UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE: August 9, 2011

SUBJECT: Technical Support Document (TSD) for the State of Pennsylvania Implementation 

Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

FROM: Ruth Knapp, Environmental Protection Specialist /S/

 Office of Air Program Planning 

TO: File

THRU: Cristina Fernandez, /S/ 

Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning 

A. INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania (Commonwealth)1 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to meet the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements for the revised 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), the 1997 PM2.5, and the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. BACKGROUND

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856) and a new 

PM2.5 NAAQS (62 FR 38652). The revised ozone NAAQS is based on 8-hour average 

concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and 

the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. The new 

PM2.5 NAAQS established a health-based PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour standard 

of 65 μg/m3based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

 

1 When using the term “Commonwealth” or “Pennsylvania” in this document, these terms refer to the entire state 

except as specifically noted. 
Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, section 110(a) of the CAA imposes 

obligations upon states to submit SIP revisions that provide for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of 

such NAAQS - the so called infrastructure SIP revisions. Although states typically have met 

many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with previous ozone and particulate matter (PM) standards, states 

(including all the Region 3 states) were still required to submit SIP revisions that address section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 NAAQS. These SIPs were due in July 2000. However, intervening 

litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty about how to 

proceed.

In March of 2004, Earthjustice initiated a lawsuit against EPA for failure to take action against 

states that had not made SIP submissions to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 

i.e., failure to make a “finding of failure to submit the required SIP 110(a) SIP elements.” On 

March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with Earthjustice that obligated EPA to 

make official findings, in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA, as to whether states 

have made complete SIP submissions, pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2), by December 15, 

2007 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 2008 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA made completeness findings for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16205) and on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These findings 

pertained only to whether the submissions were complete, pursuant to 110(k)(1)(A), and did not 

constitute EPA approval or disapproval of such submissions.

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission 

deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area 

controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but 

rather are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 

172. These elements are: 1) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that 

subsection pertains to a permit program in part D Title I of the CAA; and 2) any submissions 

required by section 110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D Title I of the CAA. The determinations required by the March 2005 Consent Decree 

excluded any determination regarding such portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) and section 

110(a)(2)(I); therefore, this action does not cover these specific elements for any of the NAAQS 

at issue. 

This action also does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS since the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS have been 

addressed by separate findings issued by EPA. See April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147). On July 6, 

2011, the EPA Administrator signed the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. See CSAPR website at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/index.html. 

With respect to the Commonwealth’s obligations pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, this technical support document discusses those 

elements which were the subject of EPA’s March 27, 2008 and October 22, 2008 completeness 

findings and statutory element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). For the geographic area of Allegheny County, 
these completeness findings noted Pennsylvania’s failure to submit a SIP revision addressing the 

portion of 110(a)(2)(C) relating to the part C permit programs. EPA recognizes that such 

requirement has already been addressed by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that remains in 

place, and concludes that the finding of incompleteness does not trigger any additional FIP 

obligations for Pennsylvania. For all other areas of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth has a SIP 

approved PSD program in place and EPA has found that the 110(a)(2) submittals at issue were 

complete. Therefore, EPA's proposed action, and this technical support document, addresses the 

Commonwealth’s compliance with the portion of 110(a)(2) relating to the part C permit 

programs for all geographic areas except Allegheny County. 

Pennsylvania’s submittals of December 7, 2007, June 6, 2008, April 26, 2010, and December 20, 

2010, address the requisite 110(a)(2) requirements relating to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 

NAAQS, except for the Part C permit requirements for the geographic area of Allegheny County 

as noted above. We will take separate action on the SIP submittal of December 20, 2010. The 

December 20, 2010 submittal specifically addresses Regional Haze and also addresses the 

portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to visibility. 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 μg/m3to 35 μg/m3. As required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, 

the 110(a)(2) submittals were due within three years after promulgation of the revised standard, 

with the exception of sections 110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to the part D permit program and 

110(a)(2)(I) for the same reasons discussed for the 1997 standard. This action also does not 

address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS since the requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) have been addressed by separate findings issued by EPA. See June 9, 2010

(75 FR 32673). The CSAPR signed on July 6, 2011 addresses 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this 

NAAQS. See CSAPR website at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/index.html. This 

action also does not include the portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it pertains to visibility. The

visibility portion of this element will be addressed by separate action.

Pennsylvania’s submittals of April 26, 2010, December 20, 2010, and May 24, 2011 address the 

requisite 110(a)(2) requirements relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS except for Allegheny 

County’s part C permit as discussed above. As stated above, EPA will take separate action on 

the December 20, 2010 submittal. 

Scope of Action on Infrastructure Submittals

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. 

Commenters on EPA’s recent proposals for some states raised concerns about EPA statements 

that it was not addressing certain substantive issues in the context of acting on those 

infrastructure SIP submissions.2 Those commenters specifically raised concerns involving 

 

2

 See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA-R05-OAR-2007-

1179 (adverse comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that these public comments on 
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA’s statements in other proposals that it would address 

two issues separately and not as part of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing such 

excess emissions (“SSM”); and (ii) existing provisions related to “director’s variance” or 

“director’s discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with 

limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the 

CAA (“director’s discretion”). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for which 

EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address the issues separately: (i) existing 

provisions for minor source new source review programs that may be inconsistent with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs (“minor source 

NSR”); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs that 

may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 

80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). 

In light of the comments, EPA now believes that its statements in various proposed actions on 

infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater 

depth.

EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these four issues merely to be 

informational, and to provide general notice of the potential existence of provisions within the 

existing SIPs of some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want states, 

regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the misconception that the Agency’s 

approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a given state should be interpreted as a 

reapproval of certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger existing SIP for 

such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency believes that some states 

may have existing SIP approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that “in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State 

provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.” EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, that “EPA plans to address such State regulations in the 

future.” EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with respect to the director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA’s objective was to make clear that 

approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as 

explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four substantive 

issues.

Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted these statements to mean that 

EPA considered action upon the SSM provisions and the other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA was merely

postponing taking final action on the issue in the context of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not 

EPA’s intention. To the contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for 

certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding that it was 

reapproving any such existing provisions. EPA’s intention was to convey its position that the 

statute does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive issues in 

existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with separately, outside the context of acting on 

 

another proposal are not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this rulemaking. 

EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate rulemaking action to which they apply. 
the infrastructure SIP submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was 

not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to any

substantive issue that EPA considers to be a required part of acting on such submissions under 

section 110(k) or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from EPA’s 

statements in those proposals, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed 

separately.

The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). That 

provision requires that states must make a SIP submission “within 3 years (or such shorter period 

as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air 

quality standard (or any revision thereof)” and that these SIPs are to provide for the 

“implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes 

a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must meet. EPA has historically

referred to these particular submissions that states must make after the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS as “infrastructure SIPs.” This specific term does not appear in the statute, but

EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other 

different requirements, such as “nonattainment SIP” submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of part D, “regional haze SIP” submissions required to 

address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review 

permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host of 

other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific matters.

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these 

infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents 

of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory provisions are 

facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, 

some of which pertain to required substantive provisions, and some of which pertain to 

requirements for both authority and substantive provisions.3 Some of the elements of section 

110(a)(2) are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a 

particular NAAQS.

4

 

3

 For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal 

authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a 

substantive program to address certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that

states must have both legal authority to address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event of such 

an emergency.

4

 For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains adequate provisions to 

prevent significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic points as what constitutes 

significant contribution. See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 

25,162 (May 12, 2005)( defining, among other things, the phrase “contribute significantly to nonattainment”). 
Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) states that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of 

requirements therein, EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally

inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that 

could not be met on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).5 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be applicable for 

a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA has previously decided that it could take 

action on different parts of the larger, general “infrastructure SIP” for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency

bifurcated the action on these latter “interstate transport” provisions within section 110(a)(2) and 

worked with states to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with different schedules.6 This illustrates 

that EPA may conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into 

separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific 

substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressing basic structural aspects 

of the state’s SIP. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the monitoring 

requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could 

be very different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an 

infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.7

Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required under the statute also must 

meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by

part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as section 

110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable in 

attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D also would not need to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements 

would not be limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP 

submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context of acting on the

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent ambiguity of the list of 

requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach in which it reviews 

infrastructure SIPs against this list of elements “as applicable.” In other words, EPA assumes 

 

5

 See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63 – 65 (May 12, 2005)(explaining relationship between timing requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

6

 EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, “Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet 

Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards,” from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air 

Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.

7

 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to 

measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in question, would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for 

infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for the infrastructure SIP 

submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what 

the Agency characterized as the “infrastructure” elements for SIPs, which it further described as 

the “basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the standards.” 9 As further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, “attachment A” to the guidance document included a short 

description of the various elements of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the 

types of issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the basic requirements listed on attachment A was not 

intended “to constitute an interpretation of” the requirements, and was merely a “brief 

description of the required elements.”10 EPA also stated its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were “relatively self explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS 

should enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA Regions.”11 For the 

one exception to that general assumption, however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect 

to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more 

specific recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements 

of the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to refine the scope of a State’s submittal based on an 

assessment of how the requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic 

structure of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in question.

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations to states with respect to 

the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.12 In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had bifurcated from the other 

infrastructure elements for those specific 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

 

8

 See, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Air Division Directors, Regions I – X, dated October 2, 2007 (the “2007 Guidance”). .

9

 Id., at page 2.

10

 Id., at attachment A, page 1.

11

 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to some 

substantive issues indicates that the statute is not so “self explanatory,” and indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that 

EPA needs to interpret it in order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be addressed in the context 

of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed at other times and by other means. 

12

 See, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I - X, dated September 25, 2009 (the “2009 Guidance”).
Significantly, neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among specific substantive 

issues EPA expected states to address in the context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues even if 

they elected to do so. The SSM and director’s discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 

Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these provisions as 

requiring a substantive submission to address these specific issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP 

structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states 

can establish that they have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential 

deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s other proposals mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them issues that must be addressed in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP as required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as separate from the pending 

infrastructure SIP actions.

EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP requirement is reasonable, because it 

would not be feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for purposes of assuring that the 

state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory

requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant 

problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or 

revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, EPA 

believes that a better approach is for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 

110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or revised 

NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of the absence of 

underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs.

Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

because the statute provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive 

deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate 

tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 

110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state’s 

SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, 

or otherwise to comply with the CAA.13 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in 

 

13

 EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, “Finding of 

Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revision,” 74 FR 21,639 

(April 18, 2011).
past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.14 Significantly, EPA’s determination 

that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all 

potential existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA believes 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the Agency cites in the course of 

addressing the issue in a subsequent action.15 

C. EPA REQUIREMENTS

As discussed above, for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, states must provide 

SIP submissions, or provide certification that address section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M), with the 

exception of the portion of 110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to a permit program in Part D Title I of the 

CAA, 110(a)(2)(I) and (D)(i)(I). To help States meet this statutory requirement, EPA issued 

guidance on October 2, 2007 entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards,” which listed the basic elements that States must include in their SIPs. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an updated guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)”, which clarifies, in further detail, 

expectations for certain elements to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA provided additional 

guidance for satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as 

well as guidance for satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for both the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

D. STATE’S SUBMITTAL

To satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and PM2.5 NAAQS, PADEP submitted a number of SIP revisions and certifications in 

accordance with the October 2, 2007 guidance. To satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and element G for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, PADEP 

 

14

 EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See, “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82,536 (Dec. 30, 2010). EPA 

has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency 

determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34,641 (June 27, 1997) 

(corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 (November 16, 

2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada 

SIPs).

15

 EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a 

director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 

FR 42,342 at 42,344 (July 21,2010)(proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 (Jan. 26, 

2011)(final disapproval of such provisions). 
submitted a SIP revision on April 26, 2010. PADEP also submitted a certification on May 24, 

2011 to address some 2006 PM2.5 elements in accordance with the September 25, 2009 guidance. 

PADEP also made SIP submittals on December 7, 2007 and June 6, 2008 to address the 1997 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 summarizes the Commonwealth’s submittals. 

The submittals shown in Table 1 addressed the infrastructure elements identified in section 

110(a)(2), or portions thereof, that EPA is proposing to approve. 

Table 1: 110(a)(2) Elements, or Portions Thereof, EPA is Proposing to Approve for 1997 

Ozone and PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for Pennsylvania 

Submittal Date 1997 8-Hour Ozone 1997 PM2.5 2006 PM2.5

December 7, 2007 A, B, C, D(ii), E, F, G, 

H,J, K, L, M

A, B, C, D(ii), E, F, G, 

H,J , K, L, M

December 7, 2007 D(i)(II)PSD D(i)(II)PSD

June 6, 2008 C, D(i)(II)PSD, J C, D(i)(II)PSD, J 

June 6, 2008 K

April 26, 2010 G A, B,C, E, F, G, 

H,J, K, L, M

May 24, 2011 D(i)(II)PSD, D(ii)

E. EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

As shown above, Pennsylvania provided multiple submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the demonstrations submitted by the 

Commonwealth for how it is meeting many of the elements are substantively identical for both 

the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, therefore, except as otherwise noted, the following evaluation of 

each element pertains to all standards at issue. 

1. Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

According to the above referenced submittals, the Commonwealth’s enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures are covered in the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) and 

those provisions of Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection, Article III, Chapters 

121-145 (25 Pa. Code Chapters 121-145), Title 67, Chapters 175 – 177 listed in 40 CFR 

§52.2020(c)(1), Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) Regulations, Parts A through I to 

Articles XX and XXI listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(2), Philadelphia Title 3 Air Management Code 

and Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS) Regulations I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, XI, 

and XIII listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(3), and source specific provisions codified at 40 CFR 

52.2020(d)(1) and (2). Additional SIP approved regulations may be found in 40 CFR part 52 

Subpart NN. Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(A). 

EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D 

of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). 
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth may have included some previous EPA-approved SIP 

provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its submission documenting its 

compliance with the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. For the purposes of 

this action, EPA has reviewed the above identified Pennsylvania submittals, including any rules 

originally submitted in response to part D, or references thereto, solely for the purposes of 

determining whether such submittals support a finding that the state has met the basic 

infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2).

In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State provisions with 

regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at a facility. Also, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. See the discussion above under Section B, Scope of Action on Infrastructure 

Submittals. 

2. Section 110(a)(2)(B)

According to the above referenced submittals, Section 4(17) of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4004, 

provides authority to “determine by means of field studies and sampling the degree of air 

pollution existing in any part of the Commonwealth.” PADEP establishes, operates and 

maintains a network of ambient air monitors throughout Pennsylvania, excluding Philadelphia 

and Allegheny Counties. Both Philadelphia AMS and the ACHD operate their monitoring 

networks and collect data under Pennsylvania approved programs.

Based on the above referenced submittals, the Pennsylvania network consists only of monitors 

that have been designated by EPA as either Reference or Equivalent monitors. All ambient air 

monitors are subjected to the Quality Assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A. 

In addition, all samplers are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of 

Part 58, Appendix E.

Also according to the above referenced submittals, as required in 40 CFR Section 58.10, an 

annual network design plan is required to be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator by

July 1. The network design document informs both EPA and the public of any planned changes 

to the sampling network for the next year. Also the state and the local agencies collect and 

report to EPA all ambient air quality data for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen 

dioxide, lead, particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter, and PM2.5. The reports comply 

with the federal requirements of 40 CFR 58.35. PADEP analyzes such air quality data 

(including data from the local agencies) to determine attainment status or progress. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the State has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(B). 

3. Section 110(a)(2)(C)

According to the above referenced submittals, sections 4 and 8 of the APCA, 35 P.S. §§ 4004 

and 4008, provide adequate authority for PADEP to enforce appropriate limitations and other 
control measures. Section 6.1(k) of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4006.1(k), provides that PADEP shall 

require revisions to any permit to incorporate applicable standards and regulations promulgated 

under the CAA after issuance of a Title V permit. 

Also according to the above referenced submittals, Section 9.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4009.1, 

provides that PADEP may assess civil penalties for violations of the APCA, regulations adopted 

under the APCA, Department orders or terms, and conditions of plan approvals and operating 

permits. Additionally, Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4007.1, authorizes PADEP to 

withhold plan approvals, state operating permits, or Title V permits where an applicant or related 

party has shown a lack of ability or intention to comply with the APCA. 

SIP revisions approved by EPA in 40 CFR 52.2020 such as ozone maintenance plans often 

include enforceable emissions limits, control measures, fees and compliance schedules by 

describing regulations upon which the plans rely.

According to the above referenced submittals, the Commonwealth’s enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures are covered in those provisions of the APCA and 

Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Environmental Protection, Article III, Chapters 121-145 (25 Pa. 

Code Chs. 121-145); Title 67, Chapters 175 – 177 that are listed in 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1); 

ACHD Regulations, Parts A through I to Articles XX and XXI that are listed in 40 CFR 

52.2020(c)(2); Philadelphia Title 3 Air Management Code and Philadelphia AMS Regulations I, 

II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, XI, and XIII that are listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(3); and source specific 

provisions codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). 

According to the above referenced submittals, elements of the program for enforcement are 

found in the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources in these control 

measures as well as those provisions of: 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, subchapters D and E that are 

listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); those provisions of ACHD Regulations, Parts H and I to Articles 

XX and XXI that are listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(2); and those provisions of the Philadelphia 

Title 3 Air Management Code and Philadelphia AMS Regulation I that are listed in 40 CFR 

52.2020(c)(3).

For all areas of Pennsylvania, except for Allegheny County, a SIP approved PSD program is in 

place. The permitting program is codified at 40 CFR 52.2020. EPA recognizes that although no 

approved PSD permit program is currently in place for Allegheny County such requirement has 

been addressed through the implementation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), see 73 FR 

16208 (March 27, 2008). ACHD has authority to implement the current federal PSD regulations 

along with any future changes see 68 FR 14617 (March 26, 2003). 

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, for all areas except Allegheny 

County, EPA is proposing to determine that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant 

to 110(a)(2)(C). 

4. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
For all areas of Pennsylvania, except for Allegheny County, a SIP approved PSD program is in 

place. The permitting program is codified at 40 CFR 52.2020. EPA recognized that although no 

approved permit program is currently in place for Allegheny County such requirement has 

already been addressed by a FIP that remains in place see 73 FR 16208 (March 27, 2008). 

ACHD has authority to implement the current federal PSD regulations along with any future 

changes see 68 FR 14617 (March 26, 2003). 

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the part C 

permit program portion, except for the geographic area of Allegheny County. 

As stated above, EPA will take separate action on the portion of the Commonwealth’s submittals 

which relate to the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In its May 24, 2011 submittal 

Pennsylvania clarified that its Regional Haze SIP submittal dated December 20, 2010 should be 

used to meet the relevant and applicable visibility obligations required by 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

When EPA takes action on the Commonwealth’s December 20, 2010 submittal, EPA will also 

address the December 2007 and May 2011 submittals related to the visibility protection 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

5. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

According to the above referenced submittals, the Commonwealth has met its obligations 

pursuant to CAA section 126 and it has no currently pending obligations pursuant to CAA 

Section 126(b) related to the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. According to the 

submittals, the Commonwealth has adequate provisions insuring future compliance with the 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA as may be necessary.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

6. Section 110(a)(2)(E)

According to the above referenced submittals, the Commonwealth’s enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures are covered in: a) the APCA and those provisions of 

Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection, Article III, Chapters 121-145 (25 Pa. 

Code Chs. 121-145) and Title 67, Chapters 175-177 that are listed in 40 CFR § 52.2020(c)(1); b)

those provisions of ACHD Regulations, Parts A through I to Articles XX and XXI that are listed 

in 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(2); c) those provisions of Philadelphia Title 3 Air Management Code and 

Philadelphia AMS Regulations I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, XI, and XIII that are listed in 40 CFR 

52.2020(c)(3); and, d) source specific provisions codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The 

regulations in the Pennsylvania Code are duly adopted by the Environmental Quality Board. 

Those adopted by the local air agencies, namely ACHD and Philadelphia AMS, are duly adopted 

by the county Board of Health, enacted by the County Council and approved by the Chief 

Executive and the Air Pollution Control Board, respectively, pursuant to section 12 of the APCA 

(35 P.S. § 4012). Where these provisions relate to section 110 requirements, SIP revisions have 
been submitted to and approved by EPA. EPA-approved SIP revisions are codified at 40 CFR 

part 52, subpart NN. 

According to the submittals, Section 12 of APCA (35 P.S. § 4012) establishes the ability of the 

two pre-existing local air agencies to continue to operate their own programs. Authority for 

AMS is provided by Title 3, Air Management Code and for ACHD by Article XXI and County 

Ordinance 16782. Permits and enforcement orders are issued directly by the PADEP and are not 

issued by state boards. 

Also, the above referenced submittals indicate Section 6.3 of APCA (35 P.S. § 4006.3) 

authorizes PADEP to establish fees sufficient to cover the indirect and direct costs of 

administering the plan approval and operating permit program including Title V and costs of 

administering certain committees. 25 Pa. Code §127.701, as currently approved in the SIP,

establishes fees to cover the direct and indirect costs of administering the air pollution control 

planning process, operating permit program, certain committee operation and to support the air 

pollution control program authorized by state statute. The APCA also authorizes the 

establishment of fees to cover non-Title V costs. The air quality program also receives revenue 

from fines and penalties (Clean Air Fund) and federal funds under Section 105 and 103 of the 

CAA, special federal funds for PM2.5, and state general appropriations. The local agencies 

receive Section 105 and 103 funds directly from EPA, have their own authority to collect Title V 

and other fees, and also receive revenue from fines and penalties that are restricted for air quality

program purposes. PADEP’s agreements with ACHD and AMS assure that these local agencies 

similarly have the personnel, funding and authority to carry out their respective obligations under 

the SIP.

The above referenced submittals indicate that Section 12 of the APCA reserved powers to 

political subdivisions to enact air pollution control ordinances, which are not less stringent than 

the requirements of the CAA, APCA, and regulations adopted under the acts. The APCA 

authorizes only two local air pollution control programs in the Commonwealth, which are 

administered by the Philadelphia AMS and the ACHD. PADEP maintains agreements with the 

two local air agencies that PADEP relies on for implementation of the SIP in Allegheny and 

Philadelphia counties. PADEP has approved the local programs in the areas of financial 

assistance, annual workload projection, emissions reporting, source monitoring and reporting, 

enforcement, ambient air monitoring and reporting, and air quality permitting. PADEP has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local authorities under 

Section 12 of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4012. The submission of a description of the implementation 

of the local air pollution control program along with a detailed accounting of the costs of 

implementation is required on an annual basis.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(E). 

7. Section 110(a)(2)(F)

According to the above referenced submittals, regulatory requirements related to sampling and 

testing have been codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139 and requirements in 25 Pa. Code Section 
§135.3 provide for the reporting of emissions inventories in a format established by PADEP on a 

schedule set forth in the section. In addition, 25 Pa. Code § 135.21 requires the submission of 

emission statements as required by the CAA. Area, mobile, and non-road data are reported on a 

3-year cycle.

SIP submittals such as maintenance plans for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS may also include 

emissions limits, controls measures, fees, compliance schedules by describing regulations upon 

which the plans rely. Approved submittals can be found in 40 CFR part 52 Subpart NN. 

According to the above referenced submittals, the Commonwealth’s enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures are covered in the APCA and those provisions of 

Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection, Article III, Chapters 121-145 (25 Pa. 

Code Chs. 121-145), Title 67, Chapters 175 – 177 listed in 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1), ACHD 

Regulations, Parts A through I to Articles XX and XXI listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(2), 

Philadelphia Title 3 Air Management Code, Philadelphia AMS Regulations I, II, III, IV, V, VII, 

VIII, XI, and XIII listed in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(3), and, source specific provisions codified at 40 

CFR 52.2020(d)(1) and (2). Elements of the program for enforcement are found in the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources in these control measures as 

well as 25 PA Code §127, subchapters D and E, ACHD Regulations, Parts H and I to Articles 

XX and XXI and Philadelphia AMS Regulation I.

Also according to the above referenced submittals, the Commonwealth has the responsibility of 

making all records, reports or information obtained by PADEP or referred to at public hearings 

under the provisions of the APCA available to the public, except to the extent the records, reports 

or information are protected by confidentiality pursuant to APCA section 13.2, 35 P.S. § 4013.2. 

The types of records PADEP routinely provides access to include notifications, inspection 

reports, notices of violation, enforcement orders, applications, permit review letters, sample 

results, monitoring reports, permits, approvals and denials that would relate to §110(a)(2)(F). 

PADEP generally makes information available for public access through its website, but also 

makes hard copy reports available upon written request.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(F). 

8. Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

According to the submittals referenced above, for both ozone and PM2.5, enabling authority for 

“Emergency Powers” is contained in Sections 5(5) and 6.2 of the APCA (35 P.S. §§ 4005(5) and 

4006.2). The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has adopted 25 Pa. Code Chapter 137, 

ACHD has adopted Part F to Article XX/XXI and Philadelphia AMS has adopted Regulation IV. 

25 Pa. Code Chapter 137, Part F to Article XX/XXI and Philadelphia AMS Regulation IV were 

approved into the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), June 16, 1993 (58 FR 33203), June 12, 

1998 (63 FR 32126), June 11, 2002 (67 FR 39854), and November 14, 2002 (67 FR 68935). 

EPA’s September 25, 2009 guidance, entitled Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS), provides clarification that states that have air quality control 

regions identified as either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority II by the “Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes” rules at 40 CFR 51.150 must develop emergency episode 

contingency plans. The guidance recommends that until EPA establishes significant harm levels 

(SHL) for PM2.5, states should establish their own SHL levels based on EPA’s February 12, 2007 

issue paper on setting priority and emergency action levels and also consider the recommended 

levels set forth in Attachment B of the September 25, 2009 guidance. States would be required 

to develop emergency episode plans for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 

levels greater than 140.4 μg/m3since 2006. A State that has never exceeded this level since 

2006 is considered to be Priority III and in accordance with the guidance, may certify that it has 

appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2.5 –related episodes, and is not required to 

adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time, given the existing monitored levels. 

According to the Pennsylvania submittals referenced above, given the existing air quality

monitoring data, Pennsylvania is a Priority III area and in accordance with the guidance is not 

required to adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time for PM2.5.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(G). 

9. Section 110(a)(2)(H) 

According to the above referenced submittals, Section 4(1) of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4004(1), 

gives PADEP the authority and duty to implement the provisions of the CAA. Section 5 of the 

APCA, 35 P.S. § 4005, gives the EQB the authority to adopt rules and regulations for the 

prevention, control, reduction and abatement of air pollution. In addition, 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

122 adopts the federal NAAQS by reference. Also according to the above referenced submittals, 

PADEP has revised and will continue to revise the SIP as may be necessary when EPA revises 

the primary or secondary NAAQS and when, if ever, EPA finds the SIP is substantially

inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or otherwise to comply with the CAA. 

PADEP has revised and will continue to revise the SIP to take advantage of improved or more 

expeditious methods to attain the NAAQS.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(H).

10. Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

According to the above referenced submittals, the APCA provides adequate authority for 

PADEP’s practices of consultation and participation in SIPs, as required under CAA Sections 

121 and 127 and notification of NAAQS violations as required in CAA Section 127. It also 

provides authority for the public education efforts described in CAA Section 127. Section 4 of 

APCA, 35 P.S. § 4004, provides general enabling authority for interaction with the public and 

local government.
Also according to the above referenced submittals, PADEP makes real-time and historical air 

quality information available on its Web site. In the four areas where violations have been most 

common in the past, PADEP has formed, funded, and provided technical resources to Air 

Quality Partnerships. The Partnerships receive forecasts of potentially unhealthy air quality 

(including, but not limited to, violations of the NAAQS), and encourage specific actions, which 

can be taken to prevent standards from being exceeded. PADEP has incorporated by reference 

into Chapter 127, Subchapter D, the requirements in 40 CFR 52 under section 161 of the CAA 

(42 U.S.C.A. § 7471) for prevention of significant deterioration in their entirety. These 

provisions were approved by EPA as part of the SIP and can be found in 40 CFR 52.2020. 

Philadelphia’s PSD regulations which are also in the SIP can be found in AMS Regulation XIII. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth, with the exception of Allegheny County, has met its obligations 

pursuant to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA recognizes that although no approved permit 

program is currently in place for Allegheny County such requirement has already been addressed 

by a FIP that remains in place (see 73 FR 16208 (March 27, 2008)). ACHD has authority to 

implement the current Federal PSD regulations along with any future changes (see 68 FR 14617 

(March 26, 2003)). 

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J), except for 

the geographic area of Allegheny County as explained above. 

11. Section 110(a)(2)(K) 

According to the above referenced submittals, Section 4(1) of the APCA provides that it is the 

power and duty of PADEP to implement the provisions of the CAA in the Commonwealth. 35 

P.S. § 4004 (1). Inherent in this grant of power and duty is the obligation to meet the NAAQS 

established under Section 107 of the CAA. Section 4(15) of the APCA provides that it is the 

power and duty of PADEP to conduct or cause to be conducted studies and research with respect 

to air contaminants, their nature, causes and effects, and with respect to the control, prevention, 

abatement and reduction of air pollution and air contamination. 35 P.S. § 4004 (15). This power 

and duty include the power and duty to perform air quality modeling and data submissions 

prescribed by the Administrator of EPA under Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA. 

According to the above referenced submittals, inherent in Pennsylvania’s obligation to meet the 

NAAQS and to conduct or cause to be conducted studies and research is the authority and

obligation for the Department to perform modeling as required under the CAA to demonstrate 

attainment of the NAAQS. Pennsylvania will continue to perform modeling as required under 

the CAA to demonstrate attainment. Pennsylvania will continue to submit the air quality 

modeling data as part of its relevant SIP submissions and through federal grant commitments or 

in other ways that EPA may request.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(K). 
12. Section 110(a)(2)(L) 

According to the above referenced submittals, fee requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, 

Subchapter I, were approved by EPA as meeting the CAA requirements and were incorporated 

into the Commonwealth’s SIP. The Commonwealth’s Title V operating permit program in 25 Pa 

Code Chapter 127, Subchapter G, was approved (61 FR 39597). Fee requirements are codified 

at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1), Appendix A —Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits 

Programs to 40 CFR Part 70, approved by EPA at 61 Fed. Reg. 39597, July 30, 1996. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(L). 

13. Section 110(a)(2)(M) 

According to the above referenced submittals, the APCA provides adequate authority for 

PADEP’s practices of consultation and participation in SIPs, as required under CAA sections 

121 and 127 and notification of NAAQS violations as required in CAA section 127. It also 

provides authority for the public education efforts described in CAA section 127. Section 4 of 

APCA, 35 P.S. § 4004, provides general enabling authority for interaction with the public and 

local government.

According to the above referenced submittals, PADEP makes real-time and historical air quality

information available on its Web site. In the four areas where violations have been most 

common in the past, PADEP has formed, funded, and provided technical resources to Air 

Quality Partnerships. The Partnerships receive forecasts of potentially unhealthy air quality 

(including, but not limited to, violations of the NAAQS), and encourage specific actions, which

can be taken to prevent standards from being exceeded.

Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(L). 

F. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

EPA’s analysis of Pennsylvania’s infrastructure submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS concludes that Pennsylvania’s submittals meet the 

requirements for section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)PSD, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M) as described above. It is recommended that a rulemaking be prepared proposing 

approval of Pennsylvania’s infrastructure submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the elements indentified above.