[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65901-65906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26300]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0169; FRL-9918-73-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Allegheny County; Control of Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania pertaining to the control of particulate matter (PM) 
emissions from the operation of outdoor wood-fired boilers (OWBs) in 
Allegheny County. EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0169. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic 
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the 
Commonwealth's submittal are available at the Allegheny County Health 
Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 
301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by 
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.


I. Background

    On August 5, 2014, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR) proposing approval of a revision to the Allegheny County portion 
of the Pennsylvania SIP for the control of PM from the operation of 
OWBs in Allegheny County. 79 FR 45395. The formal SIP revision was 
submitted on January 15, 2014 by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf of Allegheny County. In the 
NPR, EPA proposed approval of the SIP revision because EPA's review of 
the revision indicated that the regulations submitted would reduce 
problems associated with the operation of OWBs, including smoke and 
burning prohibited fuels, including garbage, tires, and hazardous 
waste. Id. at 45396.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of: (1) adding Section 2104.09 (Outdoor 
Wood-Fired Boiler) to Article XXI, ``Air Pollution Control Rules and 
Regulations''; and (2) adding new related definitions to Section 
2101.20 (Definitions) of Article XXI. Section 2104.09 contains the 
requirements pertaining to the sale, manufacture, installation, and 
operation of OWBs in Allegheny County. The specific requirements 
pertaining to the regulation of OWBs in Allegheny County, as well as 
EPA's rationale for approving these changes, are explained in the NPR 
and the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) and will not be 
restated here. These documents are contained in the electronic docket 
available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-

    \1\ In the TSD, EPA stated that the SIP revision would reduce 
emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from OWBs 
which would promote benefits such as improved visibility.

III. Public Comments

    EPA received two sets of comments on the August 5, 2014 NPR 
proposing approval of Allegheny County's January 15, 2014 SIP 
submission for control of OWBs in the County. A full set of comments is 
provided in the docket for this final rulemaking action. A summary of 
each comment and EPA's response is provided in this section.

A. Clean Air Council Comments

    Comment: Clean Air Council (CAC) urges EPA to disapprove the 
proposed SIP revision based on several factors and states that an 
outright ban on OWBs in Allegheny County is appropriate asserting, 
``greater action is necessary to sufficiently protect residents from 
harmful wood smoke'' from OWBs. Specifically, CAC states that an 
outright ban of OWBs in Allegheny County is appropriate given the local 
terrain, proximity of neighbors, and magnitude of other emissions in 
the Allegheny County airshed.

[[Page 65902]]

    To support this argument, CAC cites a study which indicates setback 
regulations and stack height requirements for OWBs are insufficient to 
protect public health. CAC also mentions that EPA's proposed 
residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS) point 
to site-specific criteria that states have considered in the past when 
developing rules for OWBs including: (1) local terrain; (2) proximity 
of neighbors; and (3) magnitude of other emissions in the airshed. 
Regarding terrain, CAC states the Allegheny County terrain is such that 
emissions are frequently ``trapped'' which contributes to poor air 
quality events and states the area is prone to temperature inversions 
which prevent air movement and leads to stagnation. CAC contends 
inversions typically occur during cooler months when OWBs would likely 
be used more often which would lead to potentially dangerous periods of 
high PM levels in the County. In addition, CAC refers to Allegheny 
County's population density as more dense than the average density for 
Pennsylvania and compares it to the density for the State of Washington 
which banned OWBs.
    Finally, CAC asserts concerns with the magnitude of emissions in 
the Allegheny County airshed and refers to the County as downwind of 
West Virginia nonattainment areas for PM2.5 and sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) and of a maintenance area for ozone. CAC notes 
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area is also designated nonattainment for 
the 1997 and 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS while Allegheny County and 
Beaver County are designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS.\2\ Finally, CAC cites to the recent, proposed designation of 
Allegheny County as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
CAC states EPA's proposed designation found Allegheny County has high 
emissions of PM-precursor pollutants, including nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia, and 
SO2, and states EPA identified nine major sources of PM-
precursor pollutants.

    \2\ CAC notes a portion of Beaver County is also designated 
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    Overall, CAC claims continued operation of OWBs in the County will 
only ``exacerbate'' the County's struggle to attain the NAAQS and 
requested EPA disapprove the proposed SIP revision as CAC believes only 
a complete ban on OWBs can protect County residents given these 
    Response: EPA appreciates CAC's concern regarding Allegheny 
County's air quality and CAC's suggestion for a ban on OWBs. Present 
laws and regulations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in 
Allegheny County specifically permit operation and use of OWBs with 
certain conditions. This SIP revision includes regulations from the 
Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) providing additional 
restrictions on operation and use of OWBs within the County which EPA 
believes will reduce smoke and PM emissions therefore also improving 
visibility. EPA believes approving ACHD's regulations into the 
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP will strengthen the 
SIP through pollution reductions within the County.
    Section 110 of the CAA provides the statutory framework for 
approval and disapproval of SIP revisions. Under the CAA, EPA 
establishes NAAQS for certain pollutants. The CAA establishes a joint 
Federal and state program to control air pollution and protect the 
public health. States are required to prepare SIPs for each designated 
``air quality region'' within their borders. The SIP must specify 
emission limits and other measures necessary for that area to attain 
and maintain the required NAAQS. Pursuant to section 107(a) of the CAA, 
the states have the primary responsibility to assure air quality within 
the state by submitting a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each 
SIP must be submitted to the EPA for its review and approval; in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices 
provided the SIP revision is found to meet the minimum requirements of 
the CAA or any applicable EPA regulations. See section 110(k)(3) of the 
CAA; see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265 (1976).
    EPA's authority to approve SIP revisions is governed by CAA section 
110(k). EPA does not have authority under the CAA to condition (or 
otherwise require) as a prerequisite for approval of a state's SIP 
submittal the adoption of the most stringent or most protective control 
measure possible for achieving the NAAQS within the state as long as 
the SIP meets the minimum requirements of the CAA or its implementing 
regulations. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 
1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir.1995)). EPA cannot 
condition approval of Pennsylvania's SIP submission of ACHD's 
regulations upon inclusion of a particular emission reduction program 
such as banning OWBs as long as the SIP otherwise meets the 
requirements of the CAA. As explained in the NPR and the TSD, ACHD's 
regulations should reduce emissions of PM and PM2.5 and 
should improve visibility within the County which should aid in the 
County's attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes 
including ACHD's regulations within the Pennsylvania SIP will 
strengthen the SIP and believes the SIP revision meets the requirements 
of the CAA including section 110 of the CAA. Thus, EPA disagrees that 
the submitted SIP revision should be disapproved for not including in 
the regulations more stringent provisions.
    Regarding EPA's 2014 proposed NSPS for OWBs, EPA stated in the 
proposed residential heater NSPS, which EPA proposed pursuant to 
section 111 of the CAA, that additional actions may be needed by local 
regulatory authorities in addressing impacts from residential heaters 
due to site-specific concerns, such as local terrain, meteorology, 
proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals. 79 FR 6330, 6336 
(February 3, 2014). Thus, in keeping with Congressional intent for 
states to design emission reduction programs within their states for 
SIPs in accordance with sections 107(a) and 110, local and state 
regulatory authorities may consider requirements for residential wood 
heaters for SIPs which are beyond the requirements EPA has proposed for 
the NSPS and may consider such factors as local terrain, meteorology, 
proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals. These factors are 
not mandatory for states to consider for emission reduction measures 
for SIPs and were not used by EPA in developing the 2014 NSPS proposal; 
they are also not mandatory minimum requirements in the CAA for 
approvability of Pennsylvania's SIP revision to include ACHD's 
regulations for OWBs.\3\

    \3\ In the 2014 NSPS proposal, EPA stated, ``our BSER [Best 
System of Emission Reduction] determination rests on: (1) the 
achievability of the proposed emission levels (i.e., the fact that 
top-performing models for each appliance type are already achieving 
the proposed emission levels); and (2) the cost effectiveness of the 
proposed standards when considering the design life span and the 
emitting life span of the appliances in residences.'' 79 FR at 6354.

    EPA also notes that CAC correctly indicated the attainment status 
of several areas in West Virginia as well as in Allegheny County. 
However, EPA is approving this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 of 
the CAA as the PM reductions and visibility improvement from ACHD's 
regulations will strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. Pennsylvania did not 
submit this SIP

[[Page 65903]]

revision as an attainment plan for any NAAQS, thus, no provisions in 
part D, Title I of the CAA, relating to attainment planning, are 
applicable to this rulemaking action. EPA notes that when Pennsylvania 
develops any required attainment plans for Allegheny County for any 
NAAQS it could consider whether a total ban on OWBs might be 
appropriate to demonstrate timely attainment or represent reasonably 
available control measures, and EPA would consider the potential 
availability of such controls in reviewing any attainment SIPs for 
Allegheny County.
    In summary, nothing in the CAA requires EPA to consider the 
terrain, proximity of neighbors, or magnitude of other emissions in the 
airshed before determining the approvability of a particular regulation 
for a SIP revision. EPA finds the SIP revision to include ACHD's 
regulations for OWBs strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP with pollution 
reduction requirements, particularly for PM, and therefore meets the 
requirements for SIP approval in section 110 of the CAA.
    Comment: CAC also claims that the enforceability of ACHD's 
prohibition on the use of OWBs during air quality action days (in 
Section 2104.09(h) of Article XXI, Rules and Regulations of the ACHD) 
is ``dubious at best'' as it will be difficult for ACHD to assess 
compliance and take corrective action when needed. CAC claims an 
outright ban of OWBs is therefore appropriate for Allegheny County.
    Response: EPA appreciates CAC's concern with the enforceability of 
ACHD's regulation; however, EPA disagrees that CAC's concern with 
enforceability of the regulation impacts our ability to approve this 
SIP revision.\4\ EPA is approving ACHD's OWB regulations for inclusion 
in the Pennsylvania SIP because the regulations will reduce PM and 
improve visibility within Allegheny County, and therefore the SIP 
revision meets requirements in CAA section 110 as the revision 
strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP. CAC has presented no factual or legal 
argument supporting its concern for the enforceability of ACHD's OWB 
regulations. EPA has previously concluded the Pennsylvania SIP includes 
enforceable emission limitations and control measures and provides 
necessary assurances that Pennsylvania has adequate personnel, funding 
and authority to implement the Pennsylvania SIP. \5\ CAC provides no 
factual or legal argument to challenge our prior conclusions. EPA 
believes ACHD's regulations include clear and practically enforceable 
terms for fuel requirements for OWBs and for sale, distribution and 
operation of OWBs, including a prohibition on OWB operation on Air 
Quality Action Days in Allegheny County.\6\ As EPA has previously 
concluded Pennsylvania has adequate funding and other tools such as 
personnel to implement its SIP, EPA disagrees with CAC that its 
unsubstantiated concerns with enforceability of ACHD's OWB regulations 
lead to any conclusion that a ban on OWBs is appropriate or required 
instead of approval of this SIP revision. In addition, including the 
OWB regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP ensures Federal enforceability 
of the regulations providing additional assurance the SIP will be 
implemented. See section 113(a) of the CAA.

    \4\ As part of the SIP submittal, Pennsylvania included ACHD's 
response to comments received during ACHD's public comment process 
on these OWB regulations. In the responses, ACHD stated it regularly 
implements effective enforcement of all Article XXI regulations and 
expects to do the same with the proposed new OWB regulations.
    \5\ See 77 FR 58955 (approving Pennsylvania's infrastructure 
SIPs as meeting requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) including 
110(a)(2)(A) and (E) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 
    \6\ ``Air Quality Action Day'' is clearly defined in section 
2101.20 of ACHD's Article XXI to mean ``a day for which a forecast 
has been issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection, the Allegheny County Health Department or the Southwest 
Pennsylvania Air Quality Partnership indicating that ambient 
concentrations of ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur 
dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide might reach unhealthful levels or 
exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''

    Comment: CAC cites to a 2010 study by Environment and Human Health, 
Inc. (EHHI) that indicates setback regulations and stack height 
requirements for OWBs have been insufficient to protect human health. 
CAC asserts the study concluded OWBs should be banned as no regulations 
put in place protect neighboring properties or health of families in 
homes on those properties. CAC requests that EPA disapprove the 
proposed SIP revision in light of the study.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the CAC that EPA should disapprove the 
SIP revision for ACHD's regulations on OWBs based on this EHHI study. 
The 2010 EHHI study investigated how homes are affected by neighboring 
OWBs and the health implications for the families living inside homes 
impacted by wood smoke. The EHHI study measured indoor PM 
(PM2.5 and even finer particulate matter less than 0.5 
micrometers (PM0.5)) inside homes varying in distance from 
an operating OWB in the State of Connecticut over the course of three 
days. The proposed SIP revision from ACHD is intended to reduce outdoor 
air pollution. As discussed previously, EPA is approving this SIP 
revision because it strengthens the SIP and will provide benefits by 
reducing PM and PM2.5 emissions from OWBs overall and 
improving visibility. Congress did not design the CAA (including the 
SIP process, NAAQS pollutants, or area nonattainment designations) to 
have any effect on indoor air pollution. Even though concentrations of 
PM from OWBs may enter nearby resident's homes, the CAA does not 
require states to control outdoor pollution based on indoor impacts. 
The CAC has not articulated any legal argument regarding why a study of 
indoor PM impacts EPA's ability to approve a SIP revision which EPA 
finds benefits emissions of PM2.5 to outdoor air. EPA 
recognizes that there may be ancillary health benefits in a community 
that coincide with OWB programs. As mentioned in the TSD accompanying 
our NPR, EPA noted the ACHD regulations for OWBs, which are in addition 
to Pennsylvania's requirements for OWBs in 25 Pa. Code 123.14, should 
provide further protections to the residents of Allegheny County. 
However, as previously discussed, states have primary responsibility 
for deciding how to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Under the CAA, the 
sole issue for EPA's consideration in this rulemaking action is whether 
ACHD's OWB regulations, as an additional PM control measure for the 
Pennsylvania SIP, would be consistent with CAA provisions. EPA is 
approving the inclusion of ACHD's OWB regulations into the SIP because 
the approval is consistent with the requirements of section 110 of the 
CAA, including attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, including the 
PM NAAQS. CAC's request for a ban on OWBs in Allegheny County based on 
health concerns, particularly concerns for indoor air pollution, may be 
considered and implemented at the local level without EPA's review or 
approval. See 77 FR 1414 (January 10, 2012) (final action approving 
revisions to the Alaska SIP relating to removing the motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance program for control of carbon monoxide in 

B. American Lung Association Comments

    The American Lung Association (ALA) provides several comments in 
order to ``amplify'' comments received from CAC.
    Comment: With respect to the issue of proximity of neighbors, ALA 
emphasizes that this factor renders

[[Page 65904]]

OWBs problematic for the City of Pittsburgh and the remainder of 
Allegheny County, which has a population density nearly five times that 
of the state average. ALA states the areas of the County beyond the 
City of Pittsburgh are also at increased risk from OWBs. ALA asserts 
that any rule regulating any air pollution source should address the 
issue from the macro scale of air pollution inventories and that 
source's impacts on ambient air quality for the region as a whole, and 
should not institutionalize highly localized adverse air pollution 
impacts. ALA asserts it could support a rule for OWBs if ACHD could 
demonstrate widespread use of OWBs (operating with the local 
topographic variations and uneven compliance with rules for feedstock 
quality and operating conditions) would not produce significantly 
elevated concentrations of air pollutants in neighboring properties. 
ALA claims evidence it has seen shows such a rule is unlikely to be so 
effective. ALA also asserts any rule on OWBs must not only be workable 
for the current locations and prevalence of these units but should be 
forward-looking and able to handle possible future expansions of this 
source. ALA claims the regulatory burden of managing emissions from a 
much larger local inventory of OWBs, along with all of the issues 
related to cumulative adverse effects of individually, apparently 
``well-controlled'' sources, and even neighbor-versus-neighbor 
disputes, should not be regarded as inconsiderable. ALA claims once 
OWBs are widely used it will be difficult to return to non-use.
    Finally, ALA notes studies done in southwestern Pennsylvania and in 
Allegheny County in particular show evidence that current levels of air 
pollution and emissions of carcinogens already pose higher risks to 
health and lives of regional and county residents. ALA claims such a 
situation does not support taking less than a strict health-protective 
approach with respect to sources of air pollution that are already 
problematic, both in terms of emission factors, and in terms of the 
necessary surveillance and enforcement resources to control them 
    Response: EPA appreciates the health-based concerns expressed by 
ALA. EPA notes that it considers health based impacts when setting the 
NAAQS, including in particular the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 
sets the NAAQS to protect public health with an adequate margin of 
safety. As previously discussed, Congress placed the role of 
implementing the NAAQS and devising measures to attain and maintain the 
NAAQS with the states. See section 107(a) of CAA. EPA's role is to 
approve SIP submittals that meet minimum criteria in the CAA and its 
implementing regulations. EPA believes ACHD's OWB regulations 
strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP as the regulations should reduce 
overall emissions of PM2.5 from OWBs. Pennsylvania's SIP 
submittal discussed how ACHD tailored its OWB regulations to the 
specific situations encountered in Allegheny County and how ACHD 
expected the regulations to benefit the health of citizens of Allegheny 
County.\7\ EPA's TSD, supporting the approval of the SIP revision, 
stated the ACHD regulations would reduce problems associated with the 
operation of OWBs, including smoke and burning prohibited fuels, and 
would reduce ambient levels of PM2.5 which would improve 
visibility. To approve these regulations as a SIP-strengthening 
measure, EPA does not have to determine if the emissions reductions 
from the regulations are or are not significant or address health 
concerns in Allegheny County. EPA merely needs to determine if the 
regulations will generate some additional emissions reductions that 
would not be achieved by the current Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has reviewed 
these regulations in accordance with that framework and finds the 
provisions approvable for the SIP as the regulations will reduce 
PM2.5 and improve visibility. EPA has concluded the OWB 
regulations meet the minimum criteria for SIP approvability. No 
provision in the CAA, or in its implementing regulations, requires 
consideration of additional health impacts available from alternative, 
more stringent emission control measures before EPA may approve 
emission control measures submitted by a state for SIP approval, nor 
requires EPA to take a ``strict health-protective approach'' before 
approving SIPs as suggested by ALA. See Commonwealth of Virginia v. 
EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (limiting role of EPA to reviewing SIP submissions 
for compliance with CAA requirements). As discussed in a prior 
response, and in the TSD, EPA recognizes that there may be ancillary 
health benefits in Allegheny County from the OWB regulations from 
reduced exposure to PM2.5 emissions. However, as discussed 
previously, states have primary responsibility for deciding how to 
attain and maintain the NAAQS, which EPA set to protect health with an 
adequate margin of safety. Under the CAA, the sole issue for EPA's 
consideration in this rulemaking action is whether adding the OWB 
regulations from ACHD in the SIP would be consistent with CAA 
provisions. EPA has found the ACHD regulations are a PM control measure 
and approval is therefore consistent with the requirements of the CAA, 
including attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Concerns regarding 
population density, institutionalized air pollution impacts, cumulative 
adverse health impacts, property impacts, and increased usage of OWBs 
are not criteria for approving SIP submissions under the CAA. ACHD is 
able to consider on its own any additional restrictions on OWBs or 
other emission sources to benefit the health of residents of Allegheny 
County given ALA's concerns for air pollution in the area.

    \7\ The SIP submittal is available in the electronic docket 
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0169.

    Finally, operation of OWBs is permissible generally within 
Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ACHD's 
regulations add restrictions on OWB operations and therefore reduce 
impacts from the OWB operation. Therefore, contrary to ALA's comments, 
ACHD's regulations should reduce air pollutant concentrations and not 
lead to elevated concentrations of air pollutants. Thus, EPA 
appreciates ALA's comments and concerns but finds the submitted SIP 
provision approvable and in accordance with the CAA.

IV. Correction

    During the course of this rulemaking action EPA became aware of 
three inadvertent errors involving Section 2101.20 in the ``EPA-
Approved Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) Regulations'' at 40 
CFR 52.2020(c), table (2). The first error occurs at the second entry 
for Section 2101.20. The title of the section should read 
``Definitions'' not ``Definitions related to gasoline volatility.'' The 
second error occurs at the fourth entry for Section 2101.20. The EPA 
approval date should read ``12/28/10, 75 FR 81480'' not ``12/28/10, 75 
FR 81555.'' The third error occurs at the fifth entry for Section 
2101.20. The EPA approval date should read ``1/2/14, 79 FR 54'' not 
``1/2/14, 79 FR.'' In this rulemaking action, EPA corrects these 

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision consisting of: (1) 
The addition of Section 2104.09 (Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers) to Article 
XXI, ``Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations''; and (2) the 
addition of related new definitions to Section 2101.20. EPA is also 
correcting minor typographical errors found in 40 CFR

[[Page 65905]]

52.2020(c), table (2), related to Section 2101.20 (Definitions).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 5, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action, pertaining to the regulation of OWBs in Allegheny 
County, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

    Dated: October 23, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:


1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by:
a. Under Part A, revising the second, fourth, and fifth entries for 
``2101.20'', and adding a new entry for ``2120.20'' and
b. Under Part D, adding in numerical order an entry for ``2104.09''.
    The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *

   Article XX or XXI          Title/Subject      State  effective     EPA Approval date      explanation/  Sec.
        citation                                       date                                   52.2063 citation
                                                 Part A--General
                                                  * * * * * * *
2101.20................  Definitions...........   5/15/98, 9/1/99  4/17/01, 66 FR 19724..  (c)(151); See Part I
                                                                                            of the IBR document.
                                                  * * * * * * *
2101.20................  Definitions...........           5/24/10  12/28/10, 75 FR 81480.  Addition of four new
                                                                                            Exterior panels,
                                                                                            interior panels,
                                                                                            flat wood panel
                                                                                            coating, and
                                                                                            tileboard. See Part
                                                                                            III of the IBR
2101.20................  Definitions...........           5/24/10  1/2/14, 79 FR 54......  Addition of ``PM2.5''

[[Page 65906]]

2101.20................  Definitions...........            6/8/13  11/6/14 [Insert         Added seven
                                                                    Federal Register        definitions related
                                                                    citation].              to Outdoor Wood-
                                                                                            Fired Boilers.
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                      Part D--Pollutant Emission Standards
                                                  * * * * * * *
2104.09................  Outdoor Wood-Fired                6/8/13  11/6/14 [Insert         Added new regulation.
                          Boilers.                                  Federal Register
                                                  * * * * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2014-26300 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]