Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76251 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it does 

not have implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 117.875 to read as follows: 

§ 117.875 Coquille River. 

The draws of the US 101 highway 

bridge, mile 3.5 at Bandon, Oregon, 

need not be opened for the passage of 

vessels; however, the draws shall be 

restored to operable condition within 6 

months after notification by the District 

Commander to do so. 

Dated: December 5, 2014. 

R.T. Gromlich, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29851 Filed 12–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0147; FRL–9920–70– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request 

and Associated Maintenance Plan for 

the Reading, Pennsylvania 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard, and 2007 Base Year 

Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

(Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) 

request to redesignate to attainment the 

Reading, Pennsylvania nonattainment 

area (Reading Area or the Area) for the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Pennsylvania State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), the Reading Area 

maintenance plan to show maintenance 

of the 1997 annual 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 Reading Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA 

is proposing to approve for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA is also proposing to find adequate 

the MVEBs for Berks County. Finally, 

EPA is proposing to approve, as a 

revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, the 

2007 base year emissions inventory for 

the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0147 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0147, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0147. 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, 

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: 

Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by 

email at powers.marilyn@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 EME Homer City Decision 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 DC 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 standard or the standard). 

In the same rulemaking, 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 January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), 

EPA published air quality area 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In that rulemaking action, EPA 

designated the Reading Area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Reading Area is 

comprised of Berks County in 

Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339 

(Pennsylvania). Since the Reading Area 

is designated nonattainment for the 

annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 

today’s proposed rulemaking action 

addresses the redesignation to 

attainment only for this standard. 

On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863), 

EPA determined that the Reading Area 

had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) 

and based on this determination, the 

requirements for the Reading Area to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIP 

revisions related to the attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are 

suspended until such time as: the Area 

is redesignated to attainment for the 

standard, at which time the section 

51.1004(c) requirements no longer 

apply, or EPA determines that the Area 

has again violated the standard, at 

which time such plans are required to 

be submitted. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR 

45424), EPA determined that the 

Reading Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory 

attainment date of April 5, 2010. EPA’s 

review of the most recent certified 

monitoring data for the Area shows that 

the Area continues to attain the 

standard. 

On November 25, 2013, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Reading Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual 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 Areas for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is 

proposing to approve for transportation 

conformity purposes. PADEP also 

submitted a 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), and (ammonia) NH3. 

EPA is proposing to approve as a SIP 

revision the maintenance plan for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2007 

emissions inventory to meet the 

emissions inventory requirement of 

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

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76253 

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. 

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 (EPA’s Analysis 

of Pennsylvania’s SIP Submittal) of 

today’s proposed rulemaking action. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the ‘‘SIPs; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the CAA Amendments of 

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

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘1992 Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

(2) ‘‘SIP Actions Submitted in Response 

to CAA Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

and (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A of the CAA, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after approval of a redesignation of 

an area to attainment. Eight years after 

the redesignation, the state must submit 

a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation, as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future PM2.5 violations. 

The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum 

provides additional guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan. The 

memorandum states that a maintenance 

plan should address the following 

provisions: (1) An attainment emissions 

inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain 

the existing monitoring network; (4) 

verification of continued attainment; 

and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment for 

a given NAAQS. These emission control 

strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and maintenance plans create MVEBs 

based on onroad mobile source 

emissions for the relevant criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors, 

where appropriate, to address pollution 

from onroad transportation sources. The 

MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

onroad vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from all other sources in the 

area, will provide attainment, RFP, or 

maintenance, as applicable. The budget 

serves as a ceiling on emissions from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. 

The maintenance plan for the Reading 

Area 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 subsection C of 

section V (Transportation Conformity) 

of today’s proposed rulemaking action 

and in a technical support document 

(TSD) dated April 29, 2014, which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignation of the Reading Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that 

the Area meets the requirements for 

redesignation for the 1997 annual PM2.5

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

the CAA. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the associated maintenance 

plan for the Reading Area as a revision 

to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for the Area. The approval of the 

maintenance plan is one of the CAA 

criteria for redesignation of the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Pennsylvania’s maintenance 

plan is designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Reading Area for 10 

years after redesignation. 

EPA previously determined that the 

Reading Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 45424, 

(July 27, 2011). In this rulemaking 

action, EPA proposes to find that the 

Area continues to attain the standard. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

2007 comprehensive emissions 

inventory that includes PM2.5, SO2, 

NOX, VOC, and NH3 for the Reading 

Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania 

SIP for the 1997 annual 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 EME Homer City Decision 

1. Background 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (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 the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (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 capand-trade programs would have 

superseded the CAIR cap-and-trade 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 

section (1)(c). A monitoring site’s design value is 

compared to the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS to determine compliance with the 

standard. 

programs. Numerous parties filed 

petitions for review of CSAPR, and on 

December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

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

2011), Order at 2. 

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

Court issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and once 

again ordering continued 

implementation of CAIR. EME Homer 

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

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

Court subsequently denied EPA’s 

petition for rehearing en banc. EME 

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

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

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

then petitioned the Supreme Court for a 

writ of certiorari, and the Supreme 

Court granted the petitions on June 24, 

2013. EPA v. EME Homer City 

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

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s decision regarding CSAPR, and 

remanded that decision to the D.C. 

Circuit Court to resolve remaining 

issues in accordance with its ruling. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA moved 

to have the stay of CSAPR lifted by the 

D.C. Circuit Court 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 

Court 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. 

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 

Reading Area in 2009 (September 25, 

2009, 74 FR 48863) 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 

includes 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 Berks 

County would have a PM2.5 annual 

design value 2 below the level of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard 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–57), 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 

Reading Area confirms that the PM2.5

annual design value for the Area 

remained well below the 1997 annual 

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 Reading 

Area’s attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard 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. In sum, 

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 NSR Program 

for PM2.5’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

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

found that EPA erred in implementing 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant 

to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title 

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

particulate-matter-specific provisions of 

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

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

the states had worked towards meeting 

the air quality goals of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA 

regulations and guidance derived from 

subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, 

EPA took this history into account and 

responded to the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

remand by proposing to set a new 

deadline for any remaining submissions 

that may be required for a moderate 

nonattainment area due to the 

applicability of subpart 4. 

On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566) EPA 

finalized the ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of SIP 

Provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ rule (the PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule). The rule identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards, and sets a new 

deadline for states to submit attainmentrelated and other SIP elements required 

for these areas pursuant to subpart 4. 

The rule also identifies EPA guidance 

that is currently available regarding 

subpart 4 requirements. The PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule specifies December 31, 2014 as the 

deadline for the states to submit any 

additional attainment-related SIPelements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/ 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to 

submit SIPs addressing the 

nonattainment NSR requirements in 

subpart 4. Therefore, as explained in 

detail in the following section, since 

Pennsylvania submitted its request to 

redesignate the Reading Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on 

November 25, 2013, any additional 

attainment-related SIP elements that 

may be needed for the Reading Area to 

meet the applicable requirements of 

subpart 4 were not due at the time that 

Pennsylvania submitted its 

redesignation request for the Area. 

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 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule on the Reading Area 

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 

Reading Area to attainment. Even in 

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

redesignation for the Area is appropriate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76255 

3Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

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

the CAA. 

under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding 

interpretations of the CAA 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 Reading Area redesignation 

request and disregards the provisions of 

its 1997 annual PM2.5 implementation 

rule remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, 

the States’ request for redesignation 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 

Area’s maintenance plan, which EPA 

views as approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements Under 

Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the 

Reading Area Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling rejected 

EPA’s reasons for implementing the 

PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with 

the provisions of subpart 1, and 

remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 

could address implementation of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under 

subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating the 

Commonwealth’s redesignation request 

for the Reading 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 CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

redesignation of the Reading 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 ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (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’’).3 In this case, at the time 

that Pennsylvania submitted its 

November 25, 2013 redesignation 

request, the requirements under subpart 

4 were not due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the redesignation of the 

Reading Area, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the Commonwealth 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 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). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4Sierra 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). 

5PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

6The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

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

redesignation is discussed in this rulemaking 

action. 

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 April 25, 2014 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadline Rule 

compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation requests are 

submitted. Pennsylvania submitted its 

redesignation request for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS on November 25, 

2013, which is prior to the deadline by 

which the Reading Area is required to 

meet the applicable requirements 

pursuant to subpart 4. 

To require the Pennsylvania’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation 

request for the 1997 annual 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 the 

Commonwealth a unique and earlier 

deadline for compliance solely on the 

basis of submitting its redesignation 

request for the Reading Area. The D.C. 

Circuit Court recognized the inequity of 

this type of retroactive impact in Sierra 

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

2002),4 where it upheld the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive EPA’s determination that the 

St. Louis 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 the States by 

rejecting their redesignation request for 

an area that is already attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the requests. For 

EPA now to reject the redesignation 

request solely because Pennsylvania did 

not expressly address subpart 4 

requirements which have not yet come 

due, 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 Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

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

decision requires that, in the context of 

pending redesignations for the 1997 

annual 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 Reading Area still 

qualifies for redesignation to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

explained subsequently, EPA believes 

that the redesignation request for the 

Reading Area, though not expressed in 

terms of subpart 4 requirements, 

substantively meet the requirements of 

that subpart for purposes of 

redesignating the Area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Reading 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) 5

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 Reading 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 

1.6 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76257 

7These attainment planning requirements 

include attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

8As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

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

decision should be interpreted so as to impose these 

requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, supra. 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,7 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining 

the PM2.5 NAAQS is viewed as having 

satisfied the attainment planning 

requirements for these subparts. For 

redesignations, EPA has for many years 

interpreted attainment-linked 

requirements as not applicable for areas 

attaining the standard. In the General 

Preamble, EPA stated that: ‘‘The 

requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that 

the area has already attained. Showing 

that the State will make RFP towards 

attainment will, therefore, have no 

meaning at that point.’’ 

The General Preamble also explained 

that: ‘‘[t]he section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

RFP and attainment by the applicable 

date. These requirements no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans . . . 

provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas.’’ Id. EPA 

similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum that, ‘‘The requirements 

for reasonable further progress and other 

measures needed for attainment will not 

apply for redesignations because they 

only have meaning for areas not 

attaining the standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 

4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to 

mean that attainment-related 

requirements specific to subpart 4 

should be imposed retroactively 8, or 

prior to December 13, 2014 and, thus, 

were due prior to Pennsylvania’s 

redesignation request, those 

requirements do not apply to an area 

that is attaining the 1997 annual 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 the1997 annual 

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 notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the Reading 

Area has attained and continues to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Under its longstanding interpretation, 

EPA is proposing to determine here that 

the Reading Area meets the attainmentrelated plan requirements of subparts 1 

and 4 for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing to 

conclude that all applicable 

requirements to submit an attainment 

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

RACM determination under section 

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

demonstration under 189(c)(1), and 

contingency measure requirements 

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

purposes of evaluating 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 ammonia] as . . . 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and 

to evaluate sources of VOC [and 

ammonia] 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 ammonia 

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: ‘‘Ammonia is a precursor to 

fine particulate matter, making it a 

precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For 

a PM10 nonattainment area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively 

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

[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Reading Area for the 1997 annual 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9Under 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. 

10The Reading 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. 

11See, 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). 

12See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

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

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 Reading Area, EPA believes 

that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the Area for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

Reading Area has attained the 1997 

annual 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.9

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 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained 

subsequently, we do not believe that 

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 Pennsylvania’s SIP has 

met the provisions of section 189(e) 

with respect to NH3 and VOC as 

precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that: (1) The Reading 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.10 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 Reading Area, 

which is attaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, at present NH3 and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 annual 

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 D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision as 

calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of 

NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the 

attainment planning provisions of 

subpart 4, those provisions in and of 

themselves do not require additional 

controls of these precursors for an area 

that already qualifies for redesignation. 

Nor does EPA believe that requiring 

Pennsylvania to address precursors 

differently than it has already would 

result in a substantively different 

outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.11 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.12 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Reading Area 

has already attained the 1997 annual 

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 D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision is construed to 

impose an obligation, in evaluating this 

redesignation request, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation 

of the Reading Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In the context of a 

redesignation, the Area has shown that 

it has attained the standards. Moreover, 

Pennsylvania has shown and EPA has 

proposed to determine that attainment 

of the 1997 annual 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 standard 

(see section V.A.3 of this rulemaking 

notice). It follows logically that no 

further control of additional precursors 

is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not 

view the January 4, 2013 decision of the 

D.C. Circuit Court as precluding 

redesignation of the Reading Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual 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 

Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading Area: (1) To 

redesignate the Area to attainment for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76259 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to 

approve into the Pennsylvania SIP, the 

associated maintenance plan for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and, (3) to 

approve the 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory into the 

Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy section 

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

Area, one of the criteria for 

redesignation. EPA’s proposed 

approvals of the redesignation request 

and maintenance plan for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS are based upon 

EPA’s determination that the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is proposing 

in this rulemaking action, and that all 

other redesignation criteria have been 

met for the Reading Area. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 

and 2025 MVEBs for Berks County, 

Pennsylvania, for transportation 

conformity purposes. The following is a 

description of how the Pennsylvania 

November 25, 2013 submittal satisfies 

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

of the CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

A. Redesignation Request 

1. Attainment 

As noted previously, in the final 

rulemaking action dated July 29, 2011 

(76 FR 45424), EPA determined that the 

Reading Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date. EPA based this 

determination of attainment upon 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the period of 2006–2008 showing that 

the Area had attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Further discussion of 

pertinent air quality issues underlying 

this determination was provided in the 

July 29, 2011 final rulemaking action for 

EPA’s determination of attainment for 

this Area. 

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request 

submittal includes the historic 

monitoring data for the annual PM2.5

monitoring site in the Reading Area. 

The historic monitoring data shows that 

the Reading Area has attained and 

continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. PADEP assures that all PM2.5

monitoring data for the Reading Area 

has been quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified by the State in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58.10. 

Furthermore, EPA has reviewed the 

most recent ambient air quality PM2.5

monitoring data for PM2.5 in the Reading 

Area, as submitted by the 

Commonwealth and recorded in EPA’s 

Air Quality System (AQS). Table 1 

shows the PM2.5 quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and state-certified 

2008–2013 air quality data which 

indicates that the Reading Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See the AQS design 

value reports dated April 16, 2014 and 

October 8, 2014 included in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking action. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES IN THE READING AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR 2008 THROUGH 2013

(μg/m 3) 

Monitor ID No. 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

420110011 (Reading Airport) .......................................................................... 11.1 10.7 10.9 11.0 

The Reading Area’s recent monitoring 

data supports EPA’s previous 

determinations that the Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In addition, as discussed subsequently 

with respect to the Reading Area’s 

maintenance plan, the Commonwealth 

has committed to continue monitoring 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Reading Area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Reading 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 source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirements 

(PSD); (4) provisions for the 

implementation of Part D requirements 

for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions 

for air pollution modeling; and, (6) 

provisions for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address the interstate 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, 

October 27, 1998), amendments to the 

NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 

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

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

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

CAA requirements for a state are not 

linked with a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification in 

that state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that these requirements are 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that the 

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

CAA not connected with nonattainment 

plan submissions and not linked with 

an area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13This 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 VI of this notice. However, the Clean Data 

Policy portion of the implementation rule was not 

at issue in that case. 

redesignation. The Reading 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 and 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 76 FR 47062, 

August 4, 2011. These requirements are, 

however, statewide requirements that 

are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the Reading 

Area. Therefore, EPA believes that these 

SIP elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

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. The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I discusses the 

evaluation of these requirements in the 

context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard. See 57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992. 

As noted previously, EPA has 

determined that the Reading Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 CAA 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 reasonable further 

progress 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 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 reasonable further 

progress (RFP), RACM, and contingency 

measures under section 172(c)(9).13

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 Reading 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. The section 172(c)(2) 

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 Reading Area 

has monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, 

because the Reading Area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is no 

longer subject to an 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 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and is the only 

remaining requirement under section 

172 of the CAA to be considered for 

purposes of redesignation of the 

Reading 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, the Commonwealth 

submitted a 2007 base year emissions 

inventory for the Reading Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS which 

includes emissions estimates that cover 

the general source categories of point 

sources, nonroad mobile sources, area 

sources, and on-road mobile sources. 

The pollutants that comprise the 

inventory are NOX, SO2, PM2.5, VOC, 

and NH3. 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the Reading Area 

2007 base year emissions inventory in 

accordance with section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. 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 development of the 

2007 base year emissions inventory, see 

Appendix C of the Commonwealth’s 

submittal, and, for information on EPA’s 

analysis, see the emissions inventory 

technical support document (TSD) 

dated April 18, 2014, both available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking 

action. A summary of the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory is shown in Table 

2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76261 

TABLE 2—READING AREA 2007 EMISSIONS IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3

Point ..................................................................................... 1,272 5,793 15,140 1,237 21 

Area ...................................................................................... 1,859 1,289 2,389 5,877 3,632 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 383 11,374 81 4,415 163 

Onroad ................................................................................. 191 2,532 106 2,096 2 

Total .............................................................................. 3,704 20,988 17,716 13,625 3,818 

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

the identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

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

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since the PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A more detailed rationale 

for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 

entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ Nevertheless, 

Pennsylvania currently has an approved 

NSR program, codified in Pa. Chapter 

127, Subchapter E. See 77 FR 41276, 

August 13, 2012 (approving NSR 

revisions into the SIP). However, 

Pennsylvania’s PSD program for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS will become 

effective in the Reading Area upon 

redesignation to attainment. See 49 FR 

33128, August 21, 1984 (approving PSD 

program into the SIP). 

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

the SIP to meet the applicable 

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

CAA. As noted previously, EPA believes 

the Pennsylvania SIP meets 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 

Reading Area to attainment status, 

Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions to 

provide for maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area 

through 2025, which is at least 10 years 

after redesignation. 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 

Reading Area will ensure that the SIP 

for Pennsylvania meets the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Area. EPA’s analysis of 

the maintenance plan is provided in 

subsection B of section V (Maintenance 

Plan) 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 Reading Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA determines that upon 

final approval of the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory as 

proposed in this rulemaking action, the 

Reading Area will meet all applicable 

SIP requirements under part D of Title 

I of the CAA for purposes of 

redesignating the Area to attainment. 

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 for the Area for 

purposes of redesignaton to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with section 110(k) of the 

CAA. As noted above, in this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the Reading Area 2007 

emissions inventory (submitted as part 

of its maintenance plan) as meeting the 

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

CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, upon final approval of the 

2007 emissions inventory, EPA will 

have satisfied all applicable 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA for the Reading 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 2002, one of the years used to 

designate the Area as nonattainment, 

and 2007, one of the years the Area 

monitored attainment, as shown in 

Table 3. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, 

and Former NOX Budget Trading Program, 2012 

Progress Report (December 2013), available at 

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

ARPCAIR_12_downloads/ARPCAIR12_01.pdf; 

Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and 

Former NOX Budget Trading Program, 2012 

Progress Report (May 2014), available at http://

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR_12_

downloads/ARPCAIR12_02.pdf. 

15Although 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. 

TABLE 3—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2002 BASE YEAR TO 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR IN THE READING AREA (TPY) 

Sector 2002 2007 Decrease 

PM2.5: 

Stationary Point .................................................................................................................... 577 1,272 ¥695 

Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2,608 1,859 750 

Onroad .................................................................................................................................. 459 383 77 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................ 212 191 22 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 3,856 3,705 154 

NOX: 

Stationary Point .................................................................................................................... 5,363 5,793 ¥431 

Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1,502 1,289 213 

Onroad .................................................................................................................................. 14,922 11,374 3,548 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................ 3,323 2,532 791 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 26,110 21,988 4,121 

SO2: 

Stationary Point .................................................................................................................... 14,834 15,140 ¥305 

Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2,131 2,389 ¥258 

Onroad .................................................................................................................................. 306 81 225 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................ 242 106 136 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 17,513 17,716 ¥202 

VOC: 

Stationary Point .................................................................................................................... 1,740 1,237 503 

Area ...................................................................................................................................... 8,819 5,877 2,942 

Onroad .................................................................................................................................. 5,237 4,415 823 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................ 2,331 2,096 235 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 18,127 13,625 4,203 

NH3: 

Stationary Point .................................................................................................................... 9 21 ¥11 

Area ...................................................................................................................................... 4,284 3,632 651 

Onroad .................................................................................................................................. 180 163 17 

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

Total ............................................................................................................................... 4,475 3,818 1,314 

It should be noted that the 2002 

inventory for PM2.5 did not include 

condensible emissions for many 

stationary point sources in the 

Commonwealth, and that the 2007 

inventory was later augmented to 

include calculated condensible 

emissions for EGUs, resulting in an 

apparent increase of PM2.5 emissions in 

2007 for stationary point source 

emissions. Similarly, emissions of NOX

and SO2 for stationary and area sources 

show small increases in 2007. 

Nevertheless, the Area was able to attain 

the standard during the time period that 

included 2007, as decreases in other 

precursors more than compensated for 

any increases. 

The reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality from 2002 to 2007 in the 

Reading 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 2002 and 2007 emissions 

inventory, see EPA’s emissions 

inventory TSD dated April 18, 2014, 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. 

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. Data collected 

from EPA’s long-term national air 

quality and deposition monitoring 

networks show that these regional capand-trade programs have been effective 

in reducing emissions of SO2 and NOX

nationwide.14

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.15 Affected states were 

required to comply with Phase I of the 

SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II 

beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. By 

imposing an emissions cap regionally, 

the NOX SIP Call reduced NOX

emissions from large EGUs and large 

non-EGUs such as industrial boilers, 

internal combustion engines, and 

cement kilns. In response to the NOX

SIP Call, Pennsylvania adopted its NOX

Budget Trading Program regulations for 

EGUs and large industrial boilers, with 

emission reductions starting in May 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76263 

2003. Pennsylvania’s NOX Budget 

Trading Program regulation was 

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on 

August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795). To meet 

other requirements of the NOX SIP Call, 

Pennsylvania adopted NOX control 

regulations for cement plants and 

internal combustion engines, with 

emission reductions starting in May 

2005. These regulations were approved 

into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 

29, 2006 (71 FR 57428). 

CAIR 

As previously noted, CAIR (70 FR 

25162, May 12, 2005) created regional 

cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, 

including Pennsylvania. EPA approved 

the Commonwealth’s CAIR regulation, 

codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 145, 

Subchapter D, into the Pennsylvania SIP 

on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65446). In 

2009, the CAIR ozone season NOX

trading program superseded the NOX

Budget Trading Program, although the 

emission reduction obligations of the 

NOX SIP Call were not rescinded. See 40 

CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). As of this 

proposal, CAIR remains in the 

Pennsylvania SIP. However, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as 

an emission trading program for EGUs. 

As discussed previously, pursuant to 

the D.C. Circuit’s October 23, 2014 

Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted 

and implementation of CSAPR will 

commence 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%, 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 starting in 2007. Recreational 

vehicle emission standards are being 

phased in from 2006 through 2012. 

Marine Diesel engine standards were 

phased in from 2006 through 2009. With 

full implementation of all of the 

nonroad spark-ignition engine and 

recreational engine standards, an overall 

80 percent reduction in NOX are 

expected by 2020. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

2002–2007 attainment period and 

additional emission reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period as 

the fleet turns over. 

Federal Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

As required by the CAA, EPA 

developed Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards to 

regulate emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants from a published list of 

industrial sources referred to as ‘‘source 

categories.’’ The MACT standards have 

been adopted and incorporated by 

reference in Section 6.6 of 

Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control 

Act and implementing regulations in 25 

Pa. Code § 127.35 and are also included 

in Federally enforceable permits issued 

by PADEP for affected sources. The 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boiler MACT standards (69 FR 

55217, September 13, 2004, and 76 FR 

15554, February 21, 2011) are estimated 

to reduce emissions of PM, SO2, and 

VOCs from major source boilers and 

process heaters nationwide. Also, the 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE) MACT will reduce NOX

and PM emissions from engines located 

at facilities such as pipeline compressor 

stations, chemical and manufacturing 

plants, and power plants. 

b. State Measures 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control 

Program 

In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control 

Program for model years starting in May 

2004. The program incorporates 

California standards by reference and 

required model year 2005 and beyond 

heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be 

certified to the California standards, 

which were more stringent than the 

Federal standards for model years 2005 

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 results in reduced 

emissions of NOX statewide. 

Vehicle Emission Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) program 

Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Emission I/M 

program was expanded into the Reading 

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 of annual on-board 

diagnostics and gas cap test for model 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 VOC emission limits 

[effective January 1, 2005] for numerous 

categories of consumer products, and 

applies statewide to any person who 

sells, supplies, offers for sale, or 

manufactures such consumer products 

on or after January 1, 2005 for use in 

Pennsylvania. It was approved into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004 

(69 FR 70895). 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality in the Reading Area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions. The reductions result from 

Federal and State requirements and 

regulation of precursors within 

Pennsylvania that affect the Reading 

Area. 

B. Maintenance Plan 

On November 25, 2013, PADEP 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

Reading Area for the 1997 annual 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, one of the years in the period 

during which the Reading Area 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, 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 Berks County that were 

directly reported by the facilities. Since 

the reported emissions did not include 

condensible emissions, the EGU 

inventory was augmented to account for 

condensibles by application of emission 

factors developed for the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) in 2008. 

The nonpoint source emissions 

inventory for 2007 was developed using 

2007 specific activity data along with 

EPA emission factors and the most 

recently available emission calculation 

methodologies. PADEP used 2008 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data 

to fill in any missing categories in the 

2007 inventory. 

For 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 acivity 

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 inventories submitted by 

PADEP for the Reading Area and EPA’s 

analysis of the inventories, see 

Appendix B of the Commonwealth’s 

submittal and see also EPA’s TSD dated 

April 18, 2014, both of which are 

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, and PM2.5 will remain 

at or below the attainment year 2007 

emissions levels throughout the Area 

through the year 2025. Although 

emissions of NH3 are projected to 

increase from 2007 to 2017 and from 

2007 to 2025, the increase will not affect 

the Area’s ability to maintain the 

standard because such increases are 

more than compensated by the 

significant reductions of the other 

precursors that are projected during the 

maintenance period. 

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 have occurred and 

will continue to occur through 2025. In 

addition, the following State and 

Federal regulations and programs 

ensure the continuing decline of SO2, 

NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the 

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. 

Regulation of Cement Kilns 

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

approved amendments to 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further 

reduce NOX emissions from cement 

kilns. The amendments established NOX

emission rate limits for long wet kilns, 

long dry kilns, and preheater and 

precalciner kilns that are lower by 35% 

to 63% from the previous limit of 6 

pounds of NOX per ton of clinker that 

applied to all kilns. The amendments 

became effective on April 15, 2011. 

Stationary Source VOC 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76265 

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 

National Low Emission Vehicle (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 almost 40 tons 

more NOX reductions than Tier II for the 

counties in the Reading Area. 

Two Pennsylvania regulations— 

Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling 

Act (approved into the Pennsylvania SIP 

on August 1, 2011, See 76 FR 45705) 

and Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler 

regulation (approved into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on September 20, 

2011, see 76 FR 58114)—were not 

included in the projection inventories, 

but may also assist in maintaining the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Also, EPA’s 

Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 

Standards (See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 

2014) establishes more stringent vehicle 

emissions standards and will reduce the 

sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 

2017. This fuel standard will achieve 

NOX reductions by further increasing 

the effectiveness of vehicle emission 

controls for both existing and new 

vehicles. Finally, with the lifting of the 

CSAPR stay by the DC Circuit Court on 

October 23, 3014, the implementation of 

CSAPR will preserve the reductions 

achieved by CAIR and will achieve 

additional emission reductions in the 

Area from upwind states. 

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 the 

Commonwealth’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 

detailed information on the projected 

inventories, see Appendices A–3, B–3, 

D–2, and E–3 of the State submittal, and 

for more information on EPA’s analysis 

of the emissions inventory, see EPA’s 

TSD dated April 18, 2014, both of which 

are available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking action. Table 4 

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. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISION OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR INVENTORY WITH 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED EMISSIONS IN THE

READING AREA (TPY) 

2007 2017 2025 Reductions 

2007–2017 

Reductions 

2007–2025 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 3,704 3,307 3,215 397 489 

NOX ...................................................................................... 20,988 12,386 10,186 8,602 10,802 

SO2 ...................................................................................... 17,716 15,567 15,908 2,149 1,808 

VOC ..................................................................................... 13,625 10,697 9,692 2,928 3,933 

NH3 ...................................................................................... 3,818 4,119 4,368 ¥301 ¥550 

As shown in Table 4, the projected 

levels of PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and VOC are 

under the 2007 attainment year levels 

for each of these pollutants. While the 

emissions of NH3 are projected to be 

higher than the 2007 inventory for this 

pollutant for both the interim year and 

the end-year, the decreases in the other 

precursors, particularly the significant 

reductions in NOX, more than 

compensate for the increase, therefore, 

the increase in NH3 is not considered to 

affect the Area’s ability to maintain the 

NAAQS. The projected emissions 

inventories show that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year 

maintenance period. Moreover, the 

modeling analysis conducted for the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the 

annual PM2.5 design value for this Area 

is expected to continue to decline 

through 2020. Given the significant 

decrease in overall precursor emissions 

projected through 2025, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2025. 

3. Monitoring Network 

Pennsylvania currently operates one 

PM2.5 monitor in the Reading Area, 

which is located at the Reading Airport. 

The Reading Area maintenance plan 

includes a commitment by PADEP to 

continue to operate its EPA-approved 

monitoring network, as necessary to 

demonstrate ongoing compliance with 

the NAAQS. In its November 25, 2013 

maintenance plan submittal, PADEP 

states 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

all PM2.5 precursors every three years in 

accordance with EPA’s Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR). 

Emissions information will be compared 

to the attainment year inventory (2007) 

to assure continued attainment with the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and will be 

used to assess emissions trends, as 

necessary. Also, as noted in the 

previous subsection, PADEP will 

continue to operate its monitoring 

system in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58 and remains obligated to qualityassure 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 of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Area. 

5. Contingency Measures 

The contingency plan provisions for 

maintenance plans are designed to 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs 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). 

The Reading maintenance plan 

includes a commitment by Pennsylvania 

to adopt and expeditiously implement 

necessary corrective actions in the event 

of a violation of the NAAQS, or in the 

event of certain triggers. The 

maintenance plan describes the 

procedures and schedule for the 

adoption and implementation of 

contingency measures to reduce 

emissions should an exceedance or a 

violation occur, and consists of a first 

level response and a second level 

response. 

A first level response is triggered 

when the annual mean PM2.5

concentration exceeds 15.5 mg/m3 in a 

single calendar year within the Reading 

Area, or if the periodic emissions 

inventory for the Reading 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 15.0 

mg/m3 within the Area. This would 

trigger an evaluation of the conditions 

causing the exceedance, 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. The 

Commonwealth’s rulemaking process 

and schedule for adoption and 

implementation of any necessary 

contingency measure is shown in the 

plan as being 18 months from PADEP’s 

receipt of approval to initiate 

rulemaking. 

For all of the reasons discussed in this 

section, EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s 1997 annual PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Reading 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 November 25, 2013, Pennsylvania 

submitted a SIP revision that contains 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

onroad mobile source budgets for the 

Reading Area comprised of Berks 

County, 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 was not disturbed by the litigation 

on the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

that emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. EPA issued conformity 

regulations to implement the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and 

May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 

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

actions were not part of the final 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule remanded to 

EPA by the D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC 

v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (January 4, 2013), 

because the Court concluded that EPA 

must implement that NAAQS pursuant 

to the PM-specific implementation 

provisions of subpart 4, rather than 

solely under the general provisions of 

subpart 1. That decision does not affect 

EPA’s proposed approval of the MVEBs 

for the Reading Area. The MVEBs are 

presented in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—MVEBS FOR BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS (TPY) 

Year PMPM2.5 NOX

2017 .......... 200 5,739 

2025 .......... 146 3,719 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 76267 

and all other emissions, the SIP will 

achieve its overall purpose, in this case 

providing for maintenance of the 1997 

annual 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. 

EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and 

found them consistent with the 

maintenance plan and that the budgets 

meet the criteria for adequacy and 

approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve as well as find adequate the 

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for Berks County for transportation 

conformity purposes. Additional 

information pertaining to the review of 

the MVEBs can be found in the TSD 

dated April 29, 2014, available on line 

at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0147. Any 

comments relating to EPA’s proposal to 

approve as well as find adequate the 

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for Berks County for transportation 

conformity purposes, as submitted by 

Pennsylvania, should be submitted in 

response to this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

request submitted by Pennsylvania to 

redesignate the Reading Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has 

evaluated the Commonwealth’s 

redesignation request and determined 

that it meets the redesignation criteria 

set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. The monitoring data demonstrates 

that the Reading Area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and, for the 

reasons discussed previously, that it 

will continue to attain the NAAQS. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Reading 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 

notice. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2007 base year emissions 

inventory as meeting the requirements 

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

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to 

approve as well as find adequate the 

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

submitted by Pennsylvania for Berks 

County for transportation purposes. 

Final approval of the redesignation 

request would change the designation of 

Reading Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual 

NAAQS. 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 Reading Area for the 1997 annual 

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 dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: December 4, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29777 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0831; FRL–9920–82– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS37 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2015 

Revisions and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Change in date for public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing a change in 

date for the public hearing for the 

proposed rule titled ‘‘Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program: 2015 Revision and 

Confidentiality Determinations for 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems’’. 

The original public hearing date was 

December 24, 2014, and the new public 

hearing date will be January 8, 2015. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

this proposal began on December 9, 

2014 (79 FR 73148) with the 

opportunity for a public hearing 15 days 

later on December 24, 2014. This notice 

announces that the public hearing date 

has been changed to January 8, 2015. 

Public comments for this proposal are 

due February 9, 2015. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS