Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62389 

• 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 the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land in 

Washington except as specifically noted 

below and is also not approved to apply 

in any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Washington’s SIP is approved to apply 

on non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the 

EPA nonetheless provided a 

consultation opportunity to the 

Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

September 3, 2013. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 8, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24742 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0525; FRL–9917–83– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York 

Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for 

the 1997 Annual and the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

requests to redesignate to attainment the 

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York 

nonattainment areas (hereafter ‘‘the 

Areas’’) for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). This proposed approval is 

contingent upon the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit Court) granting EPA’s 

motion to lift the stay of the Cross State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that the 

D.C. Circuit Court issued on December 

30, 2011. EPA is proposing to find that 

the attainment of the Areas is in part 

due to the emissions reductions 

resulting from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) in Pennsylvania and in the 

states upwind of Pennsylvania. Thus, if 

the D.C. Circuit Court lifts the stay of 

CSAPR and grants EPA’s motion to 

begin implementation of CSAPR on 

January 1, 2015, those emission 

reductions originally required under 

CAIR will be made permanent and 

enforceable through the implementation 

of CSAPR. In addition to the 

redesignation requests, EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the Areas 

continue to attain the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to 

approve as revisions to the 

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), the associated maintenance plans 

to show maintenance of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

through 2025 for the Areas. The 

maintenance plans include the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

mobile vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Areas for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS which EPA is proposing to 

approve for transportation conformity 

purposes. EPA is also initiating the 

process to determine if these budgets are 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to approve as revisions to the 

Pennsylvania SIP, the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory for the Areas for 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s proposed 

approvals of the maintenance plans and 

MVEBs for the Areas are also contingent 

upon the lifting of the CSAPR stay by 

the D.C. Circuit Court. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 17, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0525 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0525, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0525. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62390 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

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

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effects of EME Homer City Decision 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Court Decision Regarding the PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

Submittals 

A. Redesignation Requests 

B. Maintenance Plans 

C. Transportation Conformity 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were established on July 18, 1997 

(62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an 

annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a three-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard). In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour concentrations. 

On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), 

EPA published air quality area 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In that rulemaking action, EPA 

designated the Harrisburg-LebanonCarlisle (Harrisburg) and York Areas as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Harrisburg Area is 

comprised of Cumberland, Dauphin and 

Lebanon Counties; and the York Area is 

comprised of York County in 

Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the annual average 

standard at 15 mg/m3, but revised the 24- 

hour standard to 35 mg/m3 based again 

on the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour concentrations 

(the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard). On 

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA 

published designations for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, which became 

effective on December 14, 2009. In that 

rulemaking action, EPA designated the 

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York 

(Harrisburg-York) Area as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.339. 

Today’s proposed rulemaking actions 

address the redesignations to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the Harrisburg and York Areas, and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards for the 

Harrisburg-York Area. 

On August 25, 2008 (73 FR 49949) 

and on September 25, 2009 (74 FR 

48863), EPA determined that the 

Harrisburg and the York Areas, 

respectively, had clean data and 

monitored attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 29, 

2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined 

that the Harrisburg-York Area had clean 

data and monitored attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on these 

determinations, the requirements for the 

Areas to submit attainment 

demonstrations and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plans, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIP revisions related to 

the attainment of the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

suspended until such time as: The Area 

is redesignated to attainment for the 

standard, at which time the section 

51.1004(c) requirements no longer 

apply; or EPA determines that the Area 

has again violated the standard, at 

which time such plans are required to 

be submitted. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR 

45424), EPA also determined that the 

Harrisburg and York Areas had attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. EPA’s review of the most recent 

certified monitoring data for the Areas 

show that the Areas continue to attain 

the standard. 

On April 22, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

formally submitted requests to 

redesignate the Harrisburg and York 

Areas from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

PADEP also formally submitted on April 

22, 2014, a request to redesignate the 

Harrisburg-York Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Concurrently, PADEP submitted 

maintenance plans for the Areas as SIP 

revisions to ensure continued 

attainment throughout the Areas over 

the next 10 years. The maintenance 

plans include the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5

and NOX MVEBs for the Areas for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS which EPA is proposing to 

approve for transportation conformity 

purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory for 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX, sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), and ammonia (NH3). EPA is 

proposing to approve as SIP revisions 

the maintenance plans for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve as SIP revisions the 2007 

emissions inventory for both standards 

to meet the emissions inventory 

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

CAA. EPA’s proposed approvals are 

contingent upon the D.C. Circuit Court 

granting EPA’s motion to lift the stay of 

CSAPR. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62391 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) EPA 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) EPA 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP and applicable Federal 

air pollutant control regulations and 

other permanent and enforceable 

reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved 

a maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA; and (5) the state 

containing such area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. Each of these requirements are 

discussed in Section V. of today’s 

proposed rulemaking action. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in the ‘‘SIPs; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the CAA Amendments of 

1990,’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘1992 Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

(2) ‘‘SIP Actions Submitted in Response 

to CAA Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

and (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A of the CAA, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after approval of a redesignation of 

an area to attainment. Eight years after 

the redesignation, the state must submit 

a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation, as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future PM2.5 violations. 

The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum 

provides additional guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan. The 

memorandum states that a maintenance 

plan should address the following 

provisions: (1) An attainment emissions 

inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain 

the existing monitoring network; (4) 

verification of continued attainment; 

and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment for 

a given NAAQS. These emission control 

strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and maintenance plans create MVEBs 

based on onroad mobile source 

emissions for the relevant criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors, 

where appropriate, to address pollution 

from onroad transportation sources. The 

MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

onroad vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from all other sources in the 

area, will provide attainment, RFP, or 

maintenance, as applicable. The budget 

serves as a ceiling on emissions from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. 

The maintenance plans for the 

Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and 

York Counties in Pennsylvania, 

includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs for transportation 

conformity purposes. The transportation 

conformity determinations for the Areas 

are further discussed in Section V.C. of 

today’s proposed rulemaking actions 

and technical support documents 

(TSDs) dated September 3, 2014, 

available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–R03–2014–0525. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignations of the Areas to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Provided 

that the D.C. Circuit Court grants EPA’s 

motion to lift the December 30, 2011 

stay of CSAPR and tolls CSAPR’s 

compliance deadlines in order to begin 

Phase 1 of CSAPR on January 1, 2015, 

EPA is proposing to find that the Areas 

meet the requirements for redesignation 

for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 

proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s 

requests to change the legal definition 

for the Harrisburg and York Areas from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 

Harrisburg-York Area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

associated maintenance plans for the 

Areas as revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP for the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for the Areas. The approval of the 

maintenance plans is one of the CAA 

criteria for redesignation of the Areas to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Pennsylvania’s maintenance plans are 

designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Areas for 10 years 

after redesignation for the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA previously determined that the 

Harrisburg and York Areas have 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that 

the Harrisburg and York Areas continue 

to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 76 FR 45424, July 29, 2011. EPA 

also previously determined that the 

Harrisburg-York Area had clean data 

showing monitored attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 

18922, March 29, 2012. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to find that the HarrisburgYork Area continues to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory that 

includes PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and 

NH3 for the Areas as revisions to the 

Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

order to meet the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA’s 

analysis of the proposed actions is 

provided in Section V. of today’s 

proposed rulemaking action. 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking actions 

are contingent upon the D.C. Circuit 

Court granting EPA’s motion to lift the 

stay of CSAPR. If the D.C. Circuit Court 

does not lift the stay of CSAPR, EPA 

will reevaluate the basis for approval of 

these proposed redesignations and 

repropose actions if necessary before 

issuing the final rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62392 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1CAIR addressed the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS 

and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR 

addresses contributions from upwind states to 

downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR. 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effects of EME Homer City Decision 

1. Background 

In 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court 

initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 

8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s remand, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR, to address 

interstate transport of emissions and 

resulting secondary air pollutants and to 

replace CAIR.1 CSAPR requires 

substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX

emissions from electric generating units 

(EGUs) in 28 states in the Eastern 

United States. Implementation of 

CSAPR was scheduled to begin on 

January 1, 2012, when CSAPR’s capand-trade programs would have 

superseded the CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs. Numerous parties filed 

petitions for review of CSAPR, and on 

December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 

2011), Order at 2. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and once 

again ordering continued 

implementation of CAIR. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit 

Court subsequently denied EPA’s 

petition for rehearing en banc. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

11–1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 

24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties 

then petitioned the Supreme Court for a 

writ of certiorari, and the Supreme 

Court granted the petitions on June 24, 

2013. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013). 

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s decision regarding CSAPR, and 

remanded that decision to the D.C. 

Circuit Court to resolve remaining 

issues in accordance with its ruling. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). Though 

CSAPR remains presently stayed by the 

D.C. Circuit Court, EPA has moved to 

have that stay lifted in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 

11–1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. 

Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In its motion, 

EPA asks the D.C. Circuit Court to toll 

CSAPR’s compliance deadlines by three 

years, so that the Phase 1 emissions 

budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead 

of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 

emissions budgets apply in 2017 and 

beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 

2005 (70 FR 25162), creating regional 

cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. CAIR applies to 27 

eastern states, including Pennsylvania, 

and the District of Columbia. EPA 

approved Pennsylvania’s SIP on 

December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65446) that 

addressed the requirements of CAIR for 

the purpose of reducing SO2 and NOX

emissions and Pennsylvania’s SIP 

redesignation requests list CAIR as a 

control measure. CAIR was thus in place 

and getting emission reductions in 

Pennsylvania and in states upwind of 

Pennsylvania when the Areas began 

monitoring attainment of the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The quality-assured, certified 

monitoring data used to demonstrate 

attainment of the Harrisburg and York 

Areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the April 5, 2010 attainment deadline 

was impacted by CAIR. The HarrisburgYork Area that has monitored 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS was also impacted by CAIR. 

Under the tolled compliance deadline 

schedule proposed by EPA in its motion 

to lift the CSAPR stay, CAIR would 

sunset at the end of 2014 and be 

replaced by CSAPR beginning January 1, 

2015. Provided that the stay is lifted and 

EPA’s tolled compliance deadlines are 

put in place, the emission reductions 

associated with CAIR that helped the 

Areas achieve attainment of the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS would be permanent and 

enforceable for purposes of 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, because 

CSAPR requires similar or greater 

emission reductions from relevant 

upwind areas starting in 2015 and 

beyond. 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

1. Background 

On January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, 

the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA 

the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5’’ final 

rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) 

(collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court 

found that EPA erred in implementing 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant 

to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title 

I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the 

particulate-matter-specific provisions of 

subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

the states had worked towards meeting 

the air quality goals of the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with 

EPA regulations and guidance derived 

from subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the 

CAA. In response to the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s remand, EPA took this history 

into account by setting a new deadline 

for any remaining submissions that may 

be required for moderate nonattainment 

areas as a result of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s decision regarding the 

applicability of subpart 4 of Part D of 

Title I of the CAA. 

On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA 

issued a final rule, ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of SIP 

Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule), 

which identifies the classification under 

subpart 4 for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/ 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The 

final rule sets a deadline for states to 

submit attainment plans and meet other 

subpart 4 requirements. The final rules 

specifies December 31, 2014 as the 

deadline for states to submit any 

additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and/ 

or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit 

SIPs addressing the nonattainment new 

source review (NSR) requirements in 

subpart 4. 

Therefore, as explained in detail in 

the following section, any additional 

attainment-related SIP elements that 

may be needed for the Areas to meet the 

applicable requirements of subpart 4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62393 

2Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

were not due at the time Pennsylvania 

submitted its redesignation requests for 

the Areas. Pennsylvania submitted its 

requests for redesignation for the 

Harrisburg and York Areas for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the Harrisburg-York 

Areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS on April 22, 2014. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA addresses the effect of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

ruling and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule on the Areas redesignation 

requests. EPA is proposing to determine 

that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 

2013 decision does not prevent EPA 

from redesignating the Areas to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in 

light of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, 

redesignation for these Areas is 

appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s 

longstanding interpretations of the 

CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the redesignation requests of the 

Areas and disregards the provisions of 

its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, Pennsylvania’s request for 

redesignation of the Areas still qualifies 

for approval. EPA’s discussion takes 

into account the effect of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s ruling and the June 2, 

2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and 

Deadline Rule on the maintenance plans 

of the Areas, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements Under 

Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Requests of the Areas 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling rejected 

EPA’s reasons for implementing the 

PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with 

the provisions of subpart 1, and 

remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 

could address implementation of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under 

subpart 4 of Part D of the CAA, in 

addition to subpart 1. For the purposes 

of evaluating Pennsylvania’s 

redesignation requests for the Areas, to 

the extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA, and thus EPA is not required 

to consider subpart 4 requirements with 

respect to the redesignation of the 

Areas. Under its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA, EPA has 

interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, 

as a threshold matter, that the part D 

provisions which are ‘‘applicable’’ and 

which must be approved in order for 

EPA to redesignate an area include only 

those which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum. See also ‘‘SIP 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 

that Pennsylvania submitted its 

redesignation requests for the 1997 and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

requirements under subpart 4 were not 

due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the redesignation of the 

Areas, the subpart 4 requirements were 

not due at the time Pennsylvania 

submitted the redesignation requests is 

in keeping with the EPA’s interpretation 

of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 

ozone areas redesignated subsequent to 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in 

South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In 

South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court 

found that EPA was not permitted to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard solely under subpart 1, and 

held that EPA was required under the 

statute to implement the standard under 

the ozone-specific requirements of 

subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 

South Coast decision, in evaluating and 

acting upon redesignation requests for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 

were submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those 

rulemaking actions, EPA therefore, did 

not consider subpart 2 requirements to 

be ‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of 

evaluating whether the area should be 

redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA. 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, 

for an area to be redesignated, a state 

must meet ‘‘all requirements 

‘applicable’ to the area under section 

110 and part D.’’ Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

provides that EPA must have fully 

approved the ‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the 

area seeking redesignation. These two 

sections read together support EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ as only 

those requirements that came due prior 

to submission of a complete 

redesignation request. 

First, holding states to an ongoing 

obligation to adopt new CAA 

requirements that arose after the state 

submitted its redesignation request, in 

order to be redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62394 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit Court 

decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite 

different context, where, unlike the situation here, 

EPA sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. 

National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 

630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 

643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. 

Ct. 571 (2011). 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in 

NRDC v. EPA and EPA’s June 2, 2014 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and 

Deadline Rule, compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. Pennsylvania 

submitted its redesignation requests for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS on April 22, 2014 for the Areas, 

which is prior to the deadline by which 

the Areas are required to meet the 

attainment plan and other requirements 

pursuant to subpart 4. 

To require Pennsylvania’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation 

requests for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now 

with requirements of subpart 4 that the 

D.C. Circuit Court announced only in 

January 2013 and for which the 

deadline to comply has not yet come, 

would be to give retroactive effect to 

such requirements and provide 

Pennsylvania a unique and earlier 

deadline for compliance solely on the 

basis of submitting its redesignation 

requests for the Areas. The D.C. Circuit 

Court recognized the inequity of this 

type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 

2002),3 where it upheld the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive EPA’s determination that the 

Areas did not meet their attainment 

deadlines. In that case, petitioners urged 

the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA’s 

nonattainment determination effective 

as of the date that the statute required, 

rather than the later date on which EPA 

actually made the determination. The 

D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, 

stating that applying it ‘‘would likely 

impose large costs on States, which 

would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans . . . even though they were not on 

notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, 

it would be unreasonable to penalize 

Pennsylvania by rejecting its 

redesignation requests for areas that are 

already attaining the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that 

met all applicable requirements known 

to be in effect at the time of the requests. 

For EPA now to reject the redesignation 

requests solely because Pennsylvania 

did not expressly address subpart 4 

requirements which have not yet come 

due and for which it had little to no 

notice, would inflict the same 

unfairness condemned by the D.C. 

Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Pennsylvania’s Redesignation Requests 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision requires that, in the context of 

pending redesignations for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, subpart 4 requirements were 

due and in effect at the time 

Pennsylvania submitted its 

redesignation requests, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Areas still qualify for 

redesignation to attainment for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained subsequently, 

EPA believes that the redesignation 

request for the Areas, though not 

expressed in terms of subpart 4 

requirements, substantively meet the 

requirements of that subpart for 

purposes of redesignating the Areas to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Areas, EPA notes that subpart 4 

incorporates components of subpart 1 of 

part D, which contains general air 

quality planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 

specific planning and scheduling 

requirements for coarse particulate 

matter (PM10) 4 nonattainment areas, 

and under the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. 

EPA, these same statutory requirements 

also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. EPA has longstanding general 

guidance that interprets the 1990 

amendments to the CAA, making 

recommendations to states for meeting 

the statutory requirements for SIPs for 

nonattainment areas. See, the General 

Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA 

discussed the relationship of subpart 1 

and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and 

pointed out that subpart 1 requirements 

were to an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or 

integrally related to, the more specific 

PM10 requirements’’ (57 FR 13538, April 

16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of these 

redesignation requests, in order to 

identify any additional requirements 

which would apply under subpart 4, 

consistent with EPA’s June 2, 2014 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and 

Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the 

Areas to be ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment areas. As EPA explained 

in its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of 

the CAA provides that all areas 

designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 are initially classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62395 

5The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed in this rulemaking 

action. 

6EPA refers to attainment demonstration, RFP, 

RACM, milestone requirements, and contingency 

measures. 

7As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision should be interpreted so as to impose these 

requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, supra. 

1.5 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program is not 

considered an applicable requirement 

for redesignation, provided the area can 

maintain the standard with a prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

program after redesignation. A detailed 

rationale for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ See also rulemakings for 

Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, 

March 7, 1995); Cleveland-AkronLorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469– 

20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, 

Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 

2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining 

the PM2.5 NAAQS is viewed as having 

satisfied the attainment planning 

requirements for these subparts. For 

redesignations, EPA has for many years 

interpreted attainment-linked 

requirements as not applicable for areas 

attaining the standard. In the General 

Preamble, EPA stated that: ‘‘The 

requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that 

the area has already attained. Showing 

that the State will make RFP towards 

attainment will, therefore, have no 

meaning at that point.’’ 

The General Preamble also explained 

that: ‘‘[t]he section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

RFP and attainment by the applicable 

date. These requirements no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans . . . 

provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas.’’ Id. EPA 

similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum that, ‘‘The requirements 

for reasonable further progress and other 

measures needed for attainment will not 

apply for redesignations because they 

only have meaning for areas not 

attaining the standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 

4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to 

mean that attainment-related 

requirements specific to subpart 4 

should be imposed retroactively 7 or 

prior to December 31, 2014 and thus, 

were due prior to Pennsylvania’s 

redesignation requests, those 

requirements do not apply to areas that 

are attaining the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, for the 

purpose of evaluating pending requests 

to redesignate the areas to attainment. 

EPA has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s 

prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ rulemakings 

for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by 

the requirements of subpart 4, explain 

EPA’s reasoning. They describe the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

on the attainment-related SIP planning 

requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction Proposed PM10 Redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47, October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this document, EPA 

determined that the Areas have attained 

and continue to attain the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Under its longstanding interpretation, 

EPA is proposing to determine here that 

the Areas meet the attainment-related 

plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4 

for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is 

proposing to conclude that the 

requirements to submit an attainment 

demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a 

RACM determination under section 

172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP 

demonstration under 189(c)(1), and 

contingency measure requirements 

under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for 

purposes of evaluating these 

redesignation requests. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. 

EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at 

issue in the case with instructions to 

EPA to re-promulgate them consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA 

in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s opinion with respect to PM2.5

precursors. While past implementation 

of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors such as NOX

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, section 

189(e) of the CAA specifically provides 

that control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, contained rebuttable 

presumptions concerning certain PM2.5

precursors applicable to attainment 

plans and control measures related to 

those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 

51.1002, EPA provided, among other 

things, that a state was ‘‘not required to 

address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5

attainment plan precursor[s] and to 

evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and NH3 in specific areas where that 

was necessary. 

The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 

4, 2013 decision made reference to both 

section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and 

stated that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, 

we need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that VOCs and NH3 are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62396 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

9The Areas have reduced VOC emissions through 

the implementation of various control programs 

including VOC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) regulations and various on-road 

and non-road motor vehicle control programs. 

10See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan 

for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM10

Standards,’’ (69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or NH3

emissions). 11See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 

expressly governs precursor 

presumptions.’’ NRDC v. EPA, at 27, 

n.10. 

Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

opinion, however, the D.C. Circuit Court 

observed: ‘‘NH3 is a precursor to fine 

particulate matter, making it a precursor 

to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10

nonattainment area governed by subpart 

4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) 

[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Areas for the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are consistent 

with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on 

this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. 

Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), 

stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively’ 

regulated,’’ the D.C. Circuit Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions 

regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors. 

The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’s rebuttable 

presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC 

as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory 

consequence would be to consider the 

need for regulation of all precursors 

from any sources in the Areas to 

demonstrate attainment and to apply the 

section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Areas, EPA believes that 

doing so is consistent with proposing 

redesignation of the Areas for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The Areas have attained the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS without any specific additional 

controls of NH3 and VOC emissions 

from any sources in the Areas. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.8

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of NH3 and VOC. Thus EPA 

must address here whether additional 

controls of NH3 and VOC from major 

stationary sources are required under 

section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to 

redesignate the Areas for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained subsequently, 

EPA does not believe that any 

additional controls of NH3 and VOC are 

required in the context of these 

redesignations. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in 

this rulemaking action, proposes to 

determine that the Pennsylvania SIP 

revisions have met the provisions of 

section 189(e) with respect to NH3 and 

VOC as precursors. These proposed 

determinations are based on EPA’s 

findings that: (1) The Areas contain no 

major stationary sources of NH3, and (2) 

existing major stationary sources of VOC 

are adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.9 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the Areas, which are 

attaining the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, at present NH3

and VOC precursors from major 

stationary sources do not contribute 

significantly to levels exceeding the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the Areas. See 57 FR 13539– 

42. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to 

attainment primarily requires the 

nonattainment area to have already 

attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision as 

calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of 

NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the 

attainment planning provisions of 

subpart 4, those provisions in and of 

themselves do not require additional 

controls of these precursors for an area 

that already qualifies for redesignation. 

Nor does EPA believe that requiring 

Pennsylvania to address precursors 

differently than it has already would 

result in a substantively different 

outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.10 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.11 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Areas have 

already attained the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its 

current approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

these redesignations that there is no 

need to revisit the attainment control 

strategy with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s decision is construed to impose 

an obligation, in evaluating these 

redesignation requests, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

Pennsylvania’s requests for 

redesignation of the Areas for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. In the context of a 

redesignation, the Areas have shown 

that they have attained the standards. 

Moreover, Pennsylvania has shown and 

EPA has proposed to determine that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62397 

attainment of the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in these 

Areas are due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment of the standards. 

See Section V.A.3 of this rulemaking 

notice. It follows logically that no 

further control of additional precursors 

is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not 

view the January 4, 2013 decision of the 

D.C. Circuit Court as precluding 

redesignation of the Areas to attainment 

for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In summary, even if, prior to the date 

of the redesignation request submittal, 

Pennsylvania was required to address 

precursors for the Areas under subpart 

4 rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA would 

still conclude that the Areas had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v) of the 

CAA. 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

Submittals 

EPA is proposing, contingent upon 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s lifting of the 

stay of CSAPR, several rulemaking 

actions for the Harrisburg-LebanonCarlisle-York nonattainment areas: (1) 

To redesignate the Harrisburg and York 

Areas to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and to redesignate the 

Harrisburg-York Area to attainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to 

approve into the Pennsylvania SIP, the 

associated maintenance plans for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory into 

the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA requirement for the 

Areas, one of the criteria for 

redesignation. EPA’s proposed 

approvals of the redesignation requests 

and maintenance plans for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are based upon EPA’s 

determination that the Areas continue to 

attain the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is 

proposing in this rulemaking action, 

and that all other redesignation criteria 

have been met for the Areas. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs for 

Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon and 

York Counties, Pennsylvania for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

following is a description of how the 

Pennsylvania April 22, 2014 submittals 

satisfy the requirements of section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

A. Redesignation Requests 

1. Attainment 

As noted previously, in the final 

rulemaking action dated July 29, 2011 

(76 FR 45424), EPA determined that the 

Harrisburg and York nonattainment 

areas had attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date. EPA based this 

determination of attainment upon 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the period of 2007–2009 showing that 

the Areas had attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Further discussion of 

pertinent air quality issues underlying 

this determination was provided in the 

July 29, 2011 final rulemaking action for 

EPA’s determination of attainment for 

these Areas. 

Also noted previously, in the final 

rulemaking action dated March 29, 2012 

(77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the 

Harrisburg-York Area had clean data for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

based this determination upon 

complete, quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the Area 

has monitored attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 

2008–2010 data in EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality PM2.5 monitoring data in the 

Areas consistent with the requirements 

contained at 40 CFR part 50, and 

recorded in EPA’s AQS database. To 

support the previous determination of 

attainment of the Areas, EPA has also 

reviewed more recent data in its AQS 

database, including certified, qualityassured data for the period from 2008– 

2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012 and 2011– 

2013. These data, shown in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 show that the Areas continue to 

attain the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, as 

discussed subsequently with respect to 

the maintenance plans, PADEP has 

committed to continue monitoring 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Areas continue to attain the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

contingent upon the DC Circuit Court’s 

lifting the stay of CSAPR. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE HARRISBURG AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M3) FOR 2008–2010, 

2009–2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013 (15 μG/M3) 

Monitor ID # 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

Cumberland 42–041–0101 .............................................................................. 11.6 11.0 11.0 11.0 

Dauphin 42–043–0401 .................................................................................... 12.4 12.1 11.9 11.9 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE YORK AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M3) FOR 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013 (15 μG/M3) 

Monitor ID # 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

Hill Street 42–133–0008 .................................................................................. 12.2 11.5 11.7 11.3 

TABLE 3—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE HARRISBURG/YORK AREA FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M3) FOR

2008–2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013 (35 μG/M3) 

Monitor ID # 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

Cumberland 42–041–0101 .............................................................................. 32 31 30 32 

Dauphin 42–043–0401 .................................................................................... 33 32 31 31 

York 42–133–0008 .......................................................................................... 30 28 29 29 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62398 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Subpart 1 of the CAA and Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

In accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP 

revisions for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Areas must be fully approved under 

section 110(k) of the CAA and all the 

requirements applicable to the Areas 

under section 110 of the CAA (general 

SIP requirements) and part D of Title I 

of the CAA (SIP requirements for 

nonattainment areas) must be met. 

a. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are 

not limited to the following: (1) 

Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted 

by the state after reasonable public 

notice and hearing; (2) provisions for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate procedures needed to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(PSD); (4) provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions 

for air pollution modeling; and (6) 

provisions for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address the interstate 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, 

October 27, 1998), amendments to the 

NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 

1999 and 65 FR 11222, March 2, 2000), 

and CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). 

However, section 110(a)(2)(D) of the 

CAA requirements for a state are not 

linked with a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification in 

that state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that these requirements are 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that the 

other section 110(a)(2) elements of the 

CAA not connected with nonattainment 

plan submissions and not linked with 

an area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Areas will still be 

subject to these requirements after it is 

redesignated. EPA concludes that 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and part D 

requirements which are linked with a 

particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request, and that section 110(a)(2) 

elements of the CAA not linked in the 

area’s nonattainment status are not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity (i.e., for 

redesignations) and oxygenated fuels 

requirement. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 

1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 

rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); 

and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 

FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also 

the discussion on this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 

37890, June 19, 2000) and in the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation 

(66 FR 53099, October 19, 2001). 

EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania 

SIP and has concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they 

are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of Pennsylvania’s 

SIP addressing section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, including provisions 

addressing PM2.5. See 77 FR 58955 

(September 25, 2012). These 

requirements are, however, statewide 

requirements that are not linked to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Areas. 

Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP 

elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

Pennsylvania’s PM2.5 redesignation 

requests. 

b. Subpart 1 Requirements 

Subpart 1 sets forth the basic 

nonattainment plan requirements 

applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Under section 172 of the CAA, states 

with nonattainment areas must submit 

plans providing for timely attainment 

and meet a variety of other 

requirements. The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I discusses the 

evaluation of these requirements in the 

context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard. See 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). 

As noted previously, EPA has 

determined that the Areas have attained 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.2004(c), the requirement for 

Pennsylvania to submit, for the Areas, 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated RACM, RFP plans, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to the attainment 

of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until the 

Areas are redesignated to attainment for 

the standards, or EPA determines that 

the Areas again violated the standards, 

at which time such plans are required 

to be submitted. Since attainment had 

been reached for the Areas for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and the Areas continue to 

attain the standards, no additional 

measures are needed to provide for 

attainment. Therefore, the requirements 

of sections 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 

172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) of the CAA are 

no longer considered to be applicable 

for purposes of redesignation of the 

Areas for the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The requirement under section 

172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA’s 

clean data determination for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and is the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 of the 

CAA to be considered for purposes of 

redesignation of the Areas. 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

inventory of actual emissions. As part of 

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request 

submittals, Pennsylvania submitted a 

2007 base year emissions inventory for 

the Areas for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS which 

includes emissions estimates that cover 

the general source categories of point 

sources, nonroad mobile sources, area 

sources and on-road mobile sources. 

The pollutants that comprise the 

inventory are NOX, VOC, PM2.5, NH3, 

and SO2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62399 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory in accordance with 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 

Areas. Final approval of the 2007 base 

year emissions inventory will satisfy the 

emissions inventory requirement under 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For more 

information on the evaluation and 

EPA’s analysis of the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory, see Appendices B 

and C of Pennsylvania’s submittals and 

the emissions inventory technical 

support documents (TSDs) dated August 

13, 2014 available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–R03–2014–0525. The 

summaries of the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory in tons per year 

(tpy) are shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6. 

TABLE 4—HARRISBURG AREA 2007 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

Point ......................................................... 1,260 584 4,786 1,808 17 840 

Area .......................................................... 8,944 3,059 2,194 3,216 6,935 8,768 

Nonroad ................................................... 369 346 4,443 188 4 4,489 

Onroad ..................................................... 1,013 866 25,194 175 347 8,220 

Total .................................................. 11,586 4,855 36,617 5,388 7,302 22,317 

TABLE 5—YORK AREA 2007 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

Point ......................................................... 3,556 2,462 22,164 115,901 80 1,320 

Area .......................................................... 8,093 2,394 1,680 1,684 3,316 5,956 

Nonroad ................................................... 214 202 2,660 135 2 1,833 

Onroad ..................................................... 430 358 10,684 78 161 4,810 

Total .................................................. 12,292 5,417 37,189 117,798 3,559 13,920 

TABLE 6—HARRISBURG-YORK AREA 2007 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

Point ......................................................... 4,815 3,046 26,950 117,709 96 2,160 

Area .......................................................... 17,037 5,452 3,874 4,900 10,250 14,724 

Nonroad ................................................... 582 548 7,104 323 6 6,322 

Onroad ..................................................... 1,443 1,225 35,878 254 509 13,030 

Total .................................................. 23,878 10,271 73,806 123,185 10,861 36,236 

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires 

the identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since the PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A more detailed rationale 

for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 

entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ Nevertheless, 

Pennsylvania currently has an approved 

NSR program, codified in the State’s 

regulation at 25 Pa. Code 127.201. See 

77 FR 41276 (July 13, 2012) (approving 

NSR program into the SIP). See also 49 

FR 33127 (August 21, 1984) (approving 

Pennsylvania’s PSD program). However, 

Pennsylvania’s PSD program for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS will become effective in the 

Areas upon redesignation to attainment. 

See 49 FR 33128 (August 21, 1984) 

(approving PSD program into the SIP). 

Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires 

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA. As noted previously, EPA believes 

the Pennsylvania SIP revisions meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA that are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 175A of the CAA requires a 

state seeking redesignation to 

attainment to submit a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years 

after the redesignation.’’ In conjunction 

with its request to redesignate the Area 

to attainment status, Pennsylvania 

submitted SIP revisions to provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Areas for at least 10 years after 

redesignation, through 2025. 

Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA 

approve these SIP revisions as meeting 

the requirement of section 175A of the 

CAA. Once approved, the maintenance 

plans for the Areas will ensure that the 

SIPs for Pennsylvania meet the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Areas. EPA’s analysis of the 

maintenance plan is provided in Section 

V.B. of today’s proposed rulemaking 

action. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62400 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12 It should be noted that the mobile source 

controls discussed in this section also provide 

reductions in VOC and/or SO2 emissions. While 

those emissions may be reduced, the submitted 

maintenance plan and redesignation request do not 

rely on these emission reductions. 

(transportation conformity) as well as to 

all other Federally supported or funded 

projects (general conformity). State 

transportation conformity SIP revisions 

must be consistent with Federal 

conformity regulations relating to 

consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to its authority under the CAA. 

EPA approved Pennsylvania’s 

transportation conformity SIP 

requirements on April 29, 2009 (74 FR 

19541). 

Thus, for purposes of redesignating 

the Areas to attainment for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA determines that upon 

final approval of the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory as 

proposed in this rulemaking action, the 

Areas will meet all applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA for purposes of redesignating 

the Areas to attainment for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

c. Pennsylvania Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

Upon final approval of the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA 

will have fully SIP-approved all 

applicable requirements of the 

Pennsylvania SIP revisions for the Areas 

for purposes of redesignaton to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with section 110(k) of the 

CAA. As noted in this rulemaking 

action, EPA is proposing to approve the 

Areas’ 2007 emissions inventory 

(submitted as part of the maintenance 

plans) as meeting the requirement of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, upon approval of 

the 2007 emissions inventory, EPA will 

have satisfied all applicable 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA for the Areas. 

3. Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

As required by section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, EPA is 

proposing to determine that 

Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the 

air quality improvement in the Areas is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions.12 In making this 

demonstration, Pennsylvania has 

calculated the change in emissions 

between 2002 for the Harrisburg Area 

and 2005 for the York and HarrisburgYork Areas, which are years used to 

designate the Areas as nonattainment, 

and 2007, which is one of the years the 

Areas monitored attainment, as shown 

in Tables 7, 8, and 9. The reduction in 

emissions in tons per year, and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality from 2002 and 2005 to 2007 in 

the Areas can be attributed to a number 

of regulatory control measures that have 

been implemented in the Areas and 

contributing areas in recent years. For 

more information on EPA’s analysis of 

the 2002, 2005, and 2007 emissions 

inventories, see EPA’s emissions 

inventory TSDs dated August 13, 2014, 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action at 

www.regulations.gov. Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–RO3–2014–0525. 

TABLE 7—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2002 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE HARRISBURG AREA

Sector 2002 2007 Reductions 

PM2.5 .............................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 490 584 ¥94 

Area ................................................................................. 3,935 3,059 876 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 1,053 866 187 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 377 346 31 

Total ......................................................................... 5,855 4,855 1,000 

NOX ................................................ Stationary Point ............................................................... 6,048 4,786 1,262 

Area ................................................................................. 2,126 2,194 ¥68 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 33,823 25,194 8,630 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 5,247 4,443 804 

Total ......................................................................... 47,244 36,617 10,627 

SO2 ................................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 1,875 1,808 67 

Area ................................................................................. 2,983 3,216 ¥232 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 694 175 518 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 414 188 226 

Total ......................................................................... 5,967 5,388 579 

VOC ............................................... Stationary Point ............................................................... 1,082 840 242 

Area ................................................................................. 10,633 8,768 1,866 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 9,940 8,220 1,720 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 5,120 4,489 631 

Total ......................................................................... 26,776 22,317 4,459 

NH3 ................................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 11 17 ¥6 

Area ................................................................................. 7,415 6,935 480 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 390 347 43 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 3 4 ¥1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62401 

TABLE 7—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2002 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE HARRISBURG AREA— 

Continued 

Sector 2002 2007 Reductions 

Total ......................................................................... 7,819 7,302 516 

TABLE 8—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2005 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE YORK AREA

Sector 2005 2007 Reductions 

PM2.5 .............................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 4,804 2,462 2,342 

Area ................................................................................. 3,254 2,394 860 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 131 358 ¥227 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 221 202 18 

Total ......................................................................... 8,409 5,417 2,992 

NOX ................................................ Stationary Point ............................................................... 14,054 22,164 ¥8,110 

Area ................................................................................. 9,618 1,680 7,938 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 7,073 10,684 ¥3,612 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 2,953 2,660 292 

Total ......................................................................... 33,697 37,189 ¥3,492 

SO2 ................................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 104,616 115,901 ¥11,285 

Area ................................................................................. 13,937 1,684 12,253 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 170 78 91 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 272 135 137 

Total ......................................................................... 118,995 117,798 1,198 

VOC ............................................... Stationary Point ............................................................... 2 1,320 ¥1,318 

Area ................................................................................. 11,148 5,956 5,192 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 4,849 4,810 39 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 1,975 1,833 142 

Total ......................................................................... 17,974 13,920 4,054 

NH3 ................................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 1 80 ¥79 

Area ................................................................................. 3,583 3,316 267 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 335 161 174 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 2 2 0 

Total ......................................................................... 3,921 3,559 362 

TABLE 9—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2005 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE HARRISBURG-YORK AREA

Sector 2005 2007 Reductions 

PM2.5 .............................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 4,823 3,046 1,777 

Area ................................................................................. 7,089 5,452 1,637 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 476 1,225 ¥749 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 619 548 71 

Total ......................................................................... 13,008 10,271 2,737 

NOX ................................................ Stationary Point ............................................................... 14,169 26,950 ¥12,781 

Area ................................................................................. 17,333 3,874 13,459 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 24,547 35,878 ¥11,331 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 8,869 7,104 1,765 

Total ......................................................................... 64,918 73,806 ¥8,888 

SO2 ................................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 104,640 117,709 ¥13,069 

Area ................................................................................. 18,443 4,900 13,543 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 590 254 336 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 787 323 464 

Total ......................................................................... 124,459 123,185 1,274 

VOC ............................................... Stationary Point ............................................................... 11 2,160 ¥2,149 

Area ................................................................................. 23,688 14,724 8,964 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62402 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13Although the NOX SIP Call was issued in order 

to address ozone pollution, reductions of NOX as a 

result of that program have also impacted PM2.5

pollution, for which NOX is also a precursor 

emission. 

14Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, 

and Former NOX Budget Trading Program, 2012 

Progress Report (December 2013), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR_

12_downloads/ARPCAIR12_01.pdf; Clean Air 

Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former 

NOX Budget Trading Program, 2012 Progress Report 

(May 2014), available at http://www.epa.gov/

airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR_12_downloads/

ARPCAIR12_02.pdf. 

TABLE 9—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2005 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE HARRISBURG-YORK

AREA—Continued 

Sector 2005 2007 Reductions 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 15,072 13,030 2,042 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 6,801 6,322 479 

Total ......................................................................... 45,571 36,236 9,335 

NH3 ................................................. Stationary Point ............................................................... 1 96 ¥95 

Area ................................................................................. 11,054 10,250 804 

Highway Vehicle .............................................................. 1,056 509 547 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 6 6 0 

Total ......................................................................... 12,116 10,861 1,255 

a. Federal Measures Implemented 

Reductions in PM2.5 precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind states as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. 

Control of NOX and SO2

PM2.5 concentrations in the York and 

Harrisburg Areas are impacted by the 

transport of sulfates and nitrates, and 

the Areas’ air quality is strongly affected 

by regulation of SO2 and NOX emissions 

from power plants. 

NOX SIP Call—On October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX SIP 

Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of 

NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution.13

Affected states were required to comply 

with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning 

in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. 

Emission reductions resulting from 

regulations developed in response to the 

NOX SIP Call are permanent and 

enforceable. By imposing an emissions 

cap regionally, the NOX SIP Call 

reduced NOX emissions from large 

EGUs and large non-EGUs such as 

industrial boilers, internal combustion 

engines, and cement kilns. In response 

to the NOX SIP Call, Pennsylvania 

adopted its NOX Budget Trading 

Program regulations for EGUs and large 

industrial boilers, with emission 

reductions starting in May 2003. 

Pennsylvania’s NOX Budget Trading 

Program regulation was approved into 

the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21, 

2001 (66 FR 43795). To meet other 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call, 

Pennsylvania adopted NOX control 

regulations for cement plants and 

internal combustion engines, with 

emission reductions starting in May 

2005. These regulations were approved 

into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 

29, 2006 (71 FR 57428). 

CAIR—As previously noted, CAIR (70 

FR 25162, May 12, 2005) created 

regional cap-and-trade programs to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 

eastern states, including Pennsylvania. 

EPA approved the Commonwealth’s 

CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on December 10, 2009 

(74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone 

season NOX trading program superseded 

the NOX Budget Trading Program, 

although the emission reduction 

obligations of the NOX SIP Call were not 

rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 

51.123(aa). Data collected from EPA’s 

long-term national air quality and 

deposition monitoring networks show 

that these regional cap-and-trade 

programs have been effective in 

reducing emissions of SO2 and NOX

nationwide.14

Under the NOX SIP Call and CAIR, 

SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs 

were significantly reduced statewide 

and in states upwind of the Harrisburg 

and York areas. Table 10 shows 

statewide EGU emissions data for 2002 

and 2007 for the states that were 

determined to contribute significantly to 

air quality in the Harrisburg and York 

Areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. See Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support Document 

included in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. Table 10 also shows 

the level of emissions in the 

contributing states for 2013, the latest 

year for which annual data is available, 

which shows the continuing decline of 

SO2 and NOX emissions in these states. 

TABLE 10—COMPARISON OF 2002, 2007, AND 2013 NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM EGUS FOR STATES THAT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE HARRISBURG AND YORK AREAS

State 

NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) 

2002 2007 2013 Reductions 

2002–2007 2002 2007 2013 Reductions 2002–2007 

District of Columbia 15 ...... 556 250 96 306 1,087 319 .................... 768 

Illinois ............................... 172,354 123,105 55,386 49,249 353,228 272,571 135,866 80,657 

Indiana ............................. 281,146 198,501 103,120 82,645 778,868 714,529 268,217 64,339 

Kentucky .......................... 198,599 174,932 84,964 23,665 482,653 380,314 188,115 102,339 

Maryland .......................... 76,056 54,553 14,554 21,503 254,008 272,879 25,118 18,871 

Michigan ........................... 132,623 108,198 65,728 24,425 342,997 338,014 194,396 4,983 

North Carolina .................. 145,706 64,770 49,059 89,936 462,993 370,827 48,154 92,166 

New Jersey ...................... 33,149 17,059 5,713 16,090 48,269 34,189 2,433 14,080 

New York ......................... 84,885 58,569 24,150 26,316 231,973 107,211 17,797 124,762 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62403 

15The District of Columbia and Maryland were 

considered together in the contribution analysis. 

TABLE 10—COMPARISON OF 2002, 2007, AND 2013 NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM EGUS FOR STATES THAT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE HARRISBURG AND YORK AREAS—Continued 

State 

NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) 

2002 2007 2013 Reductions 

2002–2007 2002 2007 2013 Reductions 2002–2007 

Ohio .................................. 370,497 240,722 86,399 129,775 1,132,069 954,646 282,007 177,423 

Virginia ............................. 78,868 60,302 28,315 18,566 230,846 172,685 38,778 58,161 

West Virginia .................... 225,371 153,514 60,111 71,857 507,110 371,996 86,201 135,114 

Total .......................... 1,799,808 1,254,475 577,595 554,027 4,826,101 3,990,180 1,287,082 835,921 

Source: EPA’s Air Markets Program Data (AMPD). AMPD query results are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. 

Table 10 shows that states impacting 

the York and Harrisburg Areas reduced 

NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs by 

554,027 tons and 835,921 tons, 

respectively, between 2002 and 2007. 

EPA has therefore determined that the 

significant reductions in NOX and SO2

from upwind states and in Pennsylvania 

required under the NOX SIP Call and 

CAIR have contributed to the air quality 

attainment in the Harrisburg and York 

areas. In addition, the NOX and SO2

emissions from these states further 

declined by 676,880 tons and 2,703,098 

tons, respectively, from 2007 to 2013. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles 

and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower NOX emissions from new 

cars and light duty trucks, including 

sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules 

were phased in between 2004 and 2009. 

EPA estimated that, after phasing in the 

new requirements, the following vehicle 

NOX emission reductions will have 

occurred nationwide: Passenger cars 

(light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light 

duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility 

vehicles (86 percent); and larger sports 

utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks 

(69 to 95 percent). Some of the 

emissions reductions resulting from 

new vehicle standards occurred during 

the 2008–2010 attainment period; 

however, additional reductions will 

continue to occur throughout the 

maintenance period as new vehicles 

replace older vehicles. EPA expects fleet 

wide average emissions to decline by 

similar percentages as new vehicles 

replace older vehicles. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule 

EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engine Rule in July 2000. This rule 

included standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel, which went into 

effect in 2004. A second phase took 

effect in 2007 which reduced PM2.5

emissions from heavy-duty highway 

engines and further reduced the 

highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 

ppm. Standards for gasoline engines 

were phased in starting in 2008. The 

total program is estimated to achieve a 

90 percent reduction in direct PM2.5

emissions and a 95 percent reduction in 

NOX emissions for new engines using 

low sulfur diesel fuel. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule 

On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA 

promulgated the Nonroad Diesel Rule 

for large nonroad diesel engines, such as 

those used in construction, agriculture, 

and mining, to be phased in between 

2008 and 2014. The rule phased in 

requirements for reducing the sulfur 

content of diesel used in nonroad diesel 

engines. The reduction in sulfur content 

prevents damage to the more advanced 

emission control systems needed to 

meet the engine standards. It will also 

reduce fine particulate emissions from 

diesel engines. The combined engine 

standards and the sulfur in fuel 

reductions will reduce NOX and PM 

emissions from large nonroad engines 

by over 90%, compared to current 

nonroad engines using higher sulfur 

content diesel. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards 

In November 2002, EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

using spark-ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards are being phased in 

from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of all of the nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, an overall 80 percent 

reduction in NOX are expected by 2020. 

Some of these emission reductions 

occurred by the 2002–2007 attainment 

period and additional emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period as the fleet turns 

over. 

Federal Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

As required by the CAA, EPA 

developed Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards to 

regulate emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants from a published list of 

industrial sources referred to as ‘‘source 

categories.’’ The MACT standards have 

been adopted and incorporated by 

reference in Section 6.6 of 

Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control 

Act and implementing regulations in 25 

Pa. Code § 127.35 and are also included 

in Federally enforceable permits issued 

by PADEP for affected sources. The 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boiler MACT standards (69 FR 

55217, September 13, 2004, and 76 FR 

15554, February 21, 2011) are estimated 

to reduce emissions of PM, SO2, and 

VOCs from major source boilers and 

process heaters nationwide. Also, the 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE) MACT will reduce NOX

and PM emissions from engines located 

at facilities such as pipeline compressor 

stations, chemical and manufacturing 

plants, and power plants. 

b. State Measures 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control 

Program 

In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control 

Program for model years starting in May 

2004. The program incorporates 

California standards by reference and 

required model year 2005 and beyond 

heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be 

certified to the California standards, 

which were more stringent than the 

Federal standards for model years 2005 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62404 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and 2006. After model year 2006, 

Pennsylvania required implementation 

of the Federal standards that applied to 

model years 2007 and beyond, 

discussed in the Federal measures 

section of this proposed rulemaking 

action. This program reduced emissions 

of NOX statewide. 

Vehicle Emission Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) Program 

Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Emission I/M 

program was expanded into the 

Harrisburg, York and Harrisburg-York 

Areas in early 2004, and applies to 

model year 1975 and newer gasolinepowered vehicles that are 9,000 pounds 

and under. The program, approved into 

the Pennsylvania SIP on October 6, 2005 

(70 FR 58313), consists of annual onboard diagnostics and gas cap test for 

model year 1996 vehicles and newer, 

and an annual visual inspection of 

pollution control devices and gas cap 

test for model year 1995 vehicles and 

older. This program reduces emissions 

of NOX from affected vehicles. 

Consumer Products Regulation 

Pennsylvania regulation ‘‘Chapter 

130, Subchapter B. Consumer Products’’ 

established, effective January 1, 2005, 

VOC emission limits for numerous 

categories of consumer product, and 

applies statewide to any person who 

sells, supplies, offers for sale, or 

manufactures such consumer products 

on or after January 1, 2005 for use in 

Pennsylvania. It was approved into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004 

(69 FR 70895). 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality in the Harrisburg, York and 

Harrisburg-York Areas are due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions. The reductions result from 

Federal and State requirements and 

regulation of precursors within 

Pennsylvania that affect the Harrisburg, 

York and Harrisburg-York Areas. 

B. Maintenance Plans 

On April 22, 2014, PADEP submitted 

maintenance plans for the Harrisburg 

and York Areas for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and a maintenance plan 

for the Harrisburg-York Area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as required 

by section 175A of the CAA. EPA’s 

analysis for proposing approval of the 

maintenance plans is provided in this 

section. 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) requires states to 

submit a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources in the nonattainment 

area. For a maintenance plan, states are 

required to submit an inventory to 

identify the level of emissions in the 

area which is sufficient to attain the 

NAAQS, referred to as the attainment 

inventory (or the maintenance plan base 

year inventory), and which should be 

based on actual emissions. PADEP 

submitted an attainment inventory for 

2007, which is one of the years in the 

period during which the Harrisburg and 

York Areas monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 

Harrisburg-York Area monitored 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The inventory for 2007 is 

comprised of NOX, PM2.5, SO2, VOC, 

and NH3 emissions from point sources, 

nonpoint sources, onroad mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 

The 2007 point source inventory 

contained emissions for EGU and nonEGU sources in Cumberland, Dauphin, 

Lebanon, and York Counties that were 

directly reported by the facilities. Since 

the reported emissions did not include 

condensable emissions, the EGU 

inventory was augmented to account for 

condensable by application of emission 

factors developed by the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) in 2008. The nonpoint 

source emissions inventory for 2007 was 

developed using 2007 specific activity 

data along with EPA emission factors 

and the most recent available emission 

calculation methodologies. PADEP used 

the 2008 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) data to fill in any missing 

categories in the 2007 inventory. For the 

2007 nonroad mobile sources, PADEP 

generated emissions using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM) 2008 model. Since marine, air 

and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions 

are not part of the NONROAD model, 

they were calculated separately outside 

of the NONROAD model. The 2007 

onroad mobile source inventory was 

developed using EPA’s highway mobile 

source emissions model MOVES2010. 

PADEP used local activity to replace 

default inputs in the model where 

appropriate. 

EPA has reviewed the documentation 

provided by PADEP and found the 2007 

emissions inventory acceptable for 

meeting the requirements under section 

172(c)(3). For more information on the 

emissions inventory submitted by 

PADEP for the Areas and EPA’s analysis 

of the emissions inventory, see 

Appendices B and C of the 

Pennsylvania submittals and the 

emissions inventory TSDs dated August 

13, 2014, available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–R03–2014–0525. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ Where the emissions 

inventory method of showing 

maintenance is used, its purpose is to 

show that emissions during the 

maintenance period will not increase 

over the attainment year inventory. See 

1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9– 

10. 

For a demonstration of maintenance, 

emissions inventories are required to be 

projected to future dates to assess the 

influence of future growth and controls; 

however, the maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; 

Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also 66 

FR 53099–53100; 68 FR 25430–32. 

PADEP uses projection inventories to 

show that the Areas will remain in 

attainment and developed projection 

inventories for an interim year of 2017 

and a maintenance plan end year of 

2025 to show that future emissions of 

NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 will remain 

at or below the attainment year 2007 

emissions levels throughout the Areas 

through the year 2025. Although 

emissions of NH3 are projected to 

increase from 2007 to 2017 and from 

2007 to 2025, the increase will not affect 

the Areas’ ability to maintain the 

standard because it is more than 

compensated by the significant 

reductions of the other precursors in 

2017 and 2025. 

The Federal and State measures 

described in Section V.A.3. of this 

proposed rulemaking action 

demonstrate that the reductions in 

emissions from point, area, and mobile 

sources in the Areas have occurred and 

will continue to occur through 2025. In 

addition, the following State and 

Federal regulations and programs 

ensure the continuing decline of SO2, 

NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the 

Areas during the maintenance period 

and beyond: 

Non-EGUs previously covered under the 

NOX SIP Call 

Pennsylvania established NOX

emission limits for the large industrial 

boilers that were previously subject to 

the NOX SIP Call, but were not subject 

to CAIR. For these units, Pennsylvania 

established an allowable ozone season 

NOX limit based on the unit’s previous 

ozone season’s heat input. A combined 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62405 

NOX ozone season emissions cap of 

3,418 tons applies for all of these units. 

CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208) 

If the CSAPR stay is lifted as 

requested by EPA, the implementation 

of CSAPR will preserve the reductions 

achieved by CAIR. 

Regulation of Cement Kilns 

On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 52558), EPA 

approved amendments to 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further 

reduce NOX emissions from cement 

kilns. The amendments established NOX

emission rate limits for long wet kilns, 

long dry kilns, and preheater and 

precalciner kilns that are lower by 35% 

to 63% from the previous limit of 6 

pounds of NOX per ton of clinker that 

applied to all kilns. The amendments 

were effective on April 15, 2011. 

Stationary Source Regulations 

Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 130, Subchapter D for 

Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and 

Solvents was approved into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 

2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation 

established VOC content limits for 

various categories of adhesives, sealants, 

primers, and solvent, and became 

applicable on January 1, 2012. 

Amendments to Pennsylvania 

regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, 

Subchapter B established, effective 

January 1, 2009, new or more stringent 

VOC standards for consumer products. 

The amendments were approved into 

the Pennsylvania SIP on October 18, 

2010 (75 FR 63717). 

Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program 

The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles 

Program (formerly, New Motor Vehicle 

Control Program) incorporates by 

reference the California Low Emission 

Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it 

allowed automakers to comply with the 

NLEV program as an alternative to this 

program until Model Year (MY) 2006. 

The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in 

25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, 

was modified to require CA LEVII to 

apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was 

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on 

January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The 

Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by 

reference the emission control standards 

of CA LEVII, which, among other 

requirements, reduces emissions of NOX

by requiring that passenger car emission 

standards and fleet average emission 

standards also apply to light duty 

vehicles. Model year 2008 and newer 

passenger cars and light duty trucks are 

required to be certified for emissions by 

the California Air Resource Board 

(CARB), in order to be sold, leased, 

offered for sale or lease, imported, 

delivered, purchased, rented, acquired, 

received, titled or registered in 

Pennsylvania. In addition, 

manufacturers are required to 

demonstrate that the California fleet 

average standard is met based on the 

number of new light-duty vehicles 

delivered for sale in the 

Commonwealth. The Commonwealth’s 

submittal for the January 24, 2012 

rulemaking projected that, by 2025, the 

program will achieve 318 tons more 

NOX reductions than Tier II for the 

counties in the Harrisburg, York, and 

Harrisburg/York Areas. 

Emission Limits on PPL Brunner Island 

In 2009, PPL installed a flue gas 

desulfurization system and electrostatic 

precipitators on Units 1, 2, and 3 at the 

PPL Brunner Island power plant located 

in York County, resulting in significant 

SO2 reductions at the facility. The 

facility’s Title V permit is Federally 

enforceable pursuant to section 502 of 

the CAA, and includes emission limits 

for PM, SO2, and NOX for Units 1, 2, and 

3. Levels of SO2 were significantly 

reduced from 106,148 tons in 2007 to 

17,822 tons in 2010. EPA approved 

Pennsylvania’s Title V program on July 

30, 1996. 61 FR 39597. 

Two Pennsylvania regulations—its 

Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling 

Act (August 1, 2011, 76 FR 45705) and 

its Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler 

regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR 

58114)—were not included in the 

projection inventories, but may also 

assist in maintaining the standard. Also, 

the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and 

Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 29, 

2014) establishes more stringent vehicle 

emissions standards and will reduce the 

sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 

2017. The fuel standard will achieve 

NOX reductions by further increasing 

the effectiveness of vehicle emission 

controls for both existing and new 

vehicles. 

The projection inventories for the 

2017 and 2025 point, area, and nonroad 

sources were taken from regional 

inventories coordinated by MARAMA 

for the states in the Mid-Atlantic/

Northeast Visibility Union and Virginia 

(MANE-VU+VA), which includes 

Pennsylvania. Detailed discussion of 

how 2017 and 2025 projections were 

developed are contained in Appendix 

C–2 and C–3, respectively, of 

Pennsylvania’s submittals. EPA has 

reviewed the documentation provided 

by PADEP and found the methodologies 

acceptable. 

EPA has determined that the 2017 and 

2025 projected emissions inventories 

provided by PADEP are approvable. For 

more information on EPA’s analysis of 

the emissions inventory, see EPA’s 

TSDs dated August 13, 2014, available 

on line at www.regulations.gov., Docket 

ID No. EPA–OAR–R03–2014–0525. 

Tables 11, 12, and 13 provide a 

summary of the inventories for the 2007 

attainment year, as compared to the 

projected inventories for the 2017 

interim year and the 2025 maintenance 

plan end year for the Areas in tpy. 

TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED PM2.5 EMISSIONS IN THE

HARRISBURG AREA

PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

2007 (attainment) ................................................................. 4,855 36,617 5,388 7,302 22,317 

2017 (interim) ....................................................................... 4,240 22,862 4,598 7,819 16,393 

2017 (projected decrease) ................................................... 615 13,755 790 ¥517 5,924 

2025 (maintenance) ............................................................. 3,958 16,116 3,626 8,277 14,333 

2025 (projected decrease) ................................................... 897 20,501 1,762 ¥975 7,984 

TABLE 12—COMPARISON OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED PM2.5 EMISSIONS IN THE YORK

AREA

PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

2007 (attainment) ................................................................. 5,417 37,189 117,798 3,559 13,920 

2017 (interim) ....................................................................... 4,915 28,859 16,441 3,663 10,886 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 12—COMPARISON OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED PM2.5 EMISSIONS IN THE YORK

AREA—Continued 

PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

2017 (projected decrease) ................................................... 502 8,330 101,357 ¥104 3,034 

2025 (maintenance) ............................................................. 4,944 27,673 16,406 3,774 9,822 

2025 (projected decrease) ................................................... 473 9,516 84,951 ¥215 4,098 

TABLE 13—COMPARISON OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED PM2.5 EMISSIONS IN THE

HARRISBURG-YORK AREA

PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

2007 (attainment) ................................................................. 10,271 73,806 123,185 10,861 36,236 

2017 (interim) ....................................................................... 9,155 51,721 21,038 11,483 27,279 

2017 (projected decrease) ................................................... 1,116 22,085 102,147 ¥622 8,957 

2025 (maintenance) ............................................................. 8,902 43,789 20,032 12,051 24,155 

2025 (projected decrease) ................................................... 1,369 30,017 103,153 ¥1,189 12,081 

As shown in Tables 11, 12 and 13, the 

projected levels of PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and 

VOC are well under the 2007 attainment 

year levels for each of these pollutants. 

While the emissions of NH3 are 

projected to be higher than the 2007 

inventory for this pollutant for both the 

interim year and the end-year, the 

significant decreases in the other 

precursors more than offset the increase, 

and thus EPA does not believe the 

increase in NH3 will affect the Areas’ 

ability to maintain the NAAQS. 

Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the Areas will 

continue to maintain the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

during the 10 year maintenance period. 

3. Monitoring Network 

Pennsylvania’s maintenance plans 

include a commitment to continue to 

operate its EPA-approved monitoring 

network, as necessary to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. 

Pennsylvania currently operates a PM2.5

monitor in each of the counties in the 

Harrisburg Area, namely Cumberland, 

Dauphin, and Lebanon Counties, and a 

PM2.5 monitor on Hill Street in the York 

Area. In its April 22, 2014 submittals, 

Pennsylvania stated that it will consult 

with EPA prior to making any necessary 

changes to the network and will 

continue to quality assure the 

monitoring data in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

To provide for tracking of the 

emission levels in the Areas, PADEP 

requires major point sources to submit 

air emissions information annually and 

prepares a new periodic inventory for 

all PM2.5 precursors every three years in 

accordance with EPA’s Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR). 

Emissions information will be compared 

to the attainment year inventory (2007) 

to assure continued attainment with the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and will be used to assess 

emissions trends, as necessary. Also, as 

noted in the previous subsection, 

PADEP will continue to operate its 

monitoring system in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and remains obligated to 

quality-assure monitoring data and enter 

all data into the AQS in accordance 

with federal requirements. PADEP will 

use this data, supplemented with 

additional data, as necessary, to assure 

continuing attainment in the Areas. 

5. Contingency Measures 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct a violation 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that 

occurs in the Areas after redesignation. 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure that a state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the events that would ‘‘trigger’’ the 

adoption and implementation of a 

contingency measure(s), the 

contingency measure(s) that would be 

adopted and implemented, and the 

schedule indicating the time frame by 

which the state would adopt and 

implement the measure(s). 

Pennsylvania’s maintenance plans 

describe the procedures for the adoption 

and implementation of contingency 

measures to reduce emissions should a 

violation occur. Pennsylvania’s 

contingency measures include a first 

level response and a second level 

response. A first level response is 

triggered for when the annual mean 

PM2.5 concentration exceeds 15.5 mg/m3

in a single calendar year within the 

Areas, or if the periodic emissions 

inventory for the Areas exceed the 

attainment year inventory by more than 

ten percent. The first level response will 

consist of a study to determine if the 

emissions trends show increasing 

concentrations of PM2.5, and whether 

this trend is likely to continue. If it is 

determined through the study that 

action is necessary to reverse a trend of 

emissions increases, Pennsylvania will, 

as expeditiously as possible, implement 

necessary and appropriate control 

measures to reverse the trend. 

A second level response will be 

prompted if the two-year average of the 

annual mean concentration exceeds 15.0 

mg/m3 within the Areas. This would 

trigger an evaluation of the conditions 

causing the exceedence, whether 

additional emission control measures 

should be implemented to prevent a 

violation of the standard, and analysis 

of potential measures that could be 

implemented to prevent a violation. 

Pennsylvania would then begin its 

adoption process to implement the 

measures as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Pennsylvania’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: (1) A 

regulation based on the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) Model 

Rule to update requirements for 

consumer products; (2) a regulation 

based on the Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for industrial cleaning 

solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects 

such as diesel retrofit for public or 

private local onroad or offroad fleets, 

idling reduction technology for Class 2 

yard locomotives, and idling reduction 

technologies or strategies for truck 

stops, warehouses, and other freighthandling facilities; (4) promotion of 

accelerated turnover of lawn and garden 

equipment, focusing on commercial 

equipment; and (5) promotion of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62407 

16For additional information on the adequacy 

process, please refer to 40 CFR 93.118(f) and the 

discussion of the adequacy process in the preamble 

to the 2004 final transportation conformity rule. See 

69 FR 40039–40043. 

alternative fuels for fleets, home heating 

and agricultural use. Pennsylvania’s 

rulemaking process and schedule for 

adoption and implementation of any 

necessary contingency measure is 

shown in the SIP submittals as being 18 

months from PADEP’s approval to 

initiate rulemaking. For all of the 

reasons discussed in this section, EPA is 

proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance plans for the Harrisburg, 

York, and Harrisburg-York Areas as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. 

C. Transportation Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

Federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

Part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIP) conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the MVEBs contained 

in the SIP. On April 22, 2014, 

Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions 

that contain the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5

and NOX onroad mobile source budgets 

for Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and 

York Counties, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania did not provide emission 

budgets for SO2, VOC, and NH3 because 

it concluded, consistent with the 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and 

were not disturbed by the litigation on 

the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

that emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. EPA issued conformity 

regulations to implement the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and 

May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 

and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). Those 

actions were not part of the final rule 

recently remanded to EPA by the D.C. 

Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08– 

1250 (January 4, 2013), in which the 

D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

because it concluded that EPA must 

implement that NAAQS pursuant to the 

PM-specific implementation provisions 

of subpart 4, rather than solely under 

the general provisions of subpart 1. That 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of the MVEBs for the Areas. 

The MVEBs in tpy are presented in 

Tables 14, 15, and 16. 

TABLE 14—MVEBS FOR CUMBERLAND

AND DAUPHIN COUNTIES FOR THE

1997 PM2.5 AND 2006 24-HOUR

NAAQS 

Year PM2.5 NOX

2017 .......... 365 10287 

2025 .......... 275 7024 

TABLE 15—MVEBS FOR LEBANON

COUNTY FOR THE 1997 PM2.5 AND

2006 PM2.5 24-HOUR NAAQS 

Year PM2.5 NOX

2017 .......... 76 2252 

2025 .......... 52 1446 

TABLE 16—MVEBS FOR YORK COUNTY FOR THE 1997 PM2.5 AND 2006 

PM2.5 24-HOUR NAAQS 

Year PM2.5 NOX

2017 .......... 192 5390 

2025 .......... 144 3398 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of MVEBs are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, 

EPA must complete a thorough review 

of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5

maintenance plans, and conclude that 

with the projected level of motor vehicle 

and all other emissions, the SIPs will 

achieve its overall purpose, in this case 

providing for maintenance of the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and (3) EPA taking 

action on the MVEB. 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA is initiating the process for 

determining whether or not the MVEBs 

are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. The publication of 

this document starts a 30-day public 

comment period on the adequacy of the 

submitted MVEBs. This comment 

period is concurrent with the comment 

period on this proposed action and 

comments should be submitted to the 

docket for this rulemaking. EPA may 

choose to make its determination on the 

adequacy of the budgets either in the 

final rulemaking on this maintenance 

plan and redesignation request or by 

informing Pennsylvania of the 

determination in writing, publishing a 

notice in the Federal Register and 

posting a notice on EPA’s adequacy Web 

page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/transconf/

adequacy.htm).16 However, EPA would 

not complete the adequacy process for 

these budgets in advance of the final 

rule approving the maintenance plan 

and redesignation request unless the 

D.C. Circuit Court lifts the stay on the 

implementation of CSAPR. 

EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and 

found them consistent with the 

maintenance plan and that the budgets 

meet the criteria for adequacy and 

approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs for Cumberland, Dauphin, 

Lebanon, and York Counties for 

transportation conformity purposes 

provided that the D.C. Circuit Court 

grants EPA’s motion to lift the stay of 

CSAPR, as discussed in detail in Section 

IV.B. of today’s proposed rulemaking 

action. Additional information 

pertaining to the review of the MVEBs 

can be found in the TSDs dated 

September 3, 2014, available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0525. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignations of the HarrisburgLebanon-Carlisle-York Areas from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has evaluated 

Pennsylvania’s redesignation requests 

and determined that the Areas meet the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provided that 

the D.C. Circuit Court grants EPA’s 

motion to lift the stay of CSAPR. The 

monitoring data demonstrates that the 

Areas have attained the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and, for the reasons discussed 

previously, that they will continue to 

attain the NAAQS. Final approval of 

these redesignation requests would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62408 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

change the designation of Harrisburg 

and York Areas from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and the Harrisburg-York Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the associated 

maintenance plans for the Areas as 

revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP 

because they meet the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA as described 

previously in this proposed rulemaking 

notice. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2007 base year emissions 

inventory as meeting the requirement of 

section 172(a)(3) of the CAA. 

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania 

for Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and 

York Counties for transportation 

conformity purposes. EPA is also 

initiating the process for determining 

whether the MVEBs are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA’s proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s redesignation requests, 

maintenance plans, and MVEBs in 

today’s rulemaking action are 

contingent upon the lifting of the 

CSAPR stay. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule proposing to 

approve Pennsylvania’s redesignation 

requests, maintenance plans, 2007 base 

year emissions inventory, and MVEBs 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the Harrisburg and York Areas for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

Harrisburg-York Area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24596 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0007; 

FXES11130900000–156–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–AY82 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To Downlist the Arroyo Toad, 

and a Proposed Rule To Reclassify the 

Arroyo Toad as Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our March 27, 2014, proposed rule to 

reclassify the arroyo toad (Anaxyrus 

californicus) as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We are taking this 

action to solicit feedback on new 

information we received. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted, as they will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

listing determination. We anticipate 

publishing a final determination on or 

before March 27, 2015. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 17, 2014. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES section, below) must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. Any comments that we 

receive after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed rule 

and associated documents, including 

the new information discussed in this 

document, on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2014–0007, or by 

contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Written comments: You may submit 

written comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2014–0007, which is 

the docket number for the rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS