Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6019 

check. Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849 

refers to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 

72 2849, Version E, dated February 20, 2014, 

and Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 

2850, Version A, dated November 29, 2013, 

which you must also use to do the vibration 

check. 

(iv) The reporting requirements in 

paragraphs 6.A.(1)(c), 6.A.(2)(b), and 

6.B.(1)(c), and the requirement to return 

module M01 in paragraph 6.B.(2)(b)2 of 

Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, 

Version B, dated November 25, 2013, are not 

required by this AD. 

(2) For all affected Turbomeca S.A. 

engines, during each engine shop visit after 

the effective date of this AD, perform a 

vibration check of the AGB 41/23-tooth bevel 

gear meshing. 

(3) If the AGB does not pass the vibration 

check required by paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) 

of this AD, replace the AGB with a part 

eligible for installation. 

(f) Credit for Previous Action 

If you performed a vibration check of the 

AGB before the effective date of this AD 

using Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, 

Version A, dated September 9, 2013; or MSB 

No. 292 72 2849, Version A, dated September 

9, 2013, or during an engine shop visit per 

paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you met the 

initial inspection requirement of paragraph 

(e)(1) of this AD. 

(g) Definition 

For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine 

shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into 

the shop for maintenance involving the 

separation of pairs of major mating engine 

flanges. The separation of engine flanges 

solely for the purpose of transportation 

without subsequent engine maintenance does 

not constitute an engine shop visit. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. You may email your 

request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7758; fax: 781–238–7199; 

email: mark.riley@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency AD 2014–0036, dated 

February 11, 2014, for related information. 

You may examine the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://www.

regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA2014-0164-0003. 

(3) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, 

Version B, dated November 25, 2013; and 

MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version B, dated 

November 25, 2013, provide guidance on 

performing the one-time vibration check. 

Arriel 1 TI No. 292 72 0839, Version E, dated 

February 2014; Arriel 1 TI No. 292 72 0840, 

Version A, dated November 29, 2013; Arriel 

2 TI No. 292 72 2849, Version E, dated 

February 20, 2014; and Arriel 2 TI No. 292 

72 2850, Version A, dated November 29, 

2013, provide detailed instructions on 

performing the one-time vibration check for 

Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines as indicated. 

Turbomeca Engine Test Bed Acceptance Test 

Specifications CCT No. 0292009400, Version 

T; CCT No. 0292019400, Version R; CCT No. 

0292019690, Version I; CCT No. 0292019530, 

Version K; CCT No. 0292019610, Version K; 

CCT No. 0292029450, Version J; CCT No. 

0292029490, Version I; CCT No. 0292029440, 

Version I; CCT No. 0292029480, Version K; 

CCT No. 0292029520, Version H; CCT No. 

0292029410, Version L; CCT No. 

0292029530, Version H; or Turbomeca ID No. 

383952; or Turbomeca RTD No. X 292 65 327 

2, provide information on performing a 

vibration check during an engine shop visit. 

These service documents, which are not 

incorporated by reference in this AD, can be 

obtained from Turbomeca S.A. using the 

contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this 

proposed AD. 

(4) For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 

40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 

40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 

15. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

January 26, 2015. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02082 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0789; FRL–9922–52– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the 

Allentown Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment for 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 

request to redesignate to attainment the 

Allentown nonattainment area 

(Allentown Area or Area) for the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

determine that the Allentown Area 

continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) the associated maintenance plan to 

show maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the 

Area. The maintenance plan includes 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) mobile vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for the Area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA 

is proposing to approve for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve as 

a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the 

2007 base year emissions inventory for 

the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. This rulemaking action to 

propose approval of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS redesignation request and 

associated maintenance plan for the 

Allentown Area is based on EPA’s 

determination that Pennsylvania has 

met the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment specified in the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0789 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0789 

Marilyn Powers, Acting 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– 

0789. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 the August 21, 2012 D.C. 

Circuit Court Decision Regarding EPA’s 

CSAPR 

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 

Submittal 

A. Redesignation Request 

B. Maintenance Plan 

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 NAAQS). In the same 

rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a 

24-hour standard of 65 mg/m3, based on 

a three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

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 on the 

three-year average of the 98th percentile 

of the 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). On November 

13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published 

designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, which became effective on 

December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking 

action, EPA designated the Allentown 

Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Allentown 

Area is comprised of Lehigh and 

Northampton Counties. See 40 CFR 

81.339. 

On March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), 

EPA determined that the Allentown 

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 this determination, the 

requirements for the Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIP 

revisions related to the attainment of 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. EPA’s review of the most 

recent certified monitoring data for the 

Area shows that the Area continues to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On September 5, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Allentown Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Concurrently, PADEP submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP 

revision to ensure continued attainment 

throughout the Area over the next 10 

years. The maintenance plan includes 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for the Area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. PADEP also 

submitted a 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory for the Area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5, 

NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), and 

ammonia (NH3). 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA addresses the effects of several 

decisions of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit Court) and a decision of 

the United States Supreme Court: (1) 

The D.C. Circuit Court’s August 21, 

2012 decision to vacate and remand to 

EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme 

Court’s April 29, 2014 reversal of the 

vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the 

D.C. Circuit Court; (3) the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s October 23, 2014 decision to lift 

the stay of CSAPR; and (4) the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

to remand to EPA two final rules 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6021 

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. 

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 plan for the 

Allentown Area, that comprises Lehigh 

and Northampton Counties in 

Pennsylvania, includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

transportation conformity determination 

for the Area is further discussed in 

Section V.C. of today’s proposed 

rulemaking action and in a technical 

support document (TSD) dated 

December 1, 2014, which is available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignation of the Allentown Area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that 

the Area meets the requirements for 

redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve Pennsylvania’s request to 

change the legal definition for the 

Allentown Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the associated maintenance 

plan for the Area as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

Area for transportation conformity 

purposes. Approval of the maintenance 

plan is one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation of the Area to attainment 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Pennsylvania’s maintenance plan is 

designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Area for at least 10 

years after redesignation for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA previously determined that the 

Allentown Area had clean data showing 

monitored attainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA is 

proposing to find that the Allentown 

Area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

submitted by PADEP that includes 

PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 for the 

Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania 

SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in order to meet the requirements of 

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

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effects of the August 21, 2012 D.C. 

Circuit Court Decision Regarding EPA’s 

CSAPR 

1. Background 

The D.C. Circuit Court and the 

Supreme Court have issued a number of 

decisions and orders regarding the 

status of EPA’s regional trading 

programs for transported air pollution, 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

CSAPR, that impact this proposed 

redesignation action. 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 cap-and-trade programs 

would have superseded the CAIR capand-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, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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). EPA moved 

to have the stay of CSAPR 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 asked 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). On 

October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion and lifted the stay 

of CSAPR which was imposed on 

December 30, 2011. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

(D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA 

issued an interim final rule to clarify 

how EPA will implement CSAPR 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

order granting EPA’s motion requesting 

lifting the stay and tolling the rule’s 

deadlines. See 79 FR 71663, December 

3, 2014 (interim final rulemaking). 

Consistent with the rule, EPA began 

implementing CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

Because CAIR was promulgated in 

2005 and incentivized sources and 

states to begin achieving early emission 

reductions, the air quality data 

examined by EPA in issuing a final 

determination of attainment for the 

Allentown Area in 2012 (March 29, 

2012, 77 FR 18922) and the air quality 

data from the Area since 2005 

necessarily reflect reductions in 

emissions from upwind sources as a 

result of CAIR, and Pennsylvania 

included CAIR as one of the measures 

that helped to bring the Area into 

attainment. However, modeling 

conducted by EPA during the CSAPR 

rulemaking process, which used a 

baseline emissions scenario that 

‘‘backed out’’ the effects of CAIR, see 76 

FR at 48223, projected that Lehigh and 

Northampton Counties would have a 

PM2.5 24-hour design value below the 

level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

for 2012 and 2014 without taking into 

account emission reductions from CAIR 

or CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA’s 

‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document,’’ (Page B– 

86), which is available in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking action. In 

addition, the 2010–2012 qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified monitoring data for the 

Allentown Area confirms that the 24- 

hour PM2.5 design value for the Area 

remained well below the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012. 

The status of CSAPR is not relevant to 

this redesignation. CSAPR was 

promulgated in June 2011, and the rule 

was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court just 

six months later, before the trading 

programs it created were scheduled to 

go into effect. Therefore, the Allentown 

Area’s attainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS cannot have been a result 

of any emission reductions associated 

with CSAPR. In addition, on October 23, 

2014, the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the 

stay on CSAPR and EPA began 

implementing CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. In summary, neither the status of 

CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR 

affects any of the criteria for proposed 

approval of this redesignation request 

for the Area. 

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 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 NAAQS. The rule 

set a deadline for states to submit 

attainment plans and meet other subpart 

4 requirements. The rule 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. 

As explained in detail in the 

following section, since Pennsylvania 

submitted its request to redesignate the 

Allentown Area on September 5, 2014, 

any additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed for the 

Area to meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart 4 were not due 

at the time Pennsylvania submitted its 

request to redesignate the Allentown 

Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA addresses the effect of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling 

and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule on the 

Area’s redesignation request. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the Area to attainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in 

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

redesignation for this Area 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 request of the Area 

and disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently 

remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, 

Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6023 

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. See section 175A(c) 

of the CAA. 

of the Area 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 plan of the Area, which 

EPA views as approvable when subpart 

4 requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements Under 

Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request of the Area 

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 

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 request for 

the Allentown Area, 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 Area. 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 request for the Allentown 

Area for 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 Area, 

the subpart 4 requirements were not due 

at the time Pennsylvania submitted the 

redesignation request 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 

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 request for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on 

September 5, 2014 for the Allentown 

Area, which is prior to the deadline by 

which the Area is required to meet the 

attainment plan and other requirements 

pursuant to subpart 4. 

To require Pennsylvania’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / 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. 

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

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

redesignation is discussed in the rulemaking action. 6EPA refers to attainment demonstration, RFP, 

RACM, milestone requirements, and contingency 

measures. 

request for the 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 

request for the Area. The D.C. Circuit 

Court recognized the inequity of this 

type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club 

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 Area did 

not meet its attainment deadline. 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 request for 

an area that is already attaining the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

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 redesignation for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, subpart 4 

requirements were due and in effect at 

the time Pennsylvania submitted its 

redesignation request, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Area still qualifies 

for redesignation to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

explained subsequently, EPA believes 

that the redesignation request for the 

Area, though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the Area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Allentown Area, 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 this redesignation 

request, 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 Allentown Area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6025 

7As explained earlier, EPA does 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. 

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 request, those 

requirements do not apply to an area 

that is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a 

pending request to redesignate the area 

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 the 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 rule, EPA 

determined that the Area has attained 

and continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the Area meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4 for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing 

to conclude that the requirements to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

under section 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 this 

redesignation request. 

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 

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, the 

redesignation of the Allentown Area for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 

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 Area to 

demonstrate attainment and to apply the 

section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Allentown Area, EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / 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 Area has 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). 

believes that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the Area for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

Area has attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS without any specific 

additional controls of NH3 and VOC 

emissions from any sources in the Area. 

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 Area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained 

subsequently, any additional controls of 

NH3 and VOC are required in the 

context of this redesignation. 

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. This proposed 

determination is based on EPA’s 

findings that: (1) The Area contains 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 Area, which is 

attaining 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 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. 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 DC 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 Area has 

already attained 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 this redesignation that 

there is no need to revisit the attainment 

control strategy with respect to the 

treatment of precursors. Even if the DC 

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 request for redesignation 

of the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. In the context of a 

redesignation, the Area has shown that 

it has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Moreover, Pennsylvania has 

shown and EPA has proposed to 

determine that attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this Area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions on all precursors 

necessary to provide for continued 

attainment of the NAAQS. See Section 

V.A.3. of this rulemaking. It follows 

logically that no further control of 

additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013 decision of the DC 

Circuit Court as precluding 

redesignation of the Area to attainment 

for 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 Area 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 Area 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 

Submittal 

EPA is proposing, several rulemaking 

actions for the Allentown 

nonattainment area: (1) To redesignate 

the Allentown Area to attainment for 

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

approve into the Pennsylvania SIP the 

associated maintenance plan for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) to 

approve the 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory into the 

Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy the 

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

CAA for the Area, which is one of the 

criteria for redesignation. EPA’s 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are based 

upon EPA’s determination that the Area 

continues to attain 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 Area. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 

MVEBs for Lehigh and Northampton 

Counties, Pennsylvania for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6027 

following is a description of how the 

Pennsylvania September 5, 2014 

submittal satisfies the requirements of 

the CAA including specifically section 

107(d)(3)(E) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

A. Redesignation Request 

1. Attainment 

As noted previously, in the final 

rulemaking action dated March 29, 2012 

(77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the 

Allentown 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 

Area 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 Area, 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. This data, shown in Table 1, 

shows that the Area continues to attain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, as discussed subsequently 

with respect to the maintenance plan, 

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 Area continues to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE ALLENTOWN 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 

Freemansburg 42–095–0025 .......................................................................... 32 33 32 32 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has 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 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the Allentown Area must be 

fully approved under section 110(k) of 

the CAA and all the requirements 

applicable to the Area 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 minor 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), 

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

CSAPR. 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 Area 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 Area. 

Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP 

elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

12This regulation was promulgated as part of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule that was 

subsequently challenged and remanded in NRDC v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), as discussed in 

Section IV.B of this rule. However, the Clean Data 

Policy portion of the implementation rule was not 

at issue in that case. 

Pennsylvania’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request. 

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. 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of section 172 is that once 

an area is attaining the NAAQS, those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 

therefore need not be approved into the 

SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. 

In the 1992 General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth 

its interpretation of applicable 

requirements for purposes of evaluating 

redesignation requests when an area is 

attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 

13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that 

the requirements for RFP and other 

measures designed to provide for 

attainment do not apply in evaluating 

redesignation requests because those 

nonattainment planning requirements 

‘‘have no meaning’’ for an area that has 

already attained the standard. Id. This 

interpretation was also set forth in the 

1992 Calcagni Memorandum. EPA’s 

understanding of section 172 also forms 

the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which 

was articulated with regard to PM2.5 in 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a 

state’s obligation to submit most of the 

attainment planning requirements that 

would otherwise apply, including an 

attainment demonstration and planning 

SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9).12 Courts have upheld EPA’s 

interpretation of section 172(c)(1)’s 

‘‘reasonably available’’ control measures 

and control technology as meaning only 

those controls that advance attainment, 

which precludes the need to require 

additional measures where an area is 

already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 

F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. 

Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 

735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Therefore, because attainment has 

been reached in the Allentown Area, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and section 

172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACM are no longer 

considered to be applicable for purposes 

of redesignation as long as the Area 

continues to attain the standard until 

redesignation. Section 172(c)(2)’s 

requirement that nonattainment plans 

contain provisions promoting 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment is also not relevant for 

purposes of redesignation because EPA 

has determined that the Allentown Area 

has monitored attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, 

because the Allentown Area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and is no longer subject to a RFP 

requirement, the requirement to submit 

the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is not applicable for purposes 

of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) 

requires the SIP to contain control 

measures necessary to provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. Because 

attainment has been reached, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

The requirement under section 

172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA’s 

clean data determination for 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 Area. 

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 

submittal, Pennsylvania submitted a 

2007 base year emissions inventory for 

the Area for 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 onroad mobile sources. The pollutants that 

comprise the inventory are NOX, VOC, 

PM2.5, NH3, and SO2. 

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 

Area. 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– 

1 and C–1 of Pennsylvania’s submittals 

and the emissions inventory technical 

support document (TSD) dated 

December 17, 2014, which is available 

in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. The summary of the 

2007 base year emissions inventory in 

tons per year (tpy) are shown in Table 

2. 

TABLE 2—ALLENTOWN AREA 2007 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector PM2.5 PM10 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Point ................................................................................. 3,565 4,641 54,071 13,663 1,151 31 

Area .................................................................................. 2,150 6,415 2,552 1,987 8,266 582 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 536 647 118 15,857 6,936 245 

Onroad ............................................................................. 256 272 158 3,177 2,685 3 

Total .......................................................................... 6,507 11,975 56,900 34,685 19,038 861 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6029 

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. 

Attainment.’’ Nevertheless, 

Pennsylvania currently has an approved 

NSR program, codified in the 

Commonwealth’s regulations at 25 Pa. 

Code 127.201 et seq. 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 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will 

become effective in the Allentown Area 

upon redesignation to attainment. 

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, 

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 a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the Area for at least 10 years 

after redesignation, through 2025. 

Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA 

approve this SIP revision as meeting the 

requirement of section 175A of the 

CAA. Once approved, the maintenance 

plan for the Area will ensure that the 

SIP for Pennsylvania meets the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the Area. 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 

(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 Area to attainment for 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 

Area will meet all applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA for purposes of redesignating 

the Area to attainment for 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 Area 

for purposes of redesignaton to 

attainment for 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 Area’s 2007 emissions 

inventory (submitted as part of the 

maintenance plan) as meeting the 

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

CAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, upon approval of 

the 2007 emissions inventory, 

Pennsylvania will have satisfied all 

applicable requirements under part D of 

Title I of the CAA for the Area. 

3. Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the area 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. In making this 

demonstration, Pennsylvania has 

calculated the change in emissions 

between 2005, which is the year used to 

designate the Area as nonattainment, 

and 2007, which is one of the years the 

Area monitored attainment, as shown in 

Table 3. The reduction in emissions 

(negative values) in tpy, and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality from 2005 to 2007 in the Area 

can be attributed to a number of 

regulatory control measures that have 

been implemented in the Area and 

contributing areas in recent years. For 

more information on EPA’s analysis of 

the 2005 and 2007 emissions 

inventories, see EPA’s emissions 

inventory TSD dated December 17, 

2014, available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking action. 

TABLE 3—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2005 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE ALLENTOWN AREA

Change from 2005 to 2007 PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Point & Area Sources .............................................................................. ¥1,023 ¥6,848 ¥5,194 ¥2,660 ¥507 

Highway Vehicle Sources ........................................................................ 340 ¥136 5,204 ¥536 ¥261 

Nonroad Sources ..................................................................................... ¥17 ¥151 ¥66 ¥243 0 

Total .................................................................................................. ¥699 ¥7,136 ¥57 ¥3,439 ¥768 

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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 28 

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). EPA promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR as an emission trading 

program for EGUs. As discussed 

previously, pursuant to the DC Circuit 

Court’s October 23, 2014 Order, the stay 

of CSAPR has been lifted and 

implementation of CSAPR began in 

January 2015. EPA expects that the 

implementation of CSAPR will preserve 

the reductions achieved by CAIR and 

result in additional SO2 and NOX

emission reductions throughout the 

maintenance period. 

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 percent, 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 is 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 

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 

Allentown Area in early 2004, and 

applies to model year 1975 and newer 

gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000 

pounds and under. The program, 

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on 

October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313), consists 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6031 

of annual on-board 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). Amendments to the 

Consumer Products regulations was 

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on 

October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717). 

Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and 

Solvents Regulation 

Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in 

2010 to control VOC emissions from 

adhesives, sealants, primers and 

solvents. This regulation was approved 

into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 

26, 2012 (77 FR 59090). 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality in the Allentown Area 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 Allentown Area. 

B. Maintenance Plan 

On September 5, 2014, PADEP 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

Allentown 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 

plan 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 Allentown 

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 Lehigh and 

Northampton 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 emissions by application of 

emission factors developed by the MidAtlantic 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 Area and EPA’s analysis 

of the emissions inventory, see 

Appendices B–1 and C–1 of the 

Pennsylvania submittal and the 

emissions inventory TSD dated 

December 17, 2014, which is available 

in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. 

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 Area 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, NH3, and PM2.5 will 

remain at or below the attainment year 

2007 emissions levels throughout the 

Area through the year 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 Area has 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 

Area 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 

NOX ozone season emissions cap of 

3,418 tons applies for all of these units. 

CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208) 

EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace 

CAIR as an emission trading program for 

EGUs. As discussed previously, 

pursuant to the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of 

CSAPR has been lifted and EPA began 

implementation of CSAPR in January 

2015. EPA expects that the 

implementation of CSAPR will preserve 

the reductions achieved by CAIR and 

result in additional SO2 and NOX

emission reductions throughout the 

maintenance period. 

Regulation of Cement Kilns 

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

approved amendments to 25 Pa. Code 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 percent 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 Allentown Area. 

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 NAAQS. 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 submittal. 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 TSD 

dated December 17, 2014, which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. Table 5 provides 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 Area in tpy. 

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

ALLENTOWN AREA

PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3 VOC 

2007 (attainment) ..................................................................................... 6,507 34,685 56,900 861 19,038 

2017 (interim) ........................................................................................... 5,875 20,471 27,731 809 14,627 

2017 (projected decrease) ....................................................................... 682 14,214 29,169 52 4,411 

2025 (maintenance) ................................................................................. 5,745 17,281 26,850 807 13,133 

2025 (projected decrease) ....................................................................... 762 17,467 30,050 54 5,905 

As shown in Table 5, the projected 

levels of PM2.5, NOX, SO2, NH3, and 

VOC are well under the 2007 attainment 

year levels for each of these pollutants. 

Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year 

maintenance period. 

While Pennsylvania’s maintenance 

plan submitted for the Allentown Area 

for CAA section 175A did not 

specifically include or mention the SO2

emission limits EPA imposed on the 

Portland Generating Station located in 

Northampton County, Pennsylvania 

(Portland Facility) in 2011, EPA notes 

that those limits will likely support the 

Allentown Area’s ability to maintain the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS going forward 

because SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5. 

Thus, reduced SO2 emissions from the 

Portland Facility should also reduce 

subsequent PM2.5 formation. Pursuant to 

section 126 of the CAA, on November 7, 

2011, EPA promulgated SO2 emission 

limitations and reporting requirements 

for the coal-fired boilers (Units 1 and 2) 

at the Portland Facility after EPA made 

a finding that the coal-fired units at the 

Portland Facility significantly 

contribute to nonattainment for the 1- 

hour 2010 SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. 

See 76 FR 69052 (relating to final 

response to petition from New Jersey 

regarding SO2 emissions from the 

Portland Facility). The federally 

enforceable SO2 emission limitations 

and reporting requirements for the coalfired boilers (Units 1 and 2) at the 

Portland Facility are established in 40 

CFR 52.2039. 

The SO2 emission limits in 40 CFR 

52.2039 represent an 81 percent 

reduction of SO2 emissions from the 

Portland Facility’s previously permitted 

levels. In 2010, Portland emitted 

approximately 23,000 tons of SO2. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6033 

limits and requirements in 40 CFR 

52.2039 are ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

as defined in 25 Pa. Code § 121.1 (which 

is included in the federally enforceable 

Pennsylvania SIP) because they have 

been promulgated or approved by the 

EPA under the CAA or the regulations 

adopted under the CAA through 

rulemaking. As applicable requirements, 

they must therefore be included in a 

Title V operating permit for the Portland 

Facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code 

§ 127.502. 

3. Monitoring Network 

Pennsylvania’s maintenance plan 

includes 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 at the Freemansburg monitoring 

site in Northampton County. In its 

September 5, 2014 submittal, 

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 Area, 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 

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 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 Area. 

5. Contingency Measures 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct any 

violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS that occurs in the Area 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 plan 

describes 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 when the annual 

mean PM2.5 concentration exceeds 35.0 

mg/m3 in a single calendar year within 

the Area, or if the periodic emissions 

inventory for the Area exceeds 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 35.0 

mg/m3 within the Area. 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 

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 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan 

for the Allentown Area 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 September 5, 2014, 

Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions 

that contain the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5

and NOX onroad mobile source budgets 

for Lehigh and Northampton 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). That 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The 

MVEBs are presented in Table 6. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6034 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14For 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. 

TABLE 6—MVEBS FOR LEHIGH AND

NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR

NAAQS, IN TPY

Year PM2.5 NOX

2017 .................. 297 8,081 

2025 .................. 234 5,303 

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 plan, 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 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 also initiating the process for 

determining whether or not the MVEBs 

are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. The publication of 

this rule 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/state

resources/transconf/adequacy.htm).14

EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and 

finds them consistent with the 

maintenance plan and that the budgets 

meet the criteria for adequacy and 

approval in 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for Lehigh and Northampton 

Counties for transportation conformity 

purposes. Additional information 

pertaining to the review of the MVEBs 

can be found in the TSD, ‘‘Adequacy 

Findings for the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance 

Plan for the Allentown 2006 Fine 

Particulate National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Nonattainment Area,’’ 

dated December 1, 2014, available on 

line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0789. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s request to redesignate 

the Allentown Area from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has evaluated 

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request 

and determined that the Area meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The monitoring 

data demonstrates that the Area had 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

as determined by EPA in a prior 

rulemaking, and, for the reasons 

discussed herein, that it will continue to 

attain the NAAQS. Final approval of 

this redesignation request would change 

the designation of the Allentown Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

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

also proposing to approve the associated 

maintenance plan for the Area as a 

revision to the Pennsylvania SIP 

because it meets the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA as described 

previously in this proposed rulemaking. 

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 for Lehigh and 

Northampton Counties for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

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 

request, maintenance plan, 2007 base 

year emissions inventory, and MVEBs 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the Allentown 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6035 

Dated: January 21, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02207 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037; FRL–9921–81– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS45 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl 

Chloride and Copolymers Production 

Area Sources Wastewater Limit 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl 

Chloride and Copolymers Production 

Area Sources. In addition to this 

proposed rule, the EPA is publishing a 

direct final rule that withdraws the total 

non-vinyl chloride organic hazardous 

air pollutant (TOHAP) area source 

process wastewater emission standards 

for new and existing polyvinyl chloride 

and copolymers area sources. If we 

receive no adverse comment, we will 

not take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by March 13, 2015. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

February 9, 2015, the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on February 11, 2015 

from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) 

to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. If the EPA holds a 

public hearing, the EPA will keep the 

record of the hearing open for 30 days 

after completion of the hearing to 

provide an opportunity for submission 

of rebuttal and supplementary 

information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0037. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0037. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0037. 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 Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0037. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the 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 the EPA without 

going through http://

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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

We request that you also send a 

separate copy of each comment to the 

contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–4607; fax 

number: (919) 541–2406; and email 

address: howard.jodi@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

The EPA is proposing this rule to take 

action on amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Copolymers Production Area Sources 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD). We 

are proposing to withdraw the area 

source process wastewater emission 

standards for new and existing sources 

in Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DDDDDD. In addition, the EPA 

has published a direct final rule 

withdrawing the area source process 

wastewater TOHAP emission standards 

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register because we 

view this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment on a distinct portion of the 

direct final rule, we will withdraw that 

portion of the rule and it will not take 

effect. In this instance, we would 

address all public comments in any 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 

If we receive adverse comment on a 

distinct provision of the direct final 

rule, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

indicating which provisions we are 

withdrawing. The provisions that are 

not withdrawn will become effective on 

the date set out in the direct final rule, 

notwithstanding adverse comment on 

any other provision. We do not intend 

to institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

The regulatory text for this proposal is 

identical to that for the direct final rule 

published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. For further supplementary 

information, the detailed rationale for 

this proposal and the regulatory 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS