment plans 

and EPA’s guidance for it can be found 

in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

preamble. See, 72 FR 20586 at 20609– 

20633. 

b. Pennsylvania’s Analysis of Pollutants 

and Sources Pennsylvania Portion of the 

Philadelphia Area 

Based upon the emissions inventory 

for the area, Pennsylvania determined 

that it would be appropriate to evaluate 

sources of PM2.5, SO2, and NOX located 

in the nonattainment area for potential 

control as RACM/RACT. Pennsylvania 

did not determine that controls of 

sources of VOC or NH3 would be 

necessary for expeditious attainment of 

the NAAQS in this area, nor does EPA 

believe that there is a need to do so. 

After evaluating which pollutants 

should be addressed in the attainment 

plan, Pennsylvania identified all source 

categories of those emissions located 

within the nonattainment area to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

determine available controls that could 

bring the area into attainment as 

expeditiously as possible. See, section 

IV.B of the attainment plan submittal. 

Based on the emissions inventory and 

other information, Pennsylvania 

identified the following source 

categories as sources that should be 

evaluated for controls: Consumer 

products; portable fuel containers; 

adhesives and sealants application; 

diesel engine chip reflash; cutback and 

emulsified asphalt paving; cement kilns; 

glass furnaces; industrial, commercial, 

and institutional (ICI) boilers; regional 

fuels; and electric generating units 

(EGUs). 

The attainment plan submittal 

contains the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) report entitled, 

‘‘Identification and Evaluation of 

Candidate Control Measures, Final 

Technical Support Document 

(MACTEC, February 2007).’’ This final 

report contains detailed information 

about the process and includes tables 

summarizing the emission reduction 

potential of each control measure by 

source category and projection year. 

Pennsylvania also participated in an 

assessment of control measures for 

pollutants and sources affecting 

visibility though the MANE–VU 

regional haze process. MANE–VU 

developed a list of control measures for 

consideration and analysis: coal and oilfired EGUs; point and area source 

industrial, commercial, and institutional 

boilers; cement kilns; lime kilns; the use 

of heating oil; and residential wood 

combustion and open burning. 

The attainment plan submittal, 

contains the final report entitled, 

‘‘Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas (MACTEC, July 2000),’’ from the 

MANE–VU control measure assessment 

project. This report presents the results 

of an analysis of the economic and 

environmental impacts of the potential 

scenarios that could be implemented by 

MANE–VU states to reduce emissions 

from selected source categories in order 

to make reasonable progress toward 

meeting visibility improvement goals. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1010, a 

SIP revision for a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area is required to demonstrate that all 

RACM, including RACT stationary 

sources necessary to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable have been adopted. The 

cumulative impact of implementing 

available measures must be considered 

in determining whether a particular 

emission reduction measure or set of 

measures is required to be adopted as 

RACM. Potential measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technical and economic feasibility must 

be adopted as RACM if, considered 

collectively, they would advance the 

attainment date by one year or more. 

Since the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area attained at the end of 

2009, any RACM measures need to be in 

effect in 2008. PADEP determined that 

there are no additional control measures 

that could be adopted by January 1, 

2008. In addition, existing measures and 

measures planned for implementation 

by 2009, enabled the Philadelphia area 

to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, no further actions on RACM 

or RACT are warranted. 

c. Pennsylvania’s Evaluation of RACM/ 

RACT Control Measures for the 

Pennsylvania Portion of the 

Philadelphia Area 

In accordance with section 172 of the 

CAA, the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area has adopted all 

RACM, including RACT, needed to 

attain the standards ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable.’’ Pennsylvania’s 

demonstration for attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area is based 

on the following enforceable measures: 

Small sources of NOX, cement kilns and 

large stationary internal combustion 

engines; new source review programs; 

Federal standards for hazardous air 

pollutants; source surveillance; Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Programs and 

Pennsylvania Clean Vehicle Program for 

passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks 

and cleaner gasoline; reformulated 

gasoline; heavy-duty diesel control 

programs; vehicle emission inspection/ 

maintenance program; low sulfur 

gasoline; diesel vehicle idling 

restrictions; and nonroad sources 

regulations. 

Although VOC is not a regulated 

PM2.5 precursor for the Philadelphia 

area, VOC control measures approved 

by EPA were included in the modeling 

associated with this attainment plan: 

Portable fuel containers (December 8, 

2004, 69 FR 70893); consumer products 

(December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895); and 

architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings (November 

23, 2004, 69 FR 69080). 

d. Proposed Action on RACM/RACT 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s evaluation of RACM/ 

RACT control measures for the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area. As noted above, the 

most current monitoring data for this 

area indicates that it is attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s guidance for 

the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

recommended that if an area was 

predicted through the attainment plan 

to attain the standard within five years 

after designation, then the state could 

submit a more limited RACM/RACT 

analysis and the state could elect not to 

do additional modeling. 

In light of the fact that the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area is now attaining the 

standards, EPA proposes to conclude 

that the attainment plan meets the 

RACM/RACT requirements of the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, and that the level 

of control in the State’s attainment plan 

constitutes RACM/RACT for purposes of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule defines 

RACM/RACT as that level of control 

that is necessary to bring the area into 

attainment, the current level of 

Federally enforceable controls on 

sources located within the area is by 

definition RACM/RACT for this area for 

this purpose. 

5. Reasonable Further Progress 

Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires 

that attainment plans include RFP to 

achieve steady progress toward meeting 

air quality standards by showing 

generally linear progress toward 

attainment. The PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule set forth that an area that 

demonstrates attainment by 2010 will be 

considered to have satisfied the RFP 

requirement and need not submit any 

additional material to satisfy the RFP 

requirement. The EPA views the 

attainment demonstration as also 

demonstrating that the area is making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment. A state is required to submit 

a separate RFP plan for any area for 

which the state seeks an extension of 

the attainment date beyond 2010. The 

RFP plan is required to provide 

emission reductions such that emissions 

in 2009 represent generally linear 

progress from the 2002 baseline year to 

the attainment year. The Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area attained 

by 2010, and has therefore met the RFP 

requirements. 

6. Contingency Measures 

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA, the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule requires that PM2.5 attainment 

demonstrations include contingency 

measures. These measures must be fully 

adopted and should contain trigger 

mechanisms and an implementation 

schedule. In addition, they should be 

measures not already included in the 

SIP control strategy and should provide 

for emission reductions equivalent to 

one year of RFP. Contingency measures 

are implemented if RFP targets are not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 67649 

achieved, or if attainment is not realized 

by the attainment date. Where an area 

has already achieved attainment by the 

attainment date, it has no need to rely 

on contingency measures to come into 

attainment or to make further progress 

towards attainment. However, in 

accordance with section 110(k)(2) of the 

CAA, EPA must take action on the 

contingency measures that were 

submitted by Pennsylvania. The 

attainment plan for the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area 

includes contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to attain by 

its attainment date. The following 

describes the specific control measures 

that are anticipated to be in place in 

order to bring the area back into 

attainment should a violation occur. 

The Diesel-Powered Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Idling Act (Act 124) went 

into effect on February 6, 2009. PADEP 

estimates 50 percent of all long duration 

idling for Class 8 trucks will be 

eliminated in 2010 when the 

temperature exemption for sleeper truck 

rest expires. Statewide emission 

reductions are estimated to be 1610 

tons, 45 tons and 30 tons per year for 

NOX, VOC and PM2.5, respectively. 

PADEP will also utilize enhanced 

enforcement to obtain additional 

emission reductions. 

Significant additional reductions in 

NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions 

will occur in emissions from highway 

and nonmobile sources after 2009. In 

addition, NOX controls for cement kilns 

and glass furnaces were approved by 

EPA on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42258) and 

August 22, 2011 (76 FR 52283), 

respectively. Furthermore, PM2.5 control 

from the operation of outdoor woodfired boilers was approved by EPA on 

September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58114). 

Sulfur limits for fuel oil (home heating 

oil and residential oil) are anticipated to 

be adopted later. Regulations to reduce 

VOC emissions are also in development, 

including controls on the manufacture 

and use of adhesives, primers and 

sealants and regulations incorporating 

the Control Technique Guidelines 

issued by EPA in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

As required, these measures were 

fully adopted rules or control measures 

that were ready to be implemented 

quickly upon failure of the area to 

attain, were in addition to those 

measures otherwise relied upon for 

attainment, had trigger mechanisms and 

a schedule for implementation, and 

were at the level of reductions equal to 

at least one year’s worth of reductions 

needed for attainment in the area. EPA 

finds that the measures submitted by 

Pennsylvania have satisfied the 

requirements for contingency purposes. 

EPA’s General Preamble interprets the 

control measure requirements of 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) to allow 

states to implement measures before 

they are triggered (57 FR 13498, 13511). 

EPA has previously approved a number 

of SIPs under this interpretation (66 FR 

15844, April 3, 1997; 62 FR 66279, 

December 18, 1997; 66 FR 30811, June 

8, 2001; and 66 FR 586, and 66 FR 634, 

January 3, 2001) and the Fifth Circuit 

has upheld EPA’s interpretation. 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (Fifth Cir. 

2004). It does not matter whether or not 

a specific contingency measure is 

already required by law, as long as the 

emissions reductions that will result 

from the contingency measure have not 

been relied upon in the attainment 

demonstration. 

The contingency measures in 

Pennsylvania’s attainment 

demonstration (described above) that 

are already implemented and provide 

reductions in excess of those required 

by the attainment demonstration to 

attain the standards. The level of 

reductions provided is equal to at least 

one year’s worth of reductions needed 

for attainment in the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area. 

Contingency measures are implemented 

in the event that the Philadelphia area 

fails to attain the standards by its 

attainment date. Although the 

Philadelphia area, as indicated above, 

met their attainment date of April 5, 

2010, and thus is not required to 

implement contingency measures, by 

relying on those measures that were 

already in place, Pennsylvania 

effectively implemented their control 

measures in advance. 

7. Attainment Date 

Pennsylvania provided a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area by 

2010. Areas, such as this, that 

demonstrate attainment of the standard 

by 2010 are considered to have satisfied 

the requirement to show RFP toward 

attainment and need not submit a 

separate RFP plan. For similar reasons, 

such areas are not subject to a 

requirement for a mid-course review. 

B. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

Federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with State 

Air Quality and Transportation 

Agencies, EPA, and the FHWA and FTA 

to demonstrate that their long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIP) conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit projects are less 

than or equal to the MVEBs contained 

in the SIP. 

The MVEBs for the 2009 attainment 

year are based on the projected 2009 onroad motor vehicle source emissions, 

accounting for the emission reductions 

from on-road vehicle source control 

measures, including transportation 

control measures and vehicle 

technology, fuel or maintenance-based 

measures. MVEBs for 2009 attainment 

year for the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area are 699 tons per year 

for PM2.5 direct and 36,318 tons per year 

for NOX. More detailed information can 

be found in the TSD entitled, 

‘‘Adequacy Findings for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets in the Attainment 

Demonstration for the Pennsylvania 

Portion of the Philadelphia-WilmingtonNew Jersey City 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Nonattainment Area, dated October 6, 

2011, available online at www.

regulations.gov, Docket number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0391. 

For MVEBs to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

The MVEBs for the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area PM2.5

attainment plan are being posted to 

EPA’s conformity Web site concurrently 

with this proposed action. The public 

comment period will end at the same 

time as the public comment period for 

this proposed action. In this case, EPA 

is concurrently processing the action on 

the attainment plan and the adequacy 

process for the MVEBs contained 

therein. In this action, EPA is proposing 

to find the MVEBs adequate, and also 

proposing to approve the MVEBs as part 

of the attainment plan. The MVEBs 

cannot be used for transportation 

conformity until the attainment plan 

and associated MVEBs are approved in 

a final Federal Register notice, or EPA 

otherwise finds the budgets adequate in 

a separate action following the comment 

period. Our action on the Pennsylvania 

portion of the Philadelphia area MVEBs 

will also be announced on EPA’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conformity Web site: http://www.epa.

gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/

index.htm, (once there, click on 

‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions). 

The budgets that Pennsylvania 

submitted were calculated using the 

MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions 

model. EPA is proposing to approve the 

inventory and the conformity budgets 

calculated using this model because this 

model was the most current model 

available at the time Pennsylvania was 

performing its analysis. Separate from 

today’s proposal, EPA has issued an 

updated motor vehicle emissions model 

known as the Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator or MOVES. In its 

announcement of this model, EPA 

established a grace period for continued 

use of MOBILE6.2 in transportation 

conformity determinations for 

transportation plans and TIPs, after 

which states and MPOs (other than 

California) must use MOVES for 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations. This grace period will 

expire in March 2012 (or March 2013 

once the extension becomes official). 

Additional information on the use of 

MOVES in SIPs and conformity 

determinations can be found in the 

December 2009, ‘‘Policy Guidance on 

the Use of MOVES2010 for State 

Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes.’’ This guidance document is 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

models/moves/420b09046.pdf. During 

the conformity grace period, the state 

and MPO(s) should use the interagency 

consultation process to examine how 

MOVES2010a will impact their future 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations, including regional 

emissions analyses. For example, an 

increase in emission estimates due to 

the use of MOVES2010a may affect an 

area’s ability to demonstrate conformity 

for its transportation plan and/or TIP. 

Therefore, state and local planners 

should carefully consider whether the 

SIP and motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) should be revised with 

MOVES2010a or if transportation plans 

and TIPs should be revised before the 

end of the conformity grace period, 

since doing so may be necessary to 

ensure conformity determinations in the 

future. 

We would expect that states and 

MPOs would work closely with EPA 

and the local FHWA and FTA offices to 

determine an appropriate course of 

action to address this type of situation 

if it is expected to occur. If 

Pennsylvania chooses to revise its PM2.5

attainment plan, it should consult 

Question 7 of the December 2009, 

‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOVES2010 for State Implementation 

Plan Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes,’’ for 

information on requirements related to 

such revisions. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS attainment plan 

for the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area that was submitted on 

April 12, 2010. The attainment plan 

includes Pennsylvania’s attainment 

demonstration, the MVEBs used for 

transportation conformity purposes, an 

analysis of RACM/RACT, a base year 

emissions inventory, and contingency 

measures. EPA has determined that the 

SIP revision meets the applicable 

requirements of the CAA, as described 

in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

Specifically, EPA has determined that 

the Pennsylvania SIP revision includes 

an attainment demonstration and 

adopted state regulations and programs 

needed to support a determination that 

the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area would have attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 

2010 deadline. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

pertaining to the 1997 PM2.5 attainment 

plan for the Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia area, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 26, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28438 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[Docket Number FWS–R9–MB–2009–0045; 

91200–1231–9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AW75 

Migratory Bird Permits; Abatement 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; reopening of comment 

period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS