22672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following 

FRAQMD rules: 10.9, 3.14, 3.20, 3.21 

and 3.22. In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

approving these local rules in a direct 

final action without prior proposal 

because we believe these SIP revisions 

are not controversial. If we receive 

adverse comments, however, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph or section of this 

rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09405 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902; FRL–9926–71– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request 

and Associated Maintenance Plan for 

the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for 

the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

December 3, 2014 request to redesignate 

to attainment the Johnstown 

nonattainment area (Johnstown Area or 

Area) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to approve 

as a revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) the 

associated maintenance plan that was 

submitted with the redesignation 

request, to show maintenance of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The 

maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Area for both NAAQS, 

which EPA is proposing to approve for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to 

approve as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP the 2007 emissions 

inventory that is also included in the 

maintenance plan for the Area for both 

NAAQS. This rulemaking action to 

propose approval of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

redesignation request and associated 

maintenance plan for the Johnstown 

Area is based on EPA’s determination 

that Pennsylvania has met the criteria 

for redesignation to attainment specified 

in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both 

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0902 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–2014–0902, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Quality 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– 

0902. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22673 

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. Copies of 

the State submittal are available at the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

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

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effect of the Court Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court Decision 

Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under 

Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s 

Submittal 

A. Redesignation Request 

B. Maintenance Plan 

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were established on July 18, 1997 

(62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an 

annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a three-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS). In the same 

rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a 

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

a three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

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

published air quality area designations 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that 

rulemaking action, EPA designated the 

Johnstown Area as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. at 

1000. The Johnstown Area is comprised 

of Cambria County and portions of 

Indiana County (Township of West 

Wheatfield, Center, East Wheatfield, and 

Armagh Borough and Homer City 

Borough). See 40 CFR 81.339. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the annual average 

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

hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again 

on the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations 

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

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA 

published designations for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became 

effective on December 14, 2009. In that 

rulemaking action, EPA designated the 

Johnstown Area as nonattainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

Johnstown Area is comprised of 

Cambria County and portions of Indiana 

County. See 40 CFR 81.339. 

On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) 

and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA 

made determinations that the Johnstown 

Area had attained the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

respectively. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c) and based on these 

determinations, the requirements for the 

Area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIPs related to the 

attainment of either the 1997 annual or 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and 

continue to be, suspended until such 

time as: the Area is redesignated to 

attainment for each standard, at which 

time the requirements no longer apply; 

or EPA determines that the Area has 

again violated any of the standards, at 

which time such plans are required to 

be submitted. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR 

45424), EPA also determined, in 

accordance with section 179(c) of the 

CAA, that the Johnstown Area attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. 

On December 3, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Johnstown Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP 

submitted a combined maintenance 

plan for the Area as a SIP revision to 

ensure continued attainment throughout 

the Area over the next 10 years. The 

maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in 

the maintenance plan is the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory for 

both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and ammonia 

(NH3). 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA also addresses the effects of several 

decisions of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

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

the United States Supreme Court: (1) 

The D.C. Circuit Court’s August 21, 

2012 decision to vacate and remand to 

EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme 

Court’s April 29, 2014 reversal of the 

vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the 

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

Court’s October 23, 2014 decision to lift 

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

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

to remand to EPA two final rules 

implementing the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

redesignation providing that: (1) EPA 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k); (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 pollution 

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. Each of 

these requirements are discussed in 

Section V. of today’s proposed 

rulemaking action. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in the ‘‘SIPs; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the CAA Amendments of 

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

(the General Preamble) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1CAIR addressed the 1997 annual PM2.5 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. 

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, 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 for nonattainment areas 

and maintenance plans 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 also 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 

Johnstown Area, comprised of Cambria 

County and portions of Indiana County 

in Pennsylvania, includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

transportation conformity determination 

for the Area is further discussed in 

Section V.C. of today’s proposed 

rulemaking action and in a technical 

support document (TSD), ‘‘Adequacy 

Findings for the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets in the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard Maintenance Plan for the 

Johnstown, Pennsylvania 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,’’ dated 

February 12, 2015, available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignation of the Johnstown Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to find that the Johnstown 

Area meets the requirements for 

redesignation of the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under 

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

thus proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s request to change the 

legal designation of the Johnstown Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the associated maintenance 

plan for the Johnstown Area as a 

revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, including the 2017 and 2025 

PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Approval of the maintenance plan is 

one of the CAA criteria for redesignation 

of the Area to attainment for both 

NAAQS. Pennsylvania’s combined 

maintenance plan is designed to ensure 

continued attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the Area for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. 

EPA previously determined that the 

Johnstown Area attained both the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(see 74 FR 48863 (September 25, 2009) 

and 77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012)), and 

EPA is proposing to find that the Area 

continues to attain both NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

submitted with Pennsylvania’s 

maintenance plan that includes an 

inventory of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and 

NH3 for the Area as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

order to meet the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA’s 

analysis of the proposed actions is 

provided in Section V. of today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effect of the Court Decisions 

Regarding EPA’s CSAPR 

1. Background 

The D.C. Circuit Court and the 

Supreme Court have issued a number of 

decisions and orders regarding the 

status of EPA’s regional trading 

programs for transported air pollution, 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

CSAPR, that impact this proposed 

redesignation action. In 2008, the D.C. 

Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 

FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s remand, EPA promulgated 

CSAPR, to address interstate transport 

of emissions and resulting secondary air 

pollutants and to replace CAIR.1 CSAPR 

requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from electric 

generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in 

the Eastern United States. 

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs 

would have superseded the CAIR capand-trade programs. Numerous parties 

filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and 

on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

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

2011), Order at 2. 

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

Court issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and once 

again ordering continued 

implementation of CAIR. EME Homer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22675 

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 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. On 

December 3, 2014, EPA issued an 

interim final rule to clarify how EPA 

will implement CSAPR consistent with 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s order granting 

EPA’s motion requesting lifting the stay 

and tolling the rule’s deadlines. See 79 

FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim 

final rulemaking). Consistent with that 

rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR 

on January 1, 2015. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

Because CAIR was promulgated in 

2005 and incentivized sources and 

states to begin achieving early emission 

reductions, the air quality data 

examined by EPA in issuing a final 

determination of attainment for the 

Johnstown 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 

included CAIR as one of the measures 

that helped to bring the Area into 

attainment. However, modeling 

conducted by EPA during the CSAPR 

rulemaking process, which used a 

baseline emissions scenario that 

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

FR 48223, projected that the counties in 

the Johnstown Area would have design 

values below the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 2012 

and 2014 without taking into account 

emission reductions from CAIR or 

CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA’s ‘‘Air 

Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical 

Support Document,’’ (Pages B–57 and 

B–86), which is available in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking action. In 

addition, the 2011–2013 qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified monitoring data for the 

Johnstown Area confirms that the PM2.5

design values for the Area remained 

well below the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2013. 

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. As stated previously, EPA 

began implementing CSAPR on January 

1, 2015, subsequent to the emission 

reductions documented in the 

Commonwealth’s December 3, 2014 

request for redesignation. Therefore, the 

Area’s attainment of the 1997 annual or 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS cannot 

have been a result of any emission 

reductions associated with CSAPR. In 

summary, neither the status of CAIR nor 

the current status of CSAPR affects any 

of the criteria for proposed approval of 

this redesignation request for the 

Johnstown Area. 

B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

1. Background 

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

the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA 

the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

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

rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) 

(collectively, 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule). 706 F.3d 428 

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

found that EPA erred in implementing 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant 

to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title 

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

particulate-matter-specific provisions of 

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

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

the states had worked towards meeting 

the air quality goals of the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with 

EPA regulations and guidance derived 

from subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the 

CAA. In response to the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s remand, EPA took this history 

into account by setting a new deadline 

for any remaining submissions that may 

be required for moderate nonattainment 

areas as a result of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s decision regarding the 

applicability of subpart 4 of part D of 

Title I of the CAA. 

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

issued a final rule, ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of SIP 

Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule), 

which identifies the classification under 

subpart 4 as ‘‘moderate’’ for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule set a deadline 

for states to submit attainment plans 

and meet other subpart 4 requirements. 

The rule specified December 31, 2014 as 

the deadline for states to submit any 

additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and/ 

or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit 

SIPs addressing the nonattainment NSR 

requirements in subpart 4. 

As explained in detail in the 

following section, since Pennsylvania 

submitted its request to redesignate the 

Johnstown Area on December 3, 2014, 

any additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed for the 

Area to meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart 4 were not due 

at the time Pennsylvania submitted its 

request to redesignate the Area for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA addresses the effect of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling 

and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule on the 

redesignation request for the Area. EPA 

is proposing to determine that the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the Area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision, redesignation 

for this Area is appropriate under the 

CAA and EPA’s longstanding 

interpretations of the CAA’s provisions 

regarding redesignation. EPA first 

explains its longstanding interpretation 

that requirements that are imposed, or 

that become due, after a complete 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) 

of the CAA. 

3EPA found Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014 

submittal for redesignation of the Area complete on 

January 13, 2015. EPA’s complete determination is 

available in the docket for this rulemaking at 

regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR– 

2014–0902. 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the redesignation request of the Area 

and disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently 

remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, 

Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation 

of the Area still qualifies for approval. 

EPA’s discussion also takes into account 

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

ruling and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule on the maintenance plan of the 

Area, which EPA views as approvable 

even when subpart 4 requirements are 

considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements Under 

Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request of the Area 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling rejected 

EPA’s reasons for implementing the 

PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with 

the provisions of subpart 1, and 

remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 

could address implementation of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating 

Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014 

redesignation request for the Area, to 

the extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

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

the CAA, and thus EPA is not required 

to consider subpart 4 requirements with 

respect to the redesignation of the Area. 

Under its longstanding interpretation of 

the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 

107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold 

matter, that the part D provisions which 

are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum. See also ‘‘SIP 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

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

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

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

that Pennsylvania submitted its 

redesignation request for the Johnstown 

Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

requirements under subpart 4 were not 

due.3

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the redesignation of the Area, 

the subpart 4 requirements were not due 

at the time Pennsylvania submitted the 

redesignation request is in keeping with 

the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 

requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 

redesignated subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in South Coast 

Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the 

D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was 

not permitted to implement the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard solely under 

subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those 

rulemaking actions, EPA therefore did 

not consider subpart 2 requirements to 

be ‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of 

evaluating whether the area should be 

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

of the CAA. 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

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

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

for an area to be redesignated, a state 

must meet ‘‘all requirements 

‘applicable’ to the area under section 

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

provides that EPA must have fully 

approved the ‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the 

area seeking redesignation. These two 

sections read together support EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ as only 

those requirements that came due prior 

to submission of a complete 

redesignation request. 

First, holding states to an ongoing 

obligation to adopt new CAA 

requirements that arose after the state 

submitted its redesignation request, in 

order to be redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22677 

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 June 2, 2014 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and 

Deadline Rule compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. Pennsylvania 

submitted its redesignation request for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS on December 3, 2014 for the 

Johnstown Area, which is prior to the 

deadline by which the area is required 

to meet the attainment plan and other 

requirements pursuant to subpart 4. 

To require Pennsylvania’s fullycomplete and pending redesignation 

request for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now 

with requirements of subpart 4 that the 

D.C. Circuit Court announced only in 

January 2013 and for which the 

December 31, 2014 deadline to comply 

occurred subsequent to EPA’s receipt of 

Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014 

redesignation request, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

and provide Pennsylvania a unique and 

earlier deadline for compliance solely 

on the basis of submitting its 

redesignation request for the Area. The 

D.C. Circuit Court recognized the 

inequity of this type of retroactive 

impact in Sierra Club 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 areas did not 

meet their attainment deadlines. In that 

case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit 

Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The D.C. Circuit 

Court rejected this view, stating that 

applying it ‘‘would likely impose large 

costs on States, which would face fines 

and suits for not implementing air 

pollution prevention plans . . . even 

though they were not on notice at the 

time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be 

unreasonable to penalize Pennsylvania 

by rejecting its December 3, 2014 

redesignation request for the Johnstown 

Area that EPA previously determined 

was attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

solely because Pennsylvania did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements which came due after 

receipt of such request, (and for which 

it had little to no notice), would inflict 

the same unfairness condemned by the 

D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Pennsylvania’s Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

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

decision, or the June 2, 2014 PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule, requires that, in the context of a 

pending redesignation request for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, which were submitted prior to 

December 31, 2014, subpart 4 

requirements must be considered as 

being due and in effect, EPA proposes 

to determine that the Area still qualifies 

for redesignation to attainment for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained subsequently, 

EPA believes that the redesignation 

request for the Area, though not 

expressed in terms of subpart 4 

requirements, substantively meets the 

requirements of that subpart for 

purposes of redesignating the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the 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 areas to be ‘‘moderate’’ 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As EPA 

explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, 

section 188 of the CAA provides that all 

areas designated nonattainment areas 

under subpart 4 are initially to be 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA refers here to attainment demonstration, 

RFP, RACM, milestone requirements, and 

contingency measures. 

8As explained earlier, EPA does not believe that 

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

should be interpreted so as to impose these 

requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, supra. 

Attainment.’’ See also rulemakings for 

Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, 

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

20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, 

Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 

2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). With 

respect to the specific attainment 

planning requirements under subpart 

4,7 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, or the 

June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule, to 

mean that attainment-related 

requirements specific to subpart 4 were 

either due prior to Pennsylvania’s 

December 3, 2014 redesignation request 

or became due subsequent to the 

December 3, 2014 redesignation request 

and must now be imposed 

retroactively,8 those requirements do 

not apply to areas that are attaining the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the purpose of evaluating a 

pending request to redesignate the areas 

to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble 

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

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

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction Proposed PM10 Redesignation, 

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

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

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

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

As stated previously in this proposed 

rulemaking action, on September 25, 

2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 

(77 FR 18922), EPA made 

determinations that the Johnstown Area 

had attained the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and 

based on these determinations, the 

requirements for the Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to the attainment 

of either the 1997 annual or 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and continue 

to be, suspended until such time as: the 

Area is redesignated to attainment for 

each standard, at which time the 

requirements no longer apply; or EPA 

determines that the Area has again 

violated any of the standards, at which 

time such plans are required to be 

submitted. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the Area meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that 

the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. 

EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at 

issue in the case with instructions to 

EPA to re-promulgate them consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA 

in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s opinion with respect to PM2.5

precursors. While past implementation 

of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors, such as NOX

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, section 

189(e) of the CAA specifically provides 

that control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, contained rebuttable 

presumptions concerning certain PM2.5

precursors applicable to attainment 

plans and control measures related to 

those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 

51.1002, EPA provided, among other 

things, that a state was ‘‘not required to 

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

attainment plan precursor[s] and to 

evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and NH3 in specific areas where that 

was necessary. 

The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 

4, 2013 decision made reference to both 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22679 

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 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). 

section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and 

stated that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, 

we need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that VOCs and NH3 are 

not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 

expressly governs precursor 

presumptions.’’ NRDC v. EPA, at 27, 

n.10. 

Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

opinion, however, the D.C. Circuit Court 

observed: ‘‘NH3 is a precursor to fine 

particulate matter, making it a precursor 

to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10

nonattainment area governed by subpart 

4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated. See 42 § U.S.C. 7513a(e) 

[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, the 

redesignation of the Johnstown Area for 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on this 

aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. 

Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), 

stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively’ 

regulated,’’ the D.C. Circuit Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions 

regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors. 

The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’s rebuttable 

presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC 

as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory 

consequence would be to consider the 

need for regulation of all precursors 

from any sources in the Area to 

demonstrate attainment and to apply the 

section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Johnstown Area, EPA 

believes that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the Area for 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area has attained 

the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS without any specific 

additional controls of NH3 and VOC 

emissions from any sources in the 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 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

explained subsequently, EPA does not 

believe that any additional controls of 

NH3 and VOC are required in the 

context of this redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

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

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

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

this rulemaking action, proposes to 

determine that the Pennsylvania SIP 

revision has met the provisions of 

section 189(e) with respect to NH3 and 

VOC as precursors. These proposed 

determinations are based on EPA’s 

findings that: (1) The Johnstown 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 Area, which is attaining the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, at present NH3 and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

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 Area has 

already attained the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its 

current approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit an 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 Johnstown Area for the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. In the context of a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

redesignation, Pennsylvania has shown 

that the Area has attained both 

standards. Moreover, Pennsylvania has 

shown, and EPA proposes to determine, 

that attainment of the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment of the NAAQS. 

See Section V.A.3 of this proposed 

rulemaking action. 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 Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In summary, even if, prior to 

submitting its December 3, 2014 

redesignation request submittal or 

subsequent to such submission and 

prior to December 31, 2014, 

Pennsylvania was required to address 

precursors for the Area under subpart 4 

rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA would 

still conclude that the Area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

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

CAA. 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s 

Submittal 

EPA is proposing several rulemaking 

actions for the Johnstown Area: (1) To 

redesignate the Johnstown Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

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

approve into the Pennsylvania SIP the 

associated maintenance plan for the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory into 

the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy the 

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

CAA for the Area for the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

which is one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation. EPA’s proposed approval 

of the redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

based upon EPA’s determination that 

the Area continues to attain both 

standards, which EPA is proposing in 

this rulemaking action, and that all 

other redesignation criteria have been 

met for the Area. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 

PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs included in the 

maintenance plan for the Area for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

following is a description of how 

Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014 

submittal satisfies the requirements of 

the CAA including specifically section 

107(d)(3)(E) for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A. Redesignation Request 

1. Attainment 

On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) 

and July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA 

determined that the Johnstown Area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on quality-assured and certified 

ambient air monitoring data for 2006– 

2008 and by its applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010 based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2007–2009, 

respectively. In a separate rulemaking 

action dated March 29, 2012 (77 FR 

18922), EPA determined that the 

Johnstown Area attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2008–2010. The 

basis and effect of these determinations 

of attainment for both the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were 

discussed in the notices of the proposed 

(74 FR 38158 (July 31, 2009) and 77 FR 

2941 (January 20, 2012), respectively) 

and final (74 FR 48863 and 77 FR 

18922, respectively) rulemakings which 

determined the Area attained the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

respectively. 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality PM2.5 monitoring data in the 

Area consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database, including qualityassured, quality-controlled, and statecertified data for the monitoring periods 

2007–2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, 

2010–2012, and 2011–2013. This data, 

provided in Tables 1 and 2, shows that 

the Area continues to attain the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M 3) FOR 2007–2009, 

2008–2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013 

Monitor ID # 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

420210011 ................................................................. 13.4 12.6 12.4 12.3 12.3 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M 3) FOR 2007– 

2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013 

Monitor ID # 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

420210011 ................................................................. 32 30 30 30 30 

EPA’s review of the monitoring data 

from 2007 through 2013 supports EPA’s 

previous determinations that the Area 

has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the 

Area continues to attain both standards. 

In addition, as discussed subsequently, 

with respect to the maintenance plan, 

Pennsylvania has committed to 

continue monitoring ambient PM2.5

concentrations in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58. Thus, based upon analysis 

of currently available data, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Johnstown Area continues to attain the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 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) 

In accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the Johnstown Area must be 

fully approved under section 110(k) 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22681 

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 IV.B of this rulemaking. However, the Clean 

Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was 

not at issue in that case. 

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) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: (1) submittal of a SIP that 

has been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

(2) provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

(3) implementation of a minor source 

permit program and 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 for various 

NAAQS, EPA has required certain states 

to establish programs to address 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with EPA’s Finding of Significant 

Contribution and Rulemaking for 

Certain States in the Ozone Transport 

Assessment Group Region for Purposes 

of Reducing Regional Transport of 

Ozone (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), 

also known as the NOX SIP Call; 

amendments to the NOX SIP Call (64 FR 

26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, 

March 2, 2000), CAIR (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005) and CSAPR. However, 

section 110(a)(2)(D) 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 classification 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 not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Area will still be 

subject to these requirements after it is 

redesignated. EPA concludes that the 

section 110(a)(2) 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 not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability of 

conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and 

oxygenated fuels requirement. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 

10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 

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

and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 

(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). For 

additional discussion on this issue, see 

the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 

FR at 37890, June 19, 2000) and the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania 

redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 

19, 2001). 

EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania 

SIP and has concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

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

are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of Pennsylvania’s 

SIP addressing section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, including provisions 

addressing PM2.5. See 77 FR 58955 

(September 25, 2012) (approving 

infrastructure submittals for 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). These 

requirements are, however, statewide 

requirements that are not linked to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Area. 

Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP 

elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the Commonwealth’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, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

must meet a variety of other 

requirements. 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of section 172 is that once 

an area is attaining the NAAQS, those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

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

therefore need not be approved into the 

SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. 

In the 1992 General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth 

its interpretation of applicable 

requirements for purposes of evaluating 

redesignation requests when an area is 

attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 

13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that 

the requirements for RFP and other 

measures designed to provide for 

attainment do not apply in evaluating 

redesignation requests because those 

nonattainment planning requirements 

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

already attained the standard. Id. This 

interpretation was also set forth in the 

1992 Calcagni Memorandum. EPA’s 

understanding of section 172 also forms 

the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which 

was articulated with regard to PM2.5 in 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a 

state’s obligation to submit most of the 

attainment planning requirements that 

would otherwise apply, including an 

attainment demonstration and planning 

SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9).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 for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Johnstown Area (see September 25, 

2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 

(77 FR 18922)), 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 

each standard until redesignation. 

Section 172(c)(2)’s requirement that 

nonattainment plans contain provisions 

promoting RFP toward attainment is 

also not relevant for purposes of 

redesignation because EPA has 

determined that the Johnstown Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In addition, because the Johnstown Area 

has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer 

subject to a RFP requirement, the 

requirement to submit the section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures is not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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) of the CAA was not suspended 

by EPA’s clean data determination for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and is the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 to be 

considered for purposes of 

redesignation of the Area. Section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions. To satisfy 

the 172(c)(3) requirement for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS contains a 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

The 2007 emissions inventory was the 

most current accurate and 

comprehensive emissions inventory of 

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

Area when the Area attained the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Thus, as part of this rulemaking action, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory for the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as 

satisfying the requirement of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA for both standards. 

Final approval of the 2007 base year 

emissions inventory will satisfy the 

emissions inventory requirement under 

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

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory addresses the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and non-road mobile sources. A 

summary of the 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory is shown in Table 

3. For more information on EPA’s 

analysis of the 2007 emissions 

inventory, see the TSD prepared by EPA 

Region III Office of Air Monitoring and 

Analysis dated March 3, 2015, ‘‘TSD for 

the Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area’’ (Inventory TSD), available in the 

docket for this rulemaking action at 

www.regulations.gov. See Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902. 

TABLE 3—2007 EMISSIONS FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA, IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

Sector PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3

Point ..................................................................................... 3,091 41,876 143,322 242 35 

Area ...................................................................................... 719 607 858 2,415 409 

Onroad ................................................................................. 131 4,011 30 1,770 63 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 89 1,464 42 897 1 

Total .............................................................................. 4,031 47,958 144,252 5,325 508 

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) 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 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 New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ 

Nevertheless, Pennsylvania currently 

has an approved NSR program codified 

in Pennsylvania’s regulations at 25 Pa. 

Code 127.201 et seq. See 77 FR 41276 

(July 13, 2012) (approving NSR program 

into the SIP). See also 49 FR 33127 

(August 21, 1984) (approving 

Pennsylvania’s PSD program which 

incorporates by reference the Federal 

PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21). 

However, Pennsylvania’s PSD program 

will become effective in the Johnstown 

Area upon redesignation to attainment. 

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

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted 

previously, EPA believes the 

Pennsylvania SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) that 

are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

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.’’ On December 3, 2014, in 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Johnstown Area to 

attainment status, Pennsylvania 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Johnstown Area for at least 10 years 

after redesignation, throughout 2025. 

Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA 

approve the maintenance plan to meet 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA for both NAAQS. Once approved, 

the maintenance plan for the Area will 

ensure that the SIP for Pennsylvania 

meets the requirements of the CAA 

regarding maintenance of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

for the Area. EPA’s analysis of the 

maintenance plan is provided in Section 

V.B. of this 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 that are 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). 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under CAA section 107(d) 

because state conformity rules are still 

required after redesignation, and 

Federal conformity rules apply where 

state rules have not been approved. See 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22683 

14Although 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. 

2001) (upholding this interpretation) 

and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) 

(discussing Tampa, Florida). 

Thus, for purposes of redesignating to 

attainment the Johnstown Area for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA proposes that upon final 

approval of the 2007 comprehensive 

emissions inventory as proposed in this 

rulemaking action, Pennsylvania will 

meet all the applicable SIP requirements 

under part D of Title I of the CAA for 

purposes of redesignating the Area to 

attainment for both the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

c. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

Upon final approval of the 2007 

comprehensive emissions inventory as 

proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA 

will have fully approved all applicable 

requirements of Pennsylvania’s SIP for 

the Johnstown Area for purposes of 

redesignation to attainment for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in accordance with section 110(k) of the 

CAA. 

3. Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 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. Pennsylvania 

has calculated the change in emissions 

between 2005, a year showing 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Johnstown Area, and 2007, one of the 

years for which the Area monitored 

attainment for both standards. 

A summary of the emissions 

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

and NH3 from 2005 to 2007 in the 

Johnstown Area, submitted by PADEP, 

is provided in Table 4. For more 

information on EPA’s analysis of the 

2005 and 2007 emissions inventories, 

see EPA’s Inventory TSD dated March 3, 

2015 available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking action. 

TABLE 4—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2005 TO 2007 IN THE JOHNSTOWN AREA

[TPY] 

Sector 2005 2007 Net reduction 

2005–2007 

Percent 

reduction 

2005–2007 

PM2.5 ................................................. Point ................................................. 11,872 3,091 8,781 74 

Area .................................................. 1,201 719 482 40 

On-road ............................................ 142 131 10 7 

Non-road .......................................... 84 89 ¥5 ¥6 

Total ................................................. 13,299 4,031 9,268 70 

NOX ................................................... Point ................................................. 41,646 41,876 ¥230 ¥1 

Area .................................................. 751 607 144 19 

On-road ............................................ 4,483 4,011 472 11 

Non-road .......................................... 1,364 1,464 ¥100 ¥7 

Total ................................................. 48,244 47,958 286 1 

SO2 .................................................... Point ................................................. 152,657 143,322 9,335 6 

Area .................................................. 1,859 858 1,001 54 

On-road ............................................ 61 30 31 51 

Non-road .......................................... 112 42 70 63 

Total ................................................. 154,689 144,252 10,437 7 

VOC .................................................. Point ................................................. 344 243 101 30 

Area .................................................. 3,092 2,415 677 22 

On-road ............................................ 1,919 1,770 149 8 

Non-road .......................................... 945 897 48 5 

Total ................................................. 6,300 5,325 975 15 

NH3 .................................................... Point ................................................. 5 35 ¥30 ¥600 

Area .................................................. 511 409 102 20 

On-road ............................................ 67 63 4 6 

Non-road .......................................... 1 1 0 0 

Total ................................................. 584 508 76 13 

The reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality from 2005 to 2007 for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

respectively, in the Johnstown Area can 

be attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that have been 

implemented in the Area and 

contributing areas in recent years. 

a. Federal Measures Implemented 

Reductions in PM2.5 precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind states as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. 

Control of NOX and SO2

PM2.5 concentrations in the Johnstown 

Area are impacted by the transport of 

sulfates and nitrates, and the Area’s air 

quality is strongly affected by regulation 

of SO2 and NOX emissions from power 

plants. 

NOX SIP Call—On October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX SIP 

Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of 

NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution.14

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EGUs and large non-EGUs such as 

industrial boilers, internal combustion 

engines, and cement kilns. In response 

to the NOX SIP Call, Pennsylvania 

adopted its NOX Budget Trading 

Program regulations for EGUs and large 

industrial boilers, with emission 

reductions starting in May 2003. 

Pennsylvania’s NOX Budget Trading 

Program regulation was approved into 

the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21, 

2001 (66 FR 43795). To meet other 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call, 

Pennsylvania adopted NOX control 

regulations for cement plants and 

internal combustion engines, with 

emission reductions starting in May 

2005. These regulations were approved 

into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 

29, 2006 (71 FR 57428). 

CAIR—As previously noted, CAIR (70 

FR 25162, May 12, 2005) created 

regional cap-and-trade programs to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 

eastern states, including Pennsylvania. 

EPA approved the Commonwealth’s 

CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on December 10, 2009 

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

season NOX trading program superseded 

the NOX Budget Trading Program, 

although the emission reduction 

obligations of the NOX SIP Call were not 

rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 

51.123(aa). EPA promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR as an emission trading 

program for EGUs. As discussed 

previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s October 23, 2014 Order, the stay 

of CSAPR has been lifted and 

implementation of CSAPR commenced 

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 

parts per million (ppm). Standards for 

gasoline engines were phased in starting 

in 2008. The total program is estimated 

to achieve a 90 percent reduction in 

direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions for new 

engines using low sulfur diesel fuel. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule 

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

promulgated the Nonroad Diesel Rule 

for large nonroad diesel engines, such as 

those used in construction, agriculture, 

and mining, to be phased in between 

2008 and 2014. The rule phased in 

requirements for reducing the sulfur 

content of diesel used in nonroad diesel 

engines. The reduction in sulfur content 

prevents damage to the more advanced 

emission control systems needed to 

meet the engine standards. It will also 

reduce fine particulate emissions from 

diesel engines. The combined engine 

standards and the sulfur in fuel 

reductions will reduce NOX and PM 

emissions from large nonroad engines 

by over 90 percent, compared to current 

nonroad engines using higher sulfur 

content diesel. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards 

In November 2002, EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

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

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards are being phased in 

from 2006 through 2012. Marine diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of all of the nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, an overall 80 percent 

reduction in NOX is expected by 2020. 

Some of these emission reductions 

occurred by the 2002–2007 attainment 

period and additional emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period as the fleet turns 

over. 

Federal Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

As required by the CAA, EPA 

developed Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards to 

regulate emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants from a published list of 

industrial sources referred to as ‘‘source 

categories.’’ The MACT standards have 

been adopted and incorporated by 

reference in Section 6.6 of 

Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control 

Act and implementing regulations in 25 

Pa. Code § 127.35 and are also included 

in Federally enforceable permits issued 

by PADEP for affected sources. The 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boiler MACT standards (69 FR 

55217, September 13, 2004 and 76 FR 

15554, February 21, 2011) are estimated 

to reduce emissions of PM, SO2, and 

VOCs from major source boilers and 

process heaters nationwide. Also, the 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE) MACT will reduce NOX

and PM emissions from engines located 

at facilities such as pipeline compressor 

stations, chemical and manufacturing 

plants, and power plants. 

b. State Measures 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control 

Program 

In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control 

Program for model years starting in May 

2004. The program incorporates 

California standards by reference and 

required model year 2005 and beyond 

heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be 

certified to the California standards, 

which were more stringent than the 

Federal standards for model years 2005 

and 2006. After model year 2006, 

Pennsylvania required implementation 

of the Federal standards that applied to 

model years 2007 and beyond, 

discussed in the Federal measures 

section of this proposed rulemaking 

action. This program reduced emissions 

of NOX statewide. 

Vehicle Emission Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) Program 

Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Emission I/M 

program was expanded into the 

Johnstown Area in early 2004 and 

applies to model year 1975 and newer 

gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22685 

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 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, Subpart B. Consumer products’’ 

established, effective January 1, 2005, 

VOC emission limits 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). 

Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and 

Solvents Regulation 

Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in 

2010 to control VOC emissions from 

adhesives, sealants, primers and 

solvents. This regulation was approved 

into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 

26, 2012 (77 FR 59090). 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvements in 

air quality in the Johnstown Area are 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions. The reductions 

result from Federal and State 

requirements and regulation of 

precursors within Pennsylvania that 

affect the Johnstown Area. 

B. Maintenance Plan 

On December 3, 2014, PADEP 

submitted a combined maintenance 

plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by 

section 175A of the CAA. EPA’s analysis 

for proposing approval of the 

maintenance plan is provided in this 

section. 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

An attainment inventory is comprised 

of the emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. PADEP determined 

that the appropriate attainment 

inventory year for the maintenance plan 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is 2007, one of the years 

in the periods during which the 

Johnstown Area monitored attainment 

for both NAAQS. The 2007 emissions 

inventory submitted by PADEP that was 

included in the maintenance plan 

contains primary PM2.5 emissions 

(including condensables), SO2, NOX, 

VOC, and NH3. 

In its redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

submitted on December 3, 2014, PADEP 

described the methods used for 

developing its 2007 emissions 

inventory. EPA reviewed the procedures 

used to develop the inventory and 

found them to be reasonable. EPA has 

reviewed the documentation provided 

by PADEP and found the 2007 

emissions inventory to be approvable. 

For more information on EPA’s analysis 

of the 2007 emissions inventory, see 

Appendices B–1 and C–1 of the 

Pennsylvania submittal and EPA’s 

Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015 

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.’’ The Federal and State 

measures described in Section V.A.3 of 

this proposed rulemaking action 

demonstrate that the reductions in 

emissions from point, area, and mobile 

sources in the Area has occurred and 

will continue to occur through 2025. In 

addition, the following State and 

Federal regulations and programs 

ensure the continuing decline of SO2, 

NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the 

Area during the maintenance period and 

beyond: 

Non-EGUs Previously Covered Under 

the NOX SIP Call 

Pennsylvania established NOX

emission limits for the large industrial 

boilers that were previously subject to 

the NOX SIP Call, but were not subject 

to CAIR. For these units, Pennsylvania 

established an allowable ozone season 

NOX limit based on the unit’s previous 

ozone season’s heat input. A combined 

NOX ozone season emissions cap of 

3,418 tons applies for all of these units. 

CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208) 

EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace 

CAIR as an emission trading program for 

EGUs. As discussed previously, 

implementation of CSAPR commenced 

in January 2015. EPA expects that the 

implementation of CSAPR will preserve 

the reductions achieved by CAIR and 

result in additional SO2 and NOX

emission reductions throughout the 

maintenance period. 

Regulation of Cement Kilns 

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

approved amendments to 25 Pa. Code 

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 

percent to 63 percent from the previous 

limit of 6 pounds of NOX per ton of 

clinker that applied to all kilns. The 

amendments were effective on April 15, 

2011. 

Stationary Source Regulations 

Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 130, Subchapter D for 

Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and 

Solvents was approved into the 

Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 

2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation 

established VOC content limits for 

various categories of adhesives, sealants, 

primers, and solvent, and became 

applicable on January 1, 2012. 

Amendments to Pennsylvania 

regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, 

Subchapter B, Consumer Products, 

established, effective January 1, 2009, 

new or more stringent VOC standards 

for consumer products. This regulation 

applies statewide to any person who 

sells, supplies, offers for sale, or 

manufactures such consumer products 

on or after January 1, 2009 for use in 

Pennsylvania. The amendments were 

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on 

October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717). 

Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program 

The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles 

Program (formerly, New Motor Vehicle 

Control Program) incorporates by 

reference the California Low Emission 

Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it 

allowed automakers to comply with the 

NLEV program as an alternative to this 

program until Model Year (MY) 2006. 

The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in 

25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, 

was modified to require CA LEVII to 

apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was 

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on 

January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The 

Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by 

reference the emission control standards 

of CA LEVII, which, among other 

requirements, reduces emissions of NOX

by requiring that passenger car emission 

standards and fleet average emission 

standards also apply to light duty 

vehicles. Model year 2008 and newer 

passenger cars and light duty trucks are 

required to be certified for emissions by 

the California Air Resource Board 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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 approximately 36 

tons more NOX reductions than Tier II 

for the counties in the Johnstown Area. 

Two Pennsylvania regulations—the 

Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling 

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

the Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler 

regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR 

58114)—were not included in the 

projection inventories, but may also 

assist in maintaining the standard. Also, 

the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and 

Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 29, 

2014) establishes more stringent vehicle 

emissions standards and will reduce the 

sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 

2017. The fuel standard will achieve 

NOX reductions by further increasing 

the effectiveness of vehicle emission 

controls for both existing and new 

vehicles. 

Natural Gas Activities 

The emissions growth due to a new 

emissions source, development of 

natural gas resources from Marcellus 

Shale (and other deep formations), is 

included in the Area source inventory. 

PADEP requires annual emission 

reporting under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

135 (relating to reporting of sources) of 

unconventional natural gas 

development companies. The initial 

annual source reporting for 

unconventional natural gas operations 

began in 2012 for emissions during the 

2011 calendar year. Emissions were 

projected to 2017 and 2025 based on the 

most recent emissions inventory reports 

available (2013 for compressor engines 

and 2012 for all other sources). See 

Appendix B–3 of Pennsylvania’s 

submittal for more details on the 

methodology used for estimating 

Marcellus Shale development activity 

and for the emission totals by pollutant. 

Starting January 2015, Federal 

regulations (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

OOOO) require wells to capture gas at 

the wellhead. EPA estimates that VOC 

emissions from hydraulically fractured 

well completions will decrease by 95 

percent as a result of this regulation. 

The State and Federal regulations and 

programs described above ensure the 

continuing decline of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, 

and VOC emissions in the Johnstown 

Area during the maintenance period and 

beyond. A summary of the projected 

reductions from these measures from 

2007 to 2025 is shown in Table 5. The 

future year inventory included potential 

emissions increases from natural gas 

activities. 

TABLE 5—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2007 TO 2025 DUE TO CONTROL MEASURES IN TPY 

PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3

Point ..................................................................................... 96 1,304 1,820 ¥4 ¥1 

Area ...................................................................................... 66 28 441 312 ¥7 

On-Road ............................................................................... 80 2,813 19 1193 22 

Non-Road ............................................................................. 51 801 40 444 0 

Natural Gas Activities .......................................................... ¥3 ¥98 0 ¥91 0 

Total .............................................................................. 290 4,848 2,320 1,854 14 

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 demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See 

also 66 FR 53099–53100 and 68 FR 

25430–32. PADEP uses projection 

inventories to show that the Johnstown 

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, PM2.5, 

VOC, and NH3 will remain at or below 

the attainment year 2007 for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

respectively, throughout the Johnstown 

Area through the year 2025. 

EPA has reviewed the documentation 

provided by PADEP for developing 

annual 2017 and 2025 emissions 

inventories for the Johnstown Area. See 

Appendix C–2 and C–3 of 

Pennsylvania’s submittal. EPA has 

determined that the 2017 and 2025 

projected emissions inventories 

provided by PADEP are approvable. For 

more information on EPA’s analysis of 

the emissions inventories, see EPA’s 

Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. 

Tables 6a through 6e provide a 

summary of the inventories in tpy for 

the 2007 attainment year, as compared 

to projected inventories for the 2017 

interim year and the 2025 maintenance 

plan end year for the Area. The future 

year inventories include potential 

emissions increases from natural gas 

activities. 

TABLE 6a—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA

PM2.5

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

Point ............................. 3,091 2,788 2,995 303 10 96 3 

Area .............................. 719 692 654 27 4 65 9 

On-Road ....................... 131 71 51 61 46 80 61 

Non-Road ..................... 89 52 38 37 41 51 57 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22687 

TABLE 6a—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA—Continued 

PM2.5

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

Natural Gas Activities .. ........................ 2 3 ¥2 ........................ ¥3 ........................

Total ...................... 4,031 3,605 3,741 426 11 289 7 

TABLE 6b—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF NOX FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA

NOX

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

Point ............................. 41,876 37,562 40,572 4,314 10 1,304 3 

Area .............................. 607 576 579 31 5 28 5 

On-Road ....................... 4,011 1,946 1,198 2,065 51 2,813 70 

Non-Road ..................... 1,464 910 663 554 39 801 55 

Natural Gas Activities .. ........................ 52 98 ¥52 ........................ ¥98 ........................

Total ...................... 47,958 41,046 43,110 6,912 14 4,848 10 

TABLE 6c—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF SO2 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA

SO2

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

Point ............................. 143,322 132,128 141,502 11,194 8 1,820 1 

Area .............................. 858 683 418 175 20 440 51 

On-Road ....................... 30 11 11 19 63 19 64 

Non-Road ..................... 42 1 1 41 98 41 98 

Natural Gas Activities .. ........................ 0 0 0 ........................ 0 ........................

Total ...................... 144,252 132,823 141,932 11,429 8 2,320 2 

TABLE 6d—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF VOC FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA

VOC 

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

Point ............................. 243 234 247 9 4 ¥4 ¥2 

Area .............................. 2,415 2,219 2,103 196 8 312 13 

On-Road ....................... 1,770 899 577 871 49 1,193 67 

Non-Road ..................... 897 526 453 371 41 444 50 

Natural Gas Activities .. ........................ 47 91 ¥47 ........................ ¥91 ........................

Total ...................... 5,325 3,925 3,471 1,400 26 1,854 35 

TABLE 6e—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF NH3 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA

NH3

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

Point ............................. 35 34 36 1 3 ¥1 0 

Area .............................. 409 413 416 ¥4 ¥1 ¥7 ¥2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6e—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF NH3 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA—Continued 

NH3

Sector 2007 2017 2025 

2007–2017 2007–2025 

Reduction Percent 

reduction Reduction Percent reduction 

On-Road ....................... 63 42 41 21 33 22 35 

Non-Road ..................... 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Natural Gas Activities .. ........................ 0 0 0 ........................ 0 ........................

Total ...................... 508 490 494 18 4 14 3 

As shown in Tables 6a–6e, the 

projected levels for PM2.5, NOx, SO2, 

VOC, and NH3 are under the 2007 

attainment levels for each of these 

pollutants. Pennsylvania has adequately 

demonstrated that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3. Monitoring Network 

Pennsylvania’s 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. Pennsylvania currently 

operates a PM2.5 monitor in the 

Johnstown Area. In its December 3, 2014 

submittal, Pennsylvania stated that it 

will consult with EPA prior to making 

any necessary changes to the network 

and will continue to operate the 

monitoring network 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 

will: (a) evaluate annually the vehicle 

miles travelled (VMT) data and the 

annual emissions reported from 

stationary sources to compare them with 

the assumptions used in the 

maintenance plan, and (b) evaluate the 

periodic emissions inventory for all 

PM2.5 precursors prepared every three 

years in accordance with EPA’s Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements 

(AERR) to determine whether there is an 

exceedance of more than ten percent 

over the 2007 inventories. Also, as 

noted in the previous subsection, 

PADEP will continue to operate its 

monitoring system in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and remains obligated to 

quality-assure monitoring data and enter 

all data into the AQS in accordance 

with Federal requirements. PADEP will 

use this data, supplemented with 

additional data, as necessary, to assure 

continuing attainment in the Area. 

5. Contingency Measures 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct any 

violation of the 1997 annual and/or the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs 

in the Johnstown Area after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to ensure that a 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the events that would 

‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and 

implementation of a contingency 

measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 

that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

measure(s). 

Pennsylvania’s maintenance plan 

describes the procedures for the 

adoption and implementation of 

contingency measures to reduce 

emissions should a violation occur. 

Pennsylvania’s contingency measures 

include a first level response and a 

second level response. A first level 

response is triggered when the annual 

mean PM2.5 concentration exceeds 15.5 

mg/m3 in a single calendar year within 

the Area, when the 98th percentile 24- 

hour PM2.5 concentration exceeds 35.0 

mg/m3 in a single calendar year within 

the Area, or when the periodic 

emissions inventory for the Area 

exceeds the attainment year inventory 

(2007) 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 or if the two-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration 

exceeds 35.0 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. If a violation of the PM2.5

NAAQS occurs, PADEP will propose 

and adopt necessary additional control 

measures in accordance with the 

implementation schedule in the 

maintenance plan. 

Pennsylvania’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: (1) A 

regulation based on the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) Model 

Rule to update requirements for 

consumer products; (2) a regulation 

based on the Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for industrial cleaning 

solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects 

such as diesel retrofit for public or 

private local onroad or offroad fleets, 

idling reduction technology for Class 2 

yard locomotives, and idling reduction 

technologies or strategies for truck 

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

accelerated turnover of lawn and garden 

equipment, focusing on commercial 

equipment; and (5) promotion of 

alternative fuels for fleets, home heating 

and agricultural use. Pennsylvania’s 

rulemaking process and schedule for 

adoption and implementation of any 

necessary contingency measure is 

shown in the SIP submittals as being 18 

months from PADEP’s approval to 

initiate rulemaking. For all of the 

reasons discussed in this section, EPA is 

proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Johnstown 

Area as meeting the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22689 

15For additional information on the adequacy 

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

discussion of the adequacy process in the preamble 

to the 2004 final transportation conformity rule. See 

69 FR at 40039–40043. 

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

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 December 3, 2014, Pennsylvania 

submitted a SIP revision that contains 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

onroad mobile source budgets for 

Cambria County and portions of Indiana 

County (Townships of West Wheatfield, 

Center, East Wheatfield, and Armagh 

Borough and Homer City Borough). 

Pennsylvania did not provide MVEBs 

for SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it 

concluded, consistent with the 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 

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

were not disturbed by the litigation on 

the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

that emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. EPA issued conformity 

regulations to implement the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and 

May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 

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

D.C. Circuit Court’s January 2013 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The 

MVEBs are presented in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—MVEBS FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS IN TPY 

County Year PM2.5 NOX

Cambria County ........................................................................................................................... 2017 

2025 

62.79 

46.71 

1,707.03 

1,077.46 

Indiana County (Partial) ............................................................................................................... 2017 

2025 

7.95 

4.38 

238.50 

120.98 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of MVEBs are set 

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

Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, 

EPA must complete a thorough review 

of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5

maintenance plan, and conclude that 

with the projected level of motor vehicle 

and all other emissions, the SIPs will 

achieve its overall purpose, in this case 

providing for maintenance of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA’s process for determining adequacy 

of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: 

(1) Providing public notification of a SIP 

submission; (2) providing the public the 

opportunity to comment on the MVEB 

during a public comment period; and (3) 

EPA taking action on the MVEB. 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA is also initiating the process for 

determining whether or not the MVEBs 

are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. The publication of 

this proposed rulemaking action starts a 

30-day public comment period on the 

adequacy of the submitted MVEBs. This 

comment period is concurrent with the 

comment period on this proposed 

rulemaking action and comments 

should be submitted to the docket for 

this rulemaking. EPA may choose to 

make its determination on the adequacy 

of the budgets either in the final 

rulemaking on this maintenance plan 

and redesignation request or by 

informing Pennsylvania of the 

determination in writing, publishing a 

notice in the Federal Register and 

posting a notice on EPA’s adequacy Web 

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

stateresources/transconf/

adequacy.htm).15

EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and 

finds that the submitted MVEBs are 

consistent with the maintenance plan 

and meet the criteria for adequacy and 

approval in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for Cambria County and 

portions of Indiana County for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Additional information pertaining to the 

review of the MVEBs can be found in 

the TSD dated February 12, 2015, 

‘‘Adequacy Findings for the MVEBs in 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown, 

Pennsylvania 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

Nonattainment Areas,’’ available on line 

at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Pennsylvania’s request to redesignate 

the Johnstown Area from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has 

evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation 

request and determined that the Area 

meets the redesignation criteria set forth 

in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The 

monitoring data demonstrates that the 

Johnstown Area attained the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, as determined by EPA in prior 

rulemaking actions and, for reasons 

discussed herein, that it will continue to 

attain both NAAQS. Final approval of 

this redesignation request would change 

the designation of the Johnstown Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the associated maintenance 

plan for the Johnstown Area as a 

revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS because it meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA as described previously in this 

proposed rulemaking. In addition, EPA 

is proposing to approve the 2007 

emissions inventory as meeting the 

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

CAA for both NAAQS. Furthermore, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 

and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 

Cambria County and portions of Indiana 

County for transportation conformity 

purposes. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

emissions inventory for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes for the Johnstown Area for 

both NAAQS, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: April 10, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09368 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 27 

[WT Docket Nos. 14–170, 05–211, GN 

Docket No. 12–268, RM–11395; FCC 15–49] 

Request for Further Comment on 

Issues Related to Competitive Bidding 

Proceeding; Updating Competitive 

Bidding Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: In this Updating Part 1 

Competitive Bidding Rules Additional 

Request for Comment, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks additional comment 

on changes to the Commission’s 

Competitive Bidding rules suggested by 

commenters in response to the 

questions and proposals set forth in the 

Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding 

Rules Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Part 1 NPRM). This Updating Part 1 

Competitive Bidding Rules Additional 

Request for Comment will be referred to 

as the Part 1 Request for Comment. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

May 14, 2015, and reply comments are 

due on or before May 21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments to the Part 1 Request 

for Comment, WT Docket Nos. 14–170, 

05–211, GN Docket No. 12–268, RM– 

11395, by any of the following methods: 

• FCC’s Web site: Federal 

Communication Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: FCC Headquarters, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, or audio format), 

send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) Analysis: 

This Part 1 Request for Comment 

contains proposed new or modified 

information collection requirements and 

seeks PRA comment. The Part 1 NPRM 

sought comment from the general public 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget on the information collection 

requirements contained therein, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it may 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees’’ in the light of the 

alternative proposals set forth in the 

Part 1 Request for Comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: 

Leslie Barnes at (202) 418–0660; 

Spectrum and Competition Policy 

Division (for questions related to joint 

bidding arrangements): Michael Janson 

at (202) 418–1310. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Part 1 Request for 

Comment in GN Docket No. 12–268, WT 

Docket Nos. 14–170, 05–211, FCC 15– 

49, released on April 17, 2015. The 

complete text of this document, 

including any attachment, is available 

for public inspection and copying from 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) 

Monday through Thursday or from 8 

a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The Part 1 

Request for Comment and related 

documents also are available on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS