**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 Penns yl vania Implementation

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

- hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate ( PM 2.5 ) 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 (SI P) 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 qu ality standards (NAAQS), the 1997 PM 2.5 , and the 24

- hour 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

**B. BACKGROUND**

**1997 8**

**- Hour Ozone and PM**  **2.5 NAAQS**  On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8

- hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856) and a new PM 2.5 NAAQS (62 FR 38652). The revised ozo ne 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS established a health

- based PM 2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) based on a 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and a 24

- hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 based on a 3

- ye ar average of the 98 th 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, s ection 110(a) of the CAA imposes

obligations upon s tates to submit SI P revisions that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS within three y ears following the promulgati on of such NAAQS

- the so called infrastructure SI P revisions. Although s tates 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, s tates (including all the Region 3 s tates) were still required to submit SI P 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed. In March of 2004, Earthjustice initiated a lawsuit against EPA for failure to take action against
s tates that had not made SI P submissions to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2), i.e., failur e to make a “finding of failure to submit the required SIP 110(a) SI P 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 wh ether s tates have made complete SI P 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS. These findings pertained onl y to whether the submissions were complete, pursuant to 110(k)(1)(A), and did not constitute EPA approval or disapproval of such su bmissions. Two elements identified in section 110(a)( 2) are not governed by the three y ear submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three ye ars after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the tim e 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 p art D Title Iof the CAA; and 2) any submission s required b y section 110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of p art 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 an y 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS since the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS have been addressed b y s eparate findings issued b y 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 the se 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 PM 2.5 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 Penns yl vania’s failure to submit a SI P revision addressing the

portion of 110(a)(2)(C) relating to the part C permit programs. EPA recognizes that such requirement has alread y been addressed b y a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that remains in place, and concludes that the finding of incompleteness does not trigger any additional FI P obligations for Penns yl vania. For all other areas of Pennsy lvania, the Commonwealth has a SIP approved PSD program in place and E PA 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 Count y. 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS , except for the Part C permit requirements for the geographic area of Alleghen y County as noted above. We will take separate action on the SI P submittal of December 20, 2010. The December 20, 2010 submittal specifically addresses Regional Haze and also a ddresses the portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to visibility

.

**2006 PM 2.5**  **NAAQS** On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the 24

- hour average PM 2.5 p rimary and secondary NAAQS from 65 μg/m 3 to 35 μg/m 3 . As required b y section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, the 110(a)(2) submittals were due within three ye ars after promulgation of the revised standard, with the exception of sections 110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to the p art D permit program and 110(a)(2)(I) for the same reasons d iscussed for the 1997 standard. This action also does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I ) for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS since the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) h ave been addressed by separate findings issued b y EPA. See June 9 , 20 10 (7 5 FR 32673 ). The CSAPR signed o n July 6, 2011 addresses 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for th i s 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 vis i bility 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
r equisite 110(a)(2) requirements relating to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS except for Alleghen y County ’s part C permit as discussed above. As stated above, EPA will take separate action on the December 20, 2010 submittal.
**Scope of Actio n on Infrastructure Submi**  **ttals**

EPA is currentl y acting upon SI Ps that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and PM 2.5 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 SI P submissions. 2 Those commenters specificall y raised concerns involvin g

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 onprovisions 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 SI P 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 rev isions to SI P approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval b y EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director’s discretion”). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for which EPA likewise state d 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 b y 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 SI Ps 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 merel y to be informational, and to provide general notice of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SI Ps 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 SI P submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of certain t yp es of provisions that might exist buried in the larger existing SI P for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency

believes that some states may have existing SI P approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy , but that “in this rulemaking, EPA is not propo sing 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 SI P for these ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS should not be constr ued as explicit or implicit reapproval of an y existing provisions that relate to these four substantive issues.

Unfortunatel y, 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 onl y meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain t ypes of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding that it was reapproving an y such existing provisions. EPA’s intention was to convey its posit ion that the statute does not require that infrastructure SI Ps address these specific substantive issues in existing SI Ps and that these issues may be dealt with separatel y, outside the context of acting on

another proposal are not relevant to thi s 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 SI P 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 SI P 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 evidentl y 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 addres sed separately

. The requirement for the SI P submissions at issue arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SI P submission “within 3 y ears (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the pro mulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any

revision thereof)” and that these SI P s 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 t ype of SI P submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a SI P from other t ypes of SI P submissions designed to address other different requirements, such as “nonattainment SIP” submissi ons 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 addres s the requirements of part D, and a host of other specific t yp es of SIP submissions that address other specific matters. Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SI Ps, 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 faciall y ambiguous. In particular, the list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variet y of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authorit y, 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 clearl y 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 preve nt significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains numerous term s 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”).Notwithstand ing that section 110(a)(2) states that “each” SI P 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 SI P r equirements 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 SI P” for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency bifurcated the act ion 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 schedu les. 6 This illustrates that EPA may

conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into separate SI P actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive action is necessitated, bey ond a mere sub mission 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 S IP 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 infr astructure SI P 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 ty pes of SI P submissions required under the statute also must
mee t the requirements of section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements for other SI P submissions. For example, nonattainment SI Ps 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 SI Ps re quired 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 t ype of SIP submission may

imp licate 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 SI Ps 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 SI Ps 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 r espect 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 an d 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 gui dance to make recommendations for infrastructure SI Ps 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS

. 8 Within this guidance document, EPA described the dut y of states to make these submissions to meet what the Agency

characterized as the “infrastructure” elements for SI Ps, 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 SI P 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 ty pes of issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such infrastructure SI Ps. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic requirements listed on attachment A was not intended “to con stitute 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 oth er 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other infrastructure SI P submittals, and for certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM 2.5 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 appl y 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 SI Ps for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 12 Inthe 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure S IP s for the 1997 8

- hour ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 addre ssed 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 Standard s (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”).Significantl y, 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 SI Ps for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make submissions in which they es tablished 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 ex isting SI P. 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 SI P as required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to be clear that it considers these potential existing SI P problems as separate from the pending infrastructure SI P actions. EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SI P 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 SI P merel y for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Becau se SI Ps 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 SI P 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 SI P revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance specificall y directed states to focus on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS because of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provision s in existing SI Ps. 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 SI P deficiency . Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SI P call” whenever the Agency determines that a state’s SI P is substantially

i nadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to compl y 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 relat ed 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 deter mination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SI P 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 SI P, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be amo ng 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 PM 2.5 N AAQS, s tates must provide SI P 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 Iof the CAA, 110(a)(2)(I) and (D)(i)(I). To help States meet this statutory requirement, EPA iss ued guidance on October 2, 2007 entitled “Guidance on SI P Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 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 SI P Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24

- Hour Fine Particle ( PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ” , which clarifies, i n 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Specificall y, EPA provided additional guidance for satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(D) requireme nts for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, as well as guidance for satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, PA DEP 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and element G for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, PA DEP

14 EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP su bmissions 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, Californi a, 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 SI P revision on April 26, 2010. PADEP also submitted a certification on May 24, 2011 to address some 2006 PM 2.5 elements in accordance with the September 25, 2009 guidance. PA DEP also made SI P submittals on December 7, 2007 and June 6, 2008 to address the 1997 Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 summarizes the Commonwealth’s submittals.

The submittals shown in Table 1 addressed the infrastructure elements identified in section 1 10(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**  **PM 2.5**  **and 2006 PM**  **2.5 NAAQS for Pennsylvania**  **Submittal Date 1997 8** 

**- Hour Ozone**  **1997 PM**  **2.5 2006**  **PM 2.5**  **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, Penns ylvania provided multiple submittals for the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, and for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. However, the demonstrations submitted by the Commonwealth for how it is meeting man y of the elements are substantively identical for both the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, therefore, except as otherwise noted, the following evaluation of each el ement pert ains 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 provisio ns 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 Count y 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 prov isions codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1) and (2). Additional SI P 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 obl igations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(A). EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title Iof 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 originall y 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 re viewed the above identified Pennsylvania submittals, including any rules originall y submitted in response to part D, or references thereto, solel y for the purposes of determining whether such submittals support a finding that the state has met the basic in frastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2). In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove an y 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)**

Accor ding 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.” PA DEP establishes, operates and maintains a network of ambient air monitors throughout Penns yl vania, excluding Philadelphia and Alleghen y Counties. Both Philadelphia AMS and the ACHD operate their monitoring networks and collect data under Penns yl vania approved programs.

Based on th e 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, a s required in 40 CFR Section 58.10, an annual network design plan is requ ired 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 y ear. Also the state and the local agencies collect and report to EP A all ambient air quality data for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter, and PM 2.5 . The reports comply with the federal requirements of 40 CFR 58.35. PA DEP anal yz es such air qua lity 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, s ections 4 and 8 of the APCA, 35 P.S. §§ 4004 and 4008, provide adequate authorit y for PA DEP to enforce appropriate limitations and othercontrol measures. Section 6.1(k) of the APCA, 35 P.S. § 4006.1(k), provides that PA DEP 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 PA DEP 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 PA DEP 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.

SI P 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 b y describing regulations upon which the plans rel y. According to the above reference d 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. Co de 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 Regul ations 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 i n 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 Penns yl vania, except for Allegheny County , a SI P 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 ad dressed through the implementation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FI P), see 73 FR 16208 (March 27, 2008). ACHD has authorit y to implement the current federal PSD regulations along with an y future changes see 68 FR 14617 (March 26, 2003). Based upon E PA’s review of the above referenced submittals, for all areas except Alleghen y 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 Penns yl vania, except for Allegheny County , a SI P 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 currentl y in place for Alleghen y County such requirement has alread y bee n addressed by a FIP that remains in place see 73 FR 16208 (March 27, 2008). ACHD has authorit y to implement the current federal PSD regulations along with an y future changes see 68 FR 14617 (March 26, 2003). Based upon EPA’s review of the above referen ced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine that the Commonwealth has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the p art C permit program portion , except for the geographic area of Alleghen y 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 submitt als 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 currentl y pending obligations pursuant to CAA Section 126(b) related to the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. According to the submittals, the Commonwealth has adequate provisions insuring future compliance with the requirements of sections 126 and 115 o f 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 refere nced 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 M anagement 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 adop ted by

the Environmental Quality Board. Those adopted b y the local air agencies, namel y 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, SI P revisions havebeen submitted to and approved b y EPA. EPA

- approved SI P 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 Count y Ordinance 16782. Permits and enforcement orders are issued directl y b y the PA DEP and are not issued by state boards.

Also , the above reference d submittals indicate Section 6.3 of APCA (35 P.S. § 4006.3) authorizes PA DE P 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 SI P , 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 AP CA also authorizes the establishment of fees to cover non

- Title V costs. The air qualit y 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 PM 2.5 , and s tate general appropriations. The local agencies receive Section 105 and 103 funds directl y 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. PA DEP’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 SI P.

The above referenced submittals indicate that Section 12 of the A PCA reserved powers to political subdivisions to enact air pollution control ordinances, which are not less stringent than the requirements of the C AA , APCA, and regulations adopted under the acts. The APCA authorizes only

two local air pollution control programs in the Commonwealth, which are administered b y the Philadelphia AMS and the ACHD. PADEP maintains agreements with the two local air agencies that PADEP relies on for implementation of the SI P in Allegheny and Philadelphia counties. PADEP has app roved 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 qualit y permitting. PA D EP has responsibility

for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local authorities under S ection 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 detai led 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 inventor ies 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

- ye ar cy cle.

SI P sub mittals such as maintenance plans for the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS may also include emissions limits, controls measures, fees, compliance schedules b y describing regulations upon which the plans rel y. Approved submittals can be found in 40 CFR part 52 Subpart N N. 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 12 1

- 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 Regulatio ns 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 requir ements 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 confid entiality

pursuant to APCA section 13.2, 35 P.S. § 4013.2. The ty pes of records PADEP routinely provides access to include notifications, inspection reports, notices of violation, enforcement orders, applications, permit review letters, sample results, mo nitoring reports, permits, approvals and denials that would relate to §110(a)(2)(F). PADEP generall y makes information available for public access through its website, but also makes hard cop y reports available upon written request. Based upon EPA’s revi ew 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 PM 2.5 , enabling authorit y for “Emergency

Powers” is contained in Sections 5(5) and 6.2 of the APCA (35 P.S. §§ 4005(5) and 4006.2). The E nvironmental Quality Board (EQB) has adopted 25 Pa. Code Chapter 137, ACHD has adopted Part F to Article XX/XXI and Philadel phia 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 SI P on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), June 16, 1993 (58 FR 33203), June 12, 1998 (63 FR 32126), June 11, 2002 (67 F R 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 ( PM 2.5 ) National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS) , p rovides clarification that states that have air quality control regions identified as either Priority I , Priority

I A or Priority

II by the “Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency

Episodes” rules at 40 CFR 51.150 must develop emergency episode contingency

pl ans. The guidance recommends that until EPA establishes significant harm levels (SHL) for PM 2.5 , 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 th e recommended levels set forth in Attachment B of the September 25, 2009 guidance. States would be required to develop emergency

episode plans for an y area that has monitored and recorded 24

- hour PM 2.5 levels greater than 140.4 μg/m 3 since 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 PM 2.5 – related episodes, and is not required t o adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time, given the existing monitored levels. According to the Penns yl vania submittals referenced above, given the existing air quality monitoring data, Penns yl vania is a Priority I II area and in accordance with the guidance is not required to adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time for PM 2.5 . 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 dut y 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

. Inaddition, 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 SI P as may be necessary

when EPA revises the primary

or secondary NAAQS and when, if ever, EPA finds the SI P is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or otherwise to comply with the CAA. P ADEP has revised and will continue to revise the SI P 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 SI Ps, as required under CAA Sections 121 and 1 27 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 fo rmed, funded, and provided technical resources to Air Quality Partnerships. The Partnerships receive forecasts of potentiall y unhealthy air quality (including, but not limited to, violations of the NAAQS), and encourage specific actions, which can be take n to prevent standards from being exceeded. PADEP has incorporated b y 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 SI P can be found in AMS Regulation XIII. Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA i s proposing to determine that the Commonwealth , with the exception of Alleghen y County, has met its obligations pursuant to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J)

. EPA recognize s that although no approved permit program is currently

in place for Allegheny

County such requirement has alread y been addressed by a FIP that remains in place ( see 73 FR 16208 (March 27, 2008) ) . ACHD has authorit y to implement the current F ederal PSD regulations along with an y future changes ( see 68 FR 14617 (March 26, 2003) )

. Based upon EP A’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 Alleghen y 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 dut y 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 dut y of PADEP to conduct or cause to be conducted studies and research with respect to air contaminants, their nature, ca uses 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 dut y to perform air quality modeling and data submissions prescri bed b y the Administrator of EPA under Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA. According to the above referenced submittals, inherent in Penns yl vania’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 t he air qualit y modeling data as part of its relevant SI P submissions and through federal grant commitments or in other way s that EPA may request. Based upon EPA’s review of the above referenced submittals, EPA is proposing to determine that the Commonweal th 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 incorp orated into the Commonwealth’s SI P. 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 Lo cal Operating Permits Programs to 40 CFR Part 70, approved b y 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 SI Ps, as required under CAA s ections 121 and 127 and notification of NAAQS violations as required in CAA s ection 127. It also provides authority

for the public education efforts described in CAA s ection 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 potentiall y 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 AG ENCY ACTION** 

EPA’s anal ys is of Pennsy lvania’s infrastructure submittals for the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM 2.5 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 Penns yl vania’s infrastructure submittals for the 1997 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the elements indentified above.