Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2937 

employees, and the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s rule at 

49 CFR 382.305(l), which regulates 

commercial truck drivers. The following 

questions are related to immediate 

reporting. 

(1) What is the average or usual 

amount of time between when 

crewmembers are informed of their 

selection for random testing and their 

reporting for testing at the collection 

site? 

(2) What is your company or C/TPA’s 

policy or practice, if any, regarding how 

much time may elapse after the 

crewmember is notified of the selection 

before your company or C/TPA 

considers the delay to be a refusal to 

submit to testing? 

(3) As a marine employer, would a 

requirement to report immediately for 

testing impact your business operations? 

If so, how and by how much? 

(4) Do you conduct on-site collection 

of specimens? 

(5) How would immediate reporting 

for testing improve the reliability and 

effectiveness of your drug-testing 

programs? 

(6) Do marine employees appear for 

random drug tests required by Coast 

Guard regulations during work hours or 

on their own time? 

(7) How effective do you believe a 

‘‘report immediately’’ requirement 

would be in detecting drug use (i.e., by 

what percent do you estimate nonnegative test results would increase if 

there was a ‘‘report immediately’’ 

requirement for the industry)? 

(8) Do you think a ‘‘report 

immediately’’ requirement would result 

in a more effective random drug testing 

program? 

(9) The current requirement is that 

crewmembers randomly selected for 

testing must report, but how soon they 

must report is not specified. Since 

industry is currently incurring the costs 

of testing, the Coast Guard does not 

believe immediate reporting for testing 

poses significant additional costs. What 

costs, above and beyond current 

compliance costs, would be incurred for 

immediate reporting after notification 

compared to reporting within 24 hours, 

or even a few days? 

D. Consortia Membership for 

Independent Owners/Operators 

(1) If you are an independent owner/ 

operator, do you use a Consortium or 

Third Party Administrator (C/TPA) to 

manage the random testing portion of 

your chemical testing program? If not, 

how would it impact your business 

operations, including costs and burden, 

to use a consortium? 

(2) What are the benefits of using a C/ 

TPA to manage the random testing 

portion of your chemical testing 

program? 

E. Marine Employer Reporting of Failed 

Chemical Tests 

Under 46 CFR 16.201(c), marine 

employers who must have a random 

drug testing program are only required 

to report failed drug test results for 

credentialed mariners, not for noncredentialed mariners. 

(1) What would be the cost if marine 

employers were also required to report 

failed drug tests for non-credentialed 

mariners? 

(2) How many failed drug tests of noncredentialed mariners have you received 

during the last 5 years? Out of how 

many tests? 

(3) How many failed drug tests of noncredentialed mariners would you expect 

to see, if marine employers were 

required to report those test results to 

the Coast Guard. 

(4) What benefit, if any, do you see in 

requiring all failed drug tests 

(credentialed and non-credentialed 

mariners) to be reported to the Coast 

Guard? 

F. Medical Review Officers (MROs) 

Reporting Non-Negative Test Results 

Directly to the Coast Guard 

A non-negative specimen is a urine 

specimen that is adulterated, 

substituted, positive (for drug(s) or drug 

metabolite(s)), and/or invalid. 

(1) For MROs, how would a 

requirement to report all non-negative 

test results to the Coast Guard (in 

addition to the marine employer) impact 

your business? 

(2) For MROs, what would be your 

preferred method to report non-negative 

drug test results to the Coast Guard? 

G. Electronic Reporting of Management 

Information System (MIS) Data 

Eighty percent of annual Management 

Information System reports are 

submitted through the internet. 

(1) If you do not submit your annual 

MIS data through the internet, what 

would the cost or savings be if you did? 

(2) Would you request an exemption 

from electronic reporting if one was 

available? 

H. Exemption From Reporting 

Under 46 CFR 16.500(c), employers 

who must have a random drug testing 

program but who have 10 or fewer 

employees are exempt from mandatory 

MIS reporting after their third year of 

reporting. 

(1) Are you taking advantage of this 

exemption? If so, what would the 

impact be to you if you no longer could 

take advantage of this exemption? 

(2) What sources of data or 

information exist on the number of 

employers that are exempt from 

mandatory reporting and the cost 

impacts of requiring reporting by all 

entities? 

I. Minimum Drug-Testing Rate 

Current regulations require that 

employers who must have a random 

drug testing program test their 

crewmembers at a rate equal to 50 

percent of their covered crewmembers 

annually. The Coast Guard is 

considering allowing individual 

companies to use a lower testing rate 

(25 percent) if they can demonstrate a 

positive test results rate of 1 percent or 

less for 2 consecutive years. 

(1) As an employer, based on past 

performance, do you believe that you 

could qualify for the lower testing rate? 

If so, what would be the cost savings 

associated with the lower testing rate? 

(2) To C/TPAs, how would managing 

clients, some of whom have a lower 

testing threshold (25 percent) and others 

at the standard testing threshold 

(50 percent), impact your business 

operations? 

J. Impacts on Small Entities 

Would the measures discussed in this 

notice have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities? What sources of data or 

information exist detailing the economic 

impact on small entities, which may 

result if the measures discussed above 

were implemented? 

Any information provided in response 

to this request for comments is 

appreciated and will be considered by 

the Coast Guard. This notice is issued 

under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

33 CFR 1.05–1. 

Dated: January 13, 2012. 

Paul F. Thomas, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director 

of Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1156 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0925; FRL- 9619–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Nonattainment New 

Source Review Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit found in et al., 472 

F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir 2006) that NSR is a control 

measure and to weaken its requirements under the 

SIP would constitute impermissible backsliding 

under the CAA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 

August 9, 2007. This revision pertains to 

the preconstruction permitting 

requirements of Pennsylvania’s 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) program. The revision is intended 

to update Pennsylvania’s nonattainment 

NSR regulations to meet EPA’s 2002 

NSR Reform regulations (NSR Reform), 

and to satisfy the requirements related 

to antibacksliding. Additionally, the 

proposed revision makes clarifying 

changes to regulations that are not 

related to NSR Reform. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0925 by one of the 

following methods 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0925, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Permits and Air Toxics], Mailcode 

3AP10, 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 

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–2011– 

0925. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the 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: 

Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814–2084, or by 

email at Duke.Gerallyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On August 9, 2007, the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PA DEP) 

submitted a proposed SIP revision 

pertaining to preconstruction permitting 

requirements under Pennsylvania’s 

nonattainment NSR program. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA last took action on the 

nonattainment NSR provisions of the 

Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997. 

At that time EPA approved a wholesale 

revision of Pennsylvania’s 

preconstruction permitting program for 

minor and major sources and included 

new and revised subchapters A, B, C, 

and E under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127. 

Pennsylvania had adopted the new rules 

in response to the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments (CAAA) requirement to 

submit new NSR programs addressing 

§ 182 of the CAA. The only subchapter 

that was not revised was subchapter D— 

the state’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. 

Pennsylvania adopted an automatic 

incorporation by reference (IBR) of the 

federal PSD regulations of 40 CFR 52.21. 

This automatic IBR was approved into 

Pennsylvania’s SIP on June 18, 1983 (49 

FR 33127). The currently proposed 

revision has no impact on 

Pennsylvania’s PSD program. 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the 

CAA’s PSD and nonattainment NSR 

programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 

63021), EPA published a notice of final 

action on the reconsideration of the 

December 31, 2002, final rule changes. 

The December 31, 2002, and the 

November 7, 2003, final actions are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘NSR 

Reform.’’ The purpose of this SIP 

revision is to incorporate changes to 

Pennsylvania’s nonattainment NSR 

rules made as a result of EPA’s 2002 

NSR Reform, and to address the 

antibacksliding provisions of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) 

decision in South Coast Air Quality 

Management District v. EPA 1 (South 

Coast). 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part 

of EPA’s implementation of parts C and 

D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470– 

7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. 7470–7492, is the PSD 

program, which applies in areas that 

meet the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) (‘‘attainment’’ 

areas), as well as in areas for which 

there is insufficient information to 

determine whether the area meets the 

NAAQS (‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas). Part D 

of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501– 

7515, is the nonattainment NSR 

program, which applies in areas that are 

not in attainment of the NAAQS 

(‘‘nonattainment’’ areas). Collectively, 

the PSD and nonattainment NSR 

programs are referred to as the ‘‘New 

Source Review’’ or NSR programs. EPA 

regulations implementing these 

programs are contained in 40 CFR 

51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 

51, appendix S. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2939 

The CAA’s NSR programs are 

preconstruction review and permitting 

programs applicable to new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants regulated under the CAA. 

The NSR programs of the CAA include 

a combination of air quality planning 

and air pollution control technology 

program requirements. Briefly, section 

109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires 

EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to 

protect public health and secondary 

NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once 

EPA sets those standards, states must 

develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for 

approval a SIP that contains emissions 

limitations and other control measures 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each 

SIP is required to contain a 

preconstruction review program for the 

construction and modification of any 

stationary source of air pollution to 

assure that the NAAQS are achieved 

and maintained; to protect areas of clean 

air; to protect air quality related values 

(such as visibility) in national parks and 

other areas; to assure that appropriate 

emissions controls are applied; to 

maximize opportunities for economic 

development consistent with the 

preservation of clean air resources; and 

to ensure that any decision to increase 

air pollution is made only after full 

public consideration of the 

consequences of the decision. 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made 

changes to five areas of the NSR 

programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: 

(1) Provide a new method for 

determining baseline actual emissions; 

(2) adopt an actual-to-projected actual 

methodology for determining whether a 

major modification has occurred; (3) 

allow major stationary sources to 

comply with Plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs) to avoid having a 

significant emissions increase that 

triggers the requirements of the major 

NSR program; (4) provided a new 

applicability provision for emissions 

units that are designated clean units 

(Clean Unit test); and (5) excluded 

pollution control projects (PCPs) from 

the definition of ‘‘physical change or 

change in the method of operation.’’ On 

November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published a notice of final action on its 

reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, which added a definition for 

‘‘replacement unit’’ and clarified an 

issue regarding PALs. 

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

were finalized and effective (March 3, 

2003), industry, state, and 

environmental petitioners challenged 

numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, along with portions of 

EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, 

August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the 

D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision on 

the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules. New York v. United States, 413 

F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (New York I). In 

summary, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated 

portions of the rules pertaining to clean 

units and PCPs, remanded a portion of 

the rules regarding recordkeeping and 

the term ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ found 

in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 

51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did 

not comment on the other provisions 

included as part of the 2002 NSR reform 

Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), 

EPA took final action to revise the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules to remove from 

federal law all provisions pertaining to 

clean units and the PCP exemption that 

were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. 

With regard to the remanded portions 

of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to 

recordkeeping, on December 21, 2007, 

EPA took final action to establish the 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision 

which identifies the circumstances 

under which a major stationary source 

undergoing a modification that does not 

trigger major NSR must keep records 

(72 FR 72607). The 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules require that state agencies adopt 

and submit revisions to their SIP 

permitting programs implementing the 

minimum program elements of the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules no later than January 

2, 2006. State agencies may meet the 

requirements of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules with different but equivalent 

regulations. 

On April 30, 2004 EPA published the 

Phase 1 Rule to Implement the EightHour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard, (69 FR 23951) which, 

among other things, allowed areas that 

had a higher nonattainment 

classification under the one-hour ozone 

standard to impose the NSR 

requirements of the new, less stringent 

eight-hour classification. In 

Pennsylvania, for instance, the 

classification for the Philadelphia ozone 

nonattainment area changed from 

serious under the one-hour standard to 

moderate under the eight-hour standard. 

The Phase I rule was subsequently 

challenged on a number of points, 

including the NSR provisions; the D.C. 

Circuit Court determined, in South 

Coast, that all one-hour ozone NAAQS 

major NSR requirements must remain in 

place. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP submittal consists of changes 

to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121, General 

Provisions, and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

127, Construction, Modification, 

Reactivation, and Operation of Sources. 

This action, when approved, will 

update Pennsylvania’s nonattainment 

NSR regulations as previously approved 

on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). It 

will incorporate for the first time the 

2002 ‘‘NSR Reform’’ provisions into 

Pennsylvania’s nonattainment NSR 

program, and will satisfy the 

requirements of the D.C. Circuit Court 

decision in South Coast regarding 

antibacksliding. The proposed 

regulations were adopted by 

Pennsylvania and became effective on 

May 19, 2007. A detailed analysis of the 

regulations as well as EPA’s rationale 

for approving them can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) in 

the docket for this proposed action. 

A. NSR Reform Elements 

Prior to NSR Reform, emission 

increases associated with a physical 

change or change in the method of 

operation at an existing major source 

were calculated by comparing past 

actual emissions with the facility’s 

potential to emit after the change, 

commonly referred to as the actual-topotential test. In general, NSR Reform 

allows owners and operators of all major 

sources to choose between the 

traditional test and a new test that 

would compare past actual emissions to 

a projection of future actual emissions, 

so long as those projections are based on 

realistic and reliable information. The 

latter is commonly referred to as an 

actual-to-actual test. In addition, the 

facility would not be required to 

establish the projected emissions as an 

enforceable emissions limit. 

As noted above, NSR Reform was 

challenged on all fronts, including the 

applicability provisions related to the 

actual-to-actual test and, of particular 

importance to the Pennsylvania SIP, the 

Clean Unit test. The Clean Unit test 

would have allowed facilities that had 

installed state of the art pollution 

controls within the past 10 years to 

avoid triggering NSR even when it 

would be clear that actual emissions 

would increase. The D.C. Circuit 

rejected the Clean Unit test on the 

grounds that ‘‘the CAA unambiguously 

defines ‘increases’ in terms of actual 

emissions.’’ In its concluding paragraph 

on the matter, the Court opined that 

‘‘because the plain language of the CAA 

indicates that Congress intended to 

apply NSR to changes that increase 

actual emission instead of potential or 

allowable emissions, we hold that EPA 

lacks the authority to promulgate the 

Clean Unit provision, and we vacate 

that portion of the 2002 rule, 67 FR 

80279–83 (codified at 40 CFR § 52.21(x)) 

as contrary to the statute under Chevron 

Step 1.’’ 

Pennsylvania’s current SIP rules, 

approved on December 9, 1997, allow 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

sources to determine nonattainment 

NSR applicability based on a 

comparison of past ‘‘maximum 

allowable emissions’’ to future 

‘‘maximum allowable emissions,’’ i.e., a 

potential-to-potential test to determine 

NSR applicability. By any measure, 

these rules did not conform to the preReform actual-to-potential test or to the 

mandate of the D.C. Circuit Court in 

New York I that applicability must be 

based on increases in actual emissions. 

The 1997 SIP could allow facilities to 

make substantial increases in actual 

emissions without undergoing review 

and without applying offsets or 

complying with Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate (LAER) requirements, 

particularly in nonattainment areas that 

already have poor air quality. By 

incorporating NSR Reform elements, 

adoption of the proposed 2007 SIP 

revision is a significant strengthening of 

the SIP and will bring Pennsylvania’s 

program in line with the requirements 

of the CAA. 

Pennsylvania has adopted all of the 

NSR Reform measures with some 

modifications: The look-back period for 

determining baseline actual emissions 

(BAE) is five years for all facilities. 

However, facilities that are not Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs) may request up 

to ten years upon a demonstration that 

a different period is more representative 

of normal source operation. Also, BAE 

do not include emissions associated 

with malfunctions. Finally, the same 

24-month period is to be used for all 

pollutants when multiple units are 

affected by a project unless a facility can 

demonstrate that another 24-month 

period would be more representative. 

Another difference is that Pennsylvania 

rules require projected actual emissions 

to be incorporated into the required 

plan approval as an emissions limit. 

Finally, differences in establishing BAE 

related to the look-back period and 

inclusion of emissions from 

malfunctions, noted above, also apply to 

PALs in Pennsylvania. 

It wasn’t necessary for Pennsylvania 

to make any changes related to the 

remanded portions of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules related to clarification of 

the term ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ (72 FR 

72607). This is because Pennsylvania 

facilities that use projected actual 

emissions with the result that major 

NSR is not triggered must still obtain a 

permit. These permits require all 

facilities to maintain and report their 

post-change emissions. 

B. Antibacksliding 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery 

and Philadelphia Counties in 

Pennsylvania as moderate 

nonattainment under the eight-hour 

ozone NAAQS and revoked the onehour ozone NAAQS. Under the onehour ozone standard, Bucks, Chester, 

Delaware, Montgomery and 

Philadelphia Counties had been 

designated as severe nonattainment. As 

a result of South Coast, all one-hour 

ozone NAAQS major NSR requirements 

in Pennsylvania and in the five-county 

Philadelphia area must remain in place. 

Under this SIP revision, facilities in 

these counties which emit or have the 

potential to emit at least 25 tons per 

year (tpy) of NOX or VOCs will be 

considered major facilities and be 

subject to the requirements applicable to 

major facilities located in a severe 

nonattainment area of ozone. 

C. Miscellaneous Changes 

In addition to the changes outlined 

above, the proposed revisions include 

miscellaneous changes that were 

intended to provide additional clarity in 

Pennsylvania’s regulations. These 

changes include the addition of 

definitions (unrelated to NSR reform) to 

conform to the federal nonattainment 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.165, 

clarification of provisions related to 

emission reduction credits, the recodification of certain sections, and 

some additional clarifying rule changes. 

The TSD contains more detail on all of 

the proposed changes, and can be found 

in the docket for this action. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that the 2007 SIP revision, 

amending Pennsylvania’s NSR 

construction, modification, reactivation 

and operation permit programs at 25 Pa. 

Code Section 121.1 and 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 127, significantly strengthens 

the existing SIP and is consistent with 

the federal program requirements for 

nonattainment NSR set forth at 40 CFR 

51.165. EPA is proposing to approve the 

August 9, 2007 Pennsylvania SIP 

revision. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

IV. 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 Pennsylvania’ 

nonattainment NSR program 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 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2941 

Dated: January 3, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1116 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0818; FRL–9619–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Determinations of Clean 

Data for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Standard for the 

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, 

Allentown, Johnstown, and Lancaster 

Nonattainment Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Harrisburg-LebanonCarlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown, 

and Lancaster nonattainment areas 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Areas’’) for the 

2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

proposed determinations are based 

upon quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that these 

areas have monitored attainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2008– 

2010 data available in EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. If these 

proposed determinations are made final, 

the requirements for these Areas to 

submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), a reasonable further 

progress plan (RFP), contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to 

attainment of the standard shall be 

suspended for so long as these Areas 

continue to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

regarding the two-state HarrisburgLebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown, 

Johnstown, and Lancaster area, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0818 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–2011–0818, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the 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–2011– 

0818. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

III. What is the background for this action? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

V. What is EPA’s proposed action? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

these Areas have clean data for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

determinations are based upon qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

showing that these Areas have 

monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS based on 2008–2010 

monitoring data. 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

If these determinations are made final, 

under the provisions of EPA’s PM2.5

implementation rule (40 CFR 

51.1004(c)), the requirements for these 

Areas to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated RACM, RFP 

plan, contingency measures, and any 

other planning SIP requirements related 

to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS would be suspended for so long 

as these Areas continue to meet this 

NAAQS. Furthermore, as described 

below, a final clean data determination 

would not be equivalent to a 

redesignation of any of these Areas to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

If EPA subsequently determines that 

these Areas are in violation of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the 

suspension of the specific requirements, 

set forth at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), would no 

longer exist and these Areas would 

thereafter have to address the pertinent 

requirements. 

These proposed clean data 

determinations that the air quality data 

shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the 

redesignation of these Areas to 

attainment. This proposed action, if 

finalized, will not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA because we 

would not yet have an approved 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS