[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6019-6035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02207]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0789; FRL-9922-52-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Allentown Nonattainment Area to 
Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's request to redesignate to 
attainment the Allentown nonattainment area (Allentown Area or Area) 
for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 
determine that the Allentown Area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve as a 
revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the 
associated maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The maintenance plan 
includes the 2017 and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>x</INF>) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Area 
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to 
approve for transportation conformity purposes. Finally, EPA is 
proposing to approve as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the 2007 
base year emissions inventory for the Area for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. This rulemaking action to propose approval of 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS redesignation request and 
associated maintenance plan for the Allentown Area is based on EPA's 
determination that Pennsylvania has met the criteria for redesignation 
to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0789 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea9a859d8f9899c4878b9883869384aa8f9a8bc48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e2fde5f7e0e1bcfff3e0fbfeebfcd2f7e2f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0789 Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0789. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

[[Page 6020]]

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#19686c70776d76376b766a7c597c6978377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b7a7e62657f64257964786e4b6e7b6a256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Requirements
    A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
    B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions
    A. Effects of the August 21, 2012 D.C. Circuit Court Decision 
Regarding EPA's CSAPR
    B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision 
Regarding the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Under Subpart 4 of 
Part D of Title I of the CAA
V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's SIP Submittal
    A. Redesignation Request
    B. Maintenance Plan
    C. Transportation Conformity
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The first air quality standards for PM<INF>2.5</INF> were 
established on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual 
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), 
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations (the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS). In the same 
rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, 
based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 
concentrations.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average 
standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\, but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 
[mu]g/m\3\ based on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 
the 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS). 
On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which became effective on December 
14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Allentown Area 
as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The 
Allentown Area is comprised of Lehigh and Northampton Counties. See 40 
CFR 81.339.
    On March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the Allentown 
Area had clean data and monitored attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on this 
determination, the requirements for the Area to submit an attainment 
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, 
and other planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are suspended until such time as: The 
Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard, at which time the 
section 51.1004(c) requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that 
the Area has again violated the standard, at which time such plans are 
required to be submitted. EPA's review of the most recent certified 
monitoring data for the Area shows that the Area continues to attain 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    On September 5, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally 
submitted a request to redesignate the Allentown Area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Area as 
a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Area over 
the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs for the Area for the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive 
emissions inventory for the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, sulfur dioxide 
(SO<INF>2</INF>), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>).
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effects of 
several decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) and a decision of the United 
States Supreme Court: (1) The D.C. Circuit Court's August 21, 2012 
decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme Court's April 29, 2014 reversal 
of the vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the D.C. Circuit Court; (3) the 
D.C. Circuit Court's October 23, 2014 decision to lift the stay of 
CSAPR; and (4) the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision to 
remand to EPA two final rules implementing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

II. EPA's Requirements

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the 
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the 
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the 
CAA; (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area 
as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the 
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Each of these 
requirements are discussed in Section V. of today's proposed rulemaking 
action.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the ``SIPs; General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 
1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the General Preamble) and has 
provided further guidance on processing

[[Page 6021]]

redesignation requests in the following documents: (1) ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the 1992 Calcagni 
Memorandum); (2) ``SIP Actions Submitted in Response to CAA 
Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, October 28, 1992; and (3) ``Part D New Source 
Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
Under section 175A of the CAA, the plan must demonstrate continued 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval 
of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the 
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan 
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility 
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such 
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems 
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
violations.
    The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the 
content of a maintenance plan. The Memorandum states that a maintenance 
plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment 
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing 
maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing 
monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and (5) a 
contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment 
areas and for areas seeking redesignation to attainment for a given 
NAAQS. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 
attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create 
MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for the relevant criteria 
pollutants and/or their precursors, where appropriate, to address 
pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the 
portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to onroad 
vehicle use that, together with emissions from all other sources in the 
area, will provide attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as applicable. The 
budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned 
transportation system. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking 
a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the 
maintenance plan.
    The maintenance plan for the Allentown Area, that comprises Lehigh 
and Northampton Counties in Pennsylvania, includes the 2017 and 2025 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs for transportation conformity 
purposes. The transportation conformity determination for the Area is 
further discussed in Section V.C. of today's proposed rulemaking action 
and in a technical support document (TSD) dated December 1, 2014, which 
is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the 
redesignation of the Allentown Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Area meets 
the requirements for redesignation for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 
thus proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to change the legal 
definition for the Allentown Area from nonattainment to attainment for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 
approve the associated maintenance plan for the Area as a revision to 
the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, 
including the 2017 and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs 
for the Area for transportation conformity purposes. Approval of the 
maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of the 
Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 
Pennsylvania's maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued 
attainment in the Area for at least 10 years after redesignation for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    EPA previously determined that the Allentown Area had clean data 
showing monitored attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, and EPA is proposing to find that the Allentown Area continues 
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA is also 
proposing to approve the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory 
submitted by PADEP that includes PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF> for the Area as a revision to 
the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 
order to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions

A. Effects of the August 21, 2012 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding 
EPA's CSAPR

1. Background
    The D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court have issued a number 
of decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading 
programs for transported air pollution, the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR) and CSAPR, that impact this proposed redesignation action. In 
2008, the D.C. Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. 
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to 
EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by 
CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On 
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit Court's 
remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address interstate transport of 
emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace 
CAIR.\1\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 cap-and-trade programs. 
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 
30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order staying CSAPR pending 
resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer 
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. 
Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR addressed the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual NAAQS and 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR addresses contributions from 
upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as well as the ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS addressed by CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its ruling, 
vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and once again ordering continued 
implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 
F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit Court subsequently denied 
EPA's petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 
v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. 
EPA and other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of 
certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24,

[[Page 6022]]

2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013). 
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. 
Circuit Court's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to 
the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with 
its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014). EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light of the 
Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case 
No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In 
its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit Court to toll CSAPR's compliance 
deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply 
in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions 
budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On 
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the 
stay of CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order 
at 3. EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will 
implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's order granting 
EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the rule's 
deadlines. See 79 FR 71663, December 3, 2014 (interim final 
rulemaking). Consistent with the rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR on 
January 1, 2015.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    Because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and 
states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality 
data examined by EPA in issuing a final determination of attainment for 
the Allentown Area in 2012 (March 29, 2012, 77 FR 18922) and the air 
quality data from the Area since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in 
emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR, and Pennsylvania 
included CAIR as one of the measures that helped to bring the Area into 
attainment. However, modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR 
rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that 
``backed out'' the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR at 48223, projected that 
Lehigh and Northampton Counties would have a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 24-hour 
design value below the level of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
for 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emission reductions from 
CAIR or CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA's ``Air Quality Modeling Final 
Rule Technical Support Document,'' (Page B-86), which is available in 
the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010-
2012 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data 
for the Allentown Area confirms that the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
design value for the Area remained well below the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 2012.
    The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR 
was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C. 
Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it 
created were scheduled to go into effect. Therefore, the Allentown 
Area's attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS cannot 
have been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In 
addition, on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the stay 
on CSAPR and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. In 
summary, neither the status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR 
affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation 
request for the Area.

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' final rule (73 FR 28321, 
May 16, 2008) (collectively, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation 
Rule). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court found that 
EPA erred in implementing the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part 
D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-
matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title I (subpart 
4). Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked 
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS'' (the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 
Rule), which identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas 
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The rule set a deadline for states to 
submit attainment plans and meet other subpart 4 requirements. The rule 
specifies December 31, 2014 as the deadline for states to submit any 
additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed to meet 
the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas currently designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and/or 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment 
new source review (NSR) requirements in subpart 4.
    As explained in detail in the following section, since Pennsylvania 
submitted its request to redesignate the Allentown Area on September 5, 
2014, any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed 
for the Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were not 
due at the time Pennsylvania submitted its request to redesignate the 
Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the 
Area's redesignation request. EPA is proposing to determine that the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA from 
redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's 
decision, redesignation for this Area is appropriate under the CAA and 
EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding 
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that 
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete 
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the 
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 
requirements to the redesignation request of the Area and disregards 
the provisions of its 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule 
recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania's request for 
redesignation

[[Page 6023]]

of the Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes into 
account the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling and the June 2, 
2014 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the 
maintenance plan of the Area, which EPA views as approvable when 
subpart 4 requirements are considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating 
the Redesignation Request of the Area
    With respect to the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for 
implementing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS solely in accordance with the 
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 
could address implementation of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under 
subpart 4 of part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the 
purposes of evaluating Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 
Allentown Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would 
impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA 
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the 
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and thus EPA is not 
required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the 
redesignation of the Area. Under its longstanding interpretation of the 
CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold 
matter, that the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' and which 
must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only 
those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete 
redesignation request. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. See also ``SIP 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after 
November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 
memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 
12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, 
(68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 
537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking 
applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view 
that the meaning of ``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever 
should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than 
whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented or due at the 
time of attainment'').\2\ In this case, at the time that Pennsylvania 
submitted its redesignation request for the Allentown Area for the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the requirements under subpart 4 were 
not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicable 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the redesignation of 
the Area, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time 
Pennsylvania submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the 
EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone 
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 
2006). In South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was not 
permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under 
subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to 
implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 
2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and 
acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its 
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable 
requirements,'' for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those 
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. 
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County 
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those 
rulemaking actions, EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 
requirements to be ``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating 
whether the area should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA.
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of section 
107(d)(3) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area 
to be redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' 
to the area under section 110 and part D.'' Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 
provides that EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for 
the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together 
support EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those 
requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete 
redesignation request.
    First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA 
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation 
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or 
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with 
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a 
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, 
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously 
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to 
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those 
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that 
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month 
timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due 
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which 
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained 
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came 
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that 
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future 
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only 
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the 
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for 
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP 
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete 
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the 
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a 
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, and EPA's 
June 2, 2014 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 
Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due 
after the redesignation request is submitted. Pennsylvania submitted 
its redesignation request for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
on September 5, 2014 for the Allentown Area, which is prior to the 
deadline by which the Area is required to meet the attainment plan and 
other requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
    To require Pennsylvania's fully-completed and pending redesignation

[[Page 6024]]

request for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to comply now with 
requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court announced only in 
January 2013 and for which the deadline to comply has not yet come 
would be to give retroactive effect to such requirements and provide 
Pennsylvania a unique and earlier deadline for compliance solely on the 
basis of submitting its redesignation request for the Area. The D.C. 
Circuit Court recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive 
impact in Sierra Club Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\3\ where 
it upheld the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive 
EPA's determination that the Area did not meet its attainment deadline. 
In that case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA's 
nonattainment determination effective as of the date that the statute 
required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the 
determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, stating that 
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would 
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention 
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sierra 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize Pennsylvania 
by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is already 
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and that met all 
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the 
request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because 
Pennsylvania did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements which 
have not yet come due and for which it had little to no notice, would 
inflict the same unfairness condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in 
Sierra Club v. Whitman.
b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Pennsylvania's Redesignation Requests
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending 
redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, subpart 4 
requirements were due and in effect at the time Pennsylvania submitted 
its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Area 
still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA believes that 
the redesignation request for the Area, though not expressed in terms 
of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that 
subpart for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of 
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Allentown Area, EPA notes 
that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which 
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated 
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 
specific planning and scheduling requirements for coarse particulate 
matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) \4\ nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. 
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 
statutory requirements also apply for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PM<INF>10</INF> refers to particulates nominally 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 
Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the Allentown Area 
to be a ``moderate'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. As EPA 
explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA provides 
that all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are 
initially classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment 
areas, and remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA 
reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly, 
EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the 
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be 
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of 
subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the 
following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and 
modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an 
attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for 
RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones 
demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date 
(section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions 
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM<INF>10</INF>, without adding 
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not 
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements 
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\5\ In any 
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the 
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not 
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the 
area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale 
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, 
``Part D NSR Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is 
discussed in the rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under 
subpart 4,\6\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either 
subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 6025]]

the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP 
towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA refers to attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Preamble also explained that: ``[t]he section 172(c)(9) 
requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the 
applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has 
attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, 
section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements 
for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) for these areas.'' Id. EPA similarly stated in its 
1992 Calcagni Memorandum that, ``The requirements for reasonable 
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not 
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not 
attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit 
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 
attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed 
retroactively \7\ or prior to December 31, 2014 and thus, were due 
prior to Pennsylvania's redesignation request, those requirements do 
not apply to an area that is attaining the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a pending request 
to redesignate the area to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated 
this interpretation of applicable requirements under section 
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty 
years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of EPA's authority to 
interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has 
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning 
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines 
are attaining the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA's prior 
``Clean Data Policy'' rulemakings for the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> Redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 
Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin 
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 
63641, 63643-47, October 30, 2006). In short, EPA in this context has 
also long concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP 
planning requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so 
long as those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.
    Elsewhere in this rule, EPA determined that the Area has attained 
and continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Under 
its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here 
that the Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of 
subparts 1 and 4 for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Thus, EPA 
is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment 
demonstration under section 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under 
section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 
189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9) 
are satisfied for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for 
PM<INF>10</INF> has allowed for control of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors 
such as NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
shall also apply to PM<INF>10</INF> precursors from those sources, 
except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such 
precursors ``do not contribute significantly to PM<INF>10</INF> levels 
which exceed the standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, remanded by the 
D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning 
certain PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF>] as . . . PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and 
NH<INF>3</INF>] 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for 
such regulation of VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> in specific areas where that 
was necessary.
    The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made 
reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated that, 
``In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' 
challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that VOCs and 
NH<INF>3</INF> are not PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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: ``NH<INF>3</INF> is a precursor to fine 
particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF>. For a PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area governed by 
subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 
7513a(e) [section 189(e)].'' Id. at 21, n.7.
    For a number of reasons, the redesignation of the Allentown Area 
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule provisions regarding NH<INF>3</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding NH<INF>3</INF> 
and VOC as PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, the regulatory consequence 
would be to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any 
sources in the Area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 
189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the 
case of the Allentown Area, EPA

[[Page 6026]]

believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of 
the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The Area has 
attained the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS without any specific 
additional controls of NH<INF>3</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> precursors.\8\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior 
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of 
NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC. Thus EPA must address here whether additional 
controls of NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC from major stationary sources are 
required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the 
Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. As explained 
subsequently, any additional controls of NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC are 
required in the context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing 
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor 
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated 
that control of VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve 
a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e). 
See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking action, proposes to determine 
that the Pennsylvania SIP revisions have met the provisions of section 
189(e) with respect to NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC as precursors. This 
proposed determination is based on EPA's findings that: (1) The Area 
contains no major stationary sources of NH<INF>3,</INF> and (2) 
existing major stationary sources of VOC are adequately controlled 
under other provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.\9\ In the 
alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express 
exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the 
redesignation of the Area, which is attaining the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, at present NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC precursors 
from major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to levels 
exceeding the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Area. See 57 
FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. By contrast, 
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the nonattainment area 
to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to 
maintain the standard. Thus, even if we regard the DC Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of 
NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> contemplates that states may develop attainment plans 
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of 
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that 
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control 
purposes.\10\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM<INF>10</INF>.\11\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Area has already attained the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to 
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment 
of precursors. Even if the DC Circuit Court's decision is construed to 
impose an obligation, in evaluating these redesignation requests, to 
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect 
EPA's approval here of Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the 
Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In the context of a 
redesignation, the Area has shown that it has attained the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Moreover, Pennsylvania has shown and EPA has 
proposed to determine that attainment of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in this Area is due to permanent and enforceable 
emissions reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for 
continued attainment of the NAAQS. See Section V.A.3. of this 
rulemaking. It follows logically that no further control of additional 
precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 
2013 decision of the DC Circuit Court as precluding redesignation of 
the Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at 
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>10</INF> 
Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-
Hour and Annual PM<INF>10</INF> Standards,'' (69 FR 30006, May 26, 
2004) (approving a PM<INF>10</INF> attainment plan that impose 
controls on direct PM<INF>10</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and 
did not impose controls on SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, or NH<INF>3</INF> 
emissions).
    \11\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, even if, prior to the date of the redesignation request 
submittal, Pennsylvania was required to address precursors for the Area 
under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA's 
remanded 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, EPA would still 
conclude that the Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes 
of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v) of 
the CAA.

V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's SIP Submittal

    EPA is proposing, several rulemaking actions for the Allentown 
nonattainment area: (1) To redesignate the Allentown Area to attainment 
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS; (2) to approve into the 
Pennsylvania SIP the associated maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 2007 comprehensive 
emissions inventory into the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy the 
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Area, which is one 
of the criteria for redesignation. EPA's proposed approval of the 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are based upon EPA's determination that the Area 
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which EPA 
is proposing in this rulemaking action, and that all other 
redesignation criteria have been met for the Area. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs for Lehigh and Northampton 
Counties, Pennsylvania for transportation conformity purposes. The

[[Page 6027]]

following is a description of how the Pennsylvania September 5, 2014 
submittal satisfies the requirements of the CAA including specifically 
section 107(d)(3)(E) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    As noted previously, in the final rulemaking action dated March 29, 
2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the Allentown Area had clean 
data for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA based this 
determination upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and 
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the Area has 
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS based 
on the 2008-2010 data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring data in the Area consistent with the requirements contained 
at 40 CFR part 50, and recorded in EPA's AQS database. To support the 
previous determination of attainment of the Area, EPA has also reviewed 
more recent data in its AQS database, including certified, quality-
assured data for the period from 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012 and 
2011-2013. This data, shown in Table 1, shows that the Area continues 
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In addition, as 
discussed subsequently with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has 
committed to continue monitoring ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Area continues to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

Table 1--Design Values for the Allentown Area for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS ([mu]g/m\3\) for 2008-2010, 2009-
                                 2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 (35 [mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Monitor ID #                     2008-2010        2009-2011        2010-2012        2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freemansburg 42-095-0025....................              32               33               32               32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
of the CAA
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP 
revisions for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the Allentown 
Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and all the 
requirements applicable to the Area under section 110 of the CAA 
(general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP 
requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general 
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations 
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the 
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect 
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. 
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are not limited to the following: (1) 
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable 
public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air 
quality; (3) implementation of a minor source permit program; 
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (PSD); (4) 
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for NSR permit 
programs; (5) provisions for air pollution modeling; and (6) provisions 
for public and local agency participation in planning and emission 
control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain 
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing 
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, 
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the 
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), amendments to 
the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, 
March 2, 2000), CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005), and CSAPR. However, 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requirements for a state are not linked 
with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification 
in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements 
are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements 
of the CAA not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not 
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements 
for purposes of redesignation. The Area will still be subject to these 
requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA and part D requirements which are linked with a 
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that 
section 110(a)(2) elements of the CAA not linked in the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability 
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels 
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings 
(61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and 
Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See 
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation 
(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 
redesignation (66 FR 53099, October 19, 2001).
    EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania SIP and has concluded that it 
meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA 
has previously approved provisions of Pennsylvania's SIP addressing 
section 110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. See 77 FR 58955 (September 25, 2012). These 
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked 
to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment status of the Area. Therefore, 
EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements 
for purposes of review of

[[Page 6028]]

Pennsylvania's PM<INF>2.5</INF> redesignation request.
b. Subpart 1 Requirements
    Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements 
applicable to PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas. Under section 172 
of the CAA, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing 
for timely attainment and meet a variety of other requirements.
    EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning 
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the 
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the 
SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble 
for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of 
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation 
requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564 
(April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other 
measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating 
redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning 
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained 
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the 1992 
Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the 
basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state's 
obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that 
would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and 
planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and contingency measures under 
section 172(c)(9).\12\ Courts have upheld EPA's interpretation of 
section 172(c)(1)'s ``reasonably available'' control measures and 
control technology as meaning only those controls that advance 
attainment, which precludes the need to require additional measures 
where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 
(D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 
2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This regulation was promulgated as part of the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS implementation rule that was subsequently 
challenged and remanded in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 
2013), as discussed in Section IV.B of this rule. However, the Clean 
Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was not at issue in 
that case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Allentown 
Area, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and 
section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM 
are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation 
as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until 
redesignation. Section 172(c)(2)'s requirement that nonattainment plans 
contain provisions promoting reasonable further progress toward 
attainment is also not relevant for purposes of redesignation because 
EPA has determined that the Allentown Area has monitored attainment of 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In addition, because the 
Allentown Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and 
is no longer subject to a RFP requirement, the requirement to submit 
the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for 
purposes of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 
contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the 
NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are 
needed to provide for attainment.
    The requirement under section 172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA's 
clean data determination for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
and is the only remaining requirement under section 172 of the CAA to 
be considered for purposes of redesignation of the Area. Section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As 
part of Pennsylvania's redesignation request submittal, Pennsylvania 
submitted a 2007 base year emissions inventory for the Area for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS which includes emissions estimates 
that cover the general source categories of point sources, nonroad 
mobile sources, area sources and on-road mobile sources. The pollutants 
that comprise the inventory are NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NH<INF>3</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>.
    In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 
base year emissions inventory in accordance with section 172(c)(3) of 
the CAA for the Area. Final approval of the 2007 base year emissions 
inventory will satisfy the emissions inventory requirement under 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For more information on the evaluation 
and EPA's analysis of the 2007 base year emissions inventory, see 
Appendices B-1 and C-1 of Pennsylvania's submittals and the emissions 
inventory technical support document (TSD) dated December 17, 2014, 
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. 
The summary of the 2007 base year emissions inventory in tons per year 
(tpy) are shown in Table 2.

                             Table 2--Allentown Area 2007 Emissions by Source Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sector                   PM2.5         PM10         SO2          NOX          VOC          NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        3,565        4,641       54,071       13,663        1,151           31
Area..............................        2,150        6,415        2,552        1,987        8,266          582
Nonroad...........................          536          647          118       15,857        6,936          245
Onroad............................          256          272          158        3,177        2,685            3
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................        6,507       11,975       56,900       34,685       19,038          861
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and 
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified 
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA 
requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. 
EPA has determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after 
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the 
requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is 
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 entitled, ``Part D NSR 
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to

[[Page 6029]]

Attainment.'' Nevertheless, Pennsylvania currently has an approved NSR 
program, codified in the Commonwealth's regulations at 25 Pa. Code 
127.201 et seq. See 77 FR 41276 (July 13, 2012) (approving NSR program 
into the SIP). See also 49 FR 33127 (August 21, 1984) (approving 
Pennsylvania's PSD program). However, Pennsylvania's PSD program for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS will become effective in the 
Allentown Area upon redesignation to attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the 
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted 
previously, Pennsylvania SIP revisions meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA that are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to 
attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of 
the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the 
redesignation.'' In conjunction with its request to redesignate the 
Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to 
provide for maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 
the Area for at least 10 years after redesignation, through 2025. 
Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as 
meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the 
maintenance plan for the Area will ensure that the SIP for Pennsylvania 
meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the Area. EPA's analysis of the 
maintenance plan is provided in Section V.B. of today's proposed 
rulemaking action.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of 
the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported 
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation 
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity 
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability 
which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA 
approved Pennsylvania's transportation conformity SIP requirements on 
April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19541).
    Thus, for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, EPA determines that upon final 
approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory as proposed in 
this rulemaking action, the Area will meet all applicable SIP 
requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA for purposes of 
redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
c. Pennsylvania Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 
110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory 
proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA will have fully SIP-approved, 
all applicable requirements of the Pennsylvania SIP revisions for the 
Area for purposes of redesignaton to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in accordance with section 110(k) of the CAA. As 
noted in this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the Area's 
2007 emissions inventory (submitted as part of the maintenance plan) as 
meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Therefore, upon approval of the 2007 
emissions inventory, Pennsylvania will have satisfied all applicable 
requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA for the Area.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air 
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and 
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions. In making this demonstration, 
Pennsylvania has calculated the change in emissions between 2005, which 
is the year used to designate the Area as nonattainment, and 2007, 
which is one of the years the Area monitored attainment, as shown in 
Table 3. The reduction in emissions (negative values) in tpy, and the 
corresponding improvement in air quality from 2005 to 2007 in the Area 
can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that have 
been implemented in the Area and contributing areas in recent years. 
For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2005 and 2007 emissions 
inventories, see EPA's emissions inventory TSD dated December 17, 2014, 
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.

         Table 3--Emission Reductions From 2005 Base Year to 2007 Attainment Year in the Allentown Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Change from 2005 to 2007                PM2.5         SO2          NOX          VOC          NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point & Area Sources...........................       -1,023       -6,848       -5,194       -2,660         -507
Highway Vehicle Sources........................          340         -136        5,204         -536         -261
Nonroad Sources................................          -17         -151          -66         -243            0
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................         -699       -7,136          -57       -3,439         -768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Federal Measures Implemented
    Reductions in PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions have occurred 
statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control 
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the 
future.
    NOX SIP Call--On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 
states to reduce emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, a precursor to ozone 
pollution.\13\ Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of 
the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission 
reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call are permanent and enforceable. By imposing an 
emissions cap regionally, the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call reduced 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from large EGUs and large non-EGUs such as 
industrial boilers, internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. In 
response to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, Pennsylvania

[[Page 6030]]

adopted its NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program regulations for EGUs 
and large industrial boilers, with emission reductions starting in May 
2003. Pennsylvania's NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program regulation 
was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 
43795). To meet other requirements of the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, 
Pennsylvania adopted NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call was issued in order to 
address ozone pollution, reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> as a result of 
that program have also impacted PM<INF>2.5</INF> pollution, for 
which NO<INF>X</INF> is also a precursor emission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAIR--As previously noted, CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) created 
regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 28 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. 
EPA approved the Commonwealth's CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. 
Code Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 
10, 2009 (74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> 
trading program superseded the NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program, 
although the emission reduction obligations of the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP 
Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). EPA 
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading program for 
EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the DC Circuit Court's 
October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and 
implementation of CSAPR began in January 2015. EPA expects that the 
implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR 
and result in additional SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
reductions throughout the maintenance period.

Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards

    These emission control requirements result in lower NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from heavy-duty highway 
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 
15 ppm. Standards for gasoline engines were phased in starting in 2008. 
The total program is estimated to achieve a 90 percent reduction in 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and a 95 percent reduction in 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles using spark-ignition 
engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and 
snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Emission standards 
from large spark-ignition 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  
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, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and VOCs from major source boilers and process heaters 
nationwide. Also, the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) 
MACT will reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> statewide.

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program

    Pennsylvania's Vehicle Emission I/M program was expanded into the 
Allentown Area in early 2004, and applies to model year 1975 and newer 
gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000 pounds and under. The program, 
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313), 
consists

[[Page 6031]]

of annual on-board diagnostics and gas cap test for model year 1996 
vehicles and newer, and an annual visual inspection of pollution 
control devices and gas cap test for model year 1995 vehicles and 
older. This program reduces emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> from affected 
vehicles.

Consumer Products Regulation

    Pennsylvania regulation ``Chapter 130, Subchapter B. Consumer 
Products'' established, effective January 1, 2005, VOC emission limits 
for numerous categories of consumer product, and applies statewide to 
any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures such 
consumer products on or after January 1, 2005 for use in Pennsylvania. 
It was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 
70895). Amendments to the Consumer Products regulations was approved 
into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717).

Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents Regulation

    Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in 2010 to control VOC emissions 
from adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents. This regulation was 
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090).
    Based on the information summarized above, Pennsylvania has 
adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality in the 
Allentown Area are due to permanent and enforceable emissions 
reductions. The reductions result from Federal and State requirements 
and regulation of precursors within Pennsylvania that affect the 
Allentown Area.

B. Maintenance Plan

    On September 5, 2014, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the 
Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as required 
by section 175A of the CAA. EPA's analysis for proposing approval of 
the maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the 
nonattainment area. For a maintenance plan, states are required to 
submit an inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area 
which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS, referred to as the attainment 
inventory (or the maintenance plan base year inventory), and which 
should be based on actual emissions. PADEP submitted an attainment 
inventory for 2007, which is one of the years in the period during 
which the Allentown Area monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The inventory for 2007 is comprised of 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and 
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions from point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad 
mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.
    The 2007 point source inventory contained emissions for EGU and 
non-EGU sources in Lehigh and Northampton Counties that were directly 
reported by the facilities. Since the reported emissions did not 
include condensable emissions, the EGU inventory was augmented to 
account for condensable emissions by application of emission factors 
developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 
(MARAMA) in 2008. The nonpoint source emissions inventory for 2007 was 
developed using 2007 specific activity data along with EPA emission 
factors and the most recent available emission calculation 
methodologies. PADEP used the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 
data to fill in any missing categories in the 2007 inventory. For the 
2007 nonroad mobile sources, PADEP generated emissions using EPA's 
National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 2008 model. Since marine, air 
and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions are not part of the NONROAD model, 
they were calculated separately outside of the NONROAD model. The 2007 
onroad mobile source inventory was developed using EPA's highway mobile 
source emissions model MOVES2010. PADEP used local activity to replace 
default inputs in the model where appropriate.
    EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and found the 
2007 emissions inventory acceptable for meeting the requirements under 
section 172(c)(3). For more information on the emissions inventory 
submitted by PADEP for the Area and EPA's analysis of the emissions 
inventory, see Appendices B-1 and C-1 of the Pennsylvania submittal and 
the emissions inventory TSD dated December 17, 2014, which is available 
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment 
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in 
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has 
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten 
years following redesignation.'' Where the emissions inventory method 
of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions 
during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment 
year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10.
    For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are 
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of 
future growth and controls; however, the maintenance demonstration need 
not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, 
supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100; 68 FR 25430-32. PADEP uses 
projection inventories to show that the Area will remain in attainment 
and developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a 
maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2,</INF> VOC, NH<INF>3</INF>, and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> will remain at or below the attainment year 2007 
emissions levels throughout the Area through the year 2025.
    The Federal and State measures described in Section V.A.3. of this 
proposed rulemaking action demonstrate that the reductions in emissions 
from point, area, and mobile sources in the Area has occurred and will 
continue to occur through 2025. In addition, the following State and 
Federal regulations and programs ensure the continuing decline of 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and VOC emissions in 
the Area during the maintenance period and beyond:

Non-EGUs Previously Covered Under the NOX SIP Call

    Pennsylvania established NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for the 
large industrial boilers that were previously subject to the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, but were not subject to CAIR. For these units, 
Pennsylvania established an allowable ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> limit 
based on the unit's previous ozone season's heat input. A combined 
NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season emissions cap of 3,418 tons applies for all 
of these units.

CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208)

    EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading 
program for EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit 
Court's October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and 
EPA began implementation of CSAPR in January 2015. EPA expects that the 
implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR 
and result in additional SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
reductions throughout the maintenance period.

Regulation of Cement Kilns

    On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 52558), EPA approved amendments to 25 Pa. 
Code

[[Page 6032]]

Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
from cement kilns. The amendments established NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
rate limits for long wet kilns, long dry kilns, and preheater and 
precalciner kilns that are lower by 35 to 63 percent from the previous 
limit of 6 pounds of NO<INF>X</INF> per ton of clinker that applied to 
all kilns. The amendments were effective on April 15, 2011.

Stationary Source Regulations

    Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapter D for 
Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and Solvents was approved into the 
Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation 
established VOC content limits for various categories of adhesives, 
sealants, primers, and solvent, and became applicable on January 1, 
2012.
    Amendments to Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, 
Subchapter B established, effective January 1, 2009, new or more 
stringent VOC standards for consumer products. The amendments were 
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717).

Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program

    The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (formerly, New Motor 
Vehicle Control Program) incorporates by reference the California Low 
Emission Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it allowed automakers to 
comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this program until 
Model Year (MY) 2006. The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in 25 Pa. 
Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, was modified to require CA LEVII to 
apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP 
on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The Clean Vehicles Program 
incorporates by reference the emission control standards of CA LEVII, 
which, among other requirements, reduces emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> by 
requiring that passenger car emission standards and fleet average 
emission standards also apply to light duty vehicles. Model year 2008 
and newer passenger cars and light duty trucks are required to be 
certified for emissions by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), in 
order to be sold, leased, offered for sale or lease, imported, 
delivered, purchased, rented, acquired, received, titled or registered 
in Pennsylvania. In addition, manufacturers are required to demonstrate 
that the California fleet average standard is met based on the number 
of new light-duty vehicles delivered for sale in the Commonwealth. The 
Commonwealth's submittal for the January 24, 2012 rulemaking projected 
that, by 2025, the program will achieve 318 tons more NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions than Tier II for the counties in the Allentown Area.
    Two Pennsylvania regulations--its Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle 
Idling Act (August 1, 2011, 76 FR 45705) and its Outdoor Wood-Fired 
Boiler regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR 58114)--were not included 
in the projection inventories, but may also assist in maintaining the 
NAAQS. Also, the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 
FR 23414, April 29, 2014) establishes more stringent vehicle emissions 
standards and will reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 
2017. The fuel standard will achieve NO<INF>X</INF> reductions by 
further increasing the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls for 
both existing and new vehicles.
    The projection inventories for the 2017 and 2025 point, area, and 
nonroad sources were taken from regional inventories coordinated by 
MARAMA for the states in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 
and Virginia (MANE-VU+VA), which includes Pennsylvania. Detailed 
discussion of how 2017 and 2025 projections were developed are 
contained in Appendix C-2 and C-3, respectively, of Pennsylvania's 
submittal. EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and 
found the methodologies acceptable.
    EPA has determined that the 2017 and 2025 projected emissions 
inventories provided by PADEP are approvable. For more information on 
EPA's analysis of the emissions inventory, see EPA's TSD dated December 
17, 2014, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking 
action. Table 5 provides a summary of the inventories for the 2007 
attainment year, as compared to the projected inventories for the 2017 
interim year and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Area in 
tpy.

  Table 5--Comparison of 2007 Attainment Year and 2017 and 2025 Projected PM2.5 Emissions in the Allentown Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PM2.5         NOX          SO2          NH3          VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 (attainment)..............................        6,507       34,685       56,900          861       19,038
2017 (interim).................................        5,875       20,471       27,731          809       14,627
2017 (projected decrease)......................          682       14,214       29,169           52        4,411
2025 (maintenance).............................        5,745       17,281       26,850          807       13,133
2025 (projected decrease)......................          762       17,467       30,050           54        5,905
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 5, the projected levels of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, NH<INF>3</INF>, and VOC are well under 
the 2007 attainment year levels for each of these pollutants. 
Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that the Area will continue to 
maintain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS during the 10 year 
maintenance period.
    While Pennsylvania's maintenance plan submitted for the Allentown 
Area for CAA section 175A did not specifically include or mention the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits EPA imposed on the Portland Generating 
Station located in Northampton County, Pennsylvania (Portland Facility) 
in 2011, EPA notes that those limits will likely support the Allentown 
Area's ability to maintain the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS going 
forward because SO<INF>2</INF> is a precursor to PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 
Thus, reduced SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the Portland Facility 
should also reduce subsequent PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation. Pursuant to 
section 126 of the CAA, on November 7, 2011, EPA promulgated 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limitations and reporting requirements for the 
coal-fired boilers (Units 1 and 2) at the Portland Facility after EPA 
made a finding that the coal-fired units at the Portland Facility 
significantly contribute to nonattainment for the 1-hour 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in New Jersey. See 76 FR 69052 (relating to final 
response to petition from New Jersey regarding SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from the Portland Facility). The federally enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> 
emission limitations and reporting requirements for the coal-fired 
boilers (Units 1 and 2) at the Portland Facility are established in 40 
CFR 52.2039.
    The SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits in 40 CFR 52.2039 represent an 
81 percent reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the Portland 
Facility's previously permitted levels. In 2010, Portland emitted 
approximately 23,000 tons of SO<INF>2</INF>. The

[[Page 6033]]

limits and requirements in 40 CFR 52.2039 are ``applicable 
requirements'' as defined in 25 Pa. Code Sec.  121.1 (which is included 
in the federally enforceable Pennsylvania SIP) because they have been 
promulgated or approved by the EPA under the CAA or the regulations 
adopted under the CAA through rulemaking. As applicable requirements, 
they must therefore be included in a Title V operating permit for the 
Portland Facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code Sec.  127.502.
3. Monitoring Network
    Pennsylvania's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue 
to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to 
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Pennsylvania currently 
operates a PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor at the Freemansburg monitoring site 
in Northampton County. In its September 5, 2014 submittal, Pennsylvania 
stated that it will consult with EPA prior to making any necessary 
changes to the network and will continue to quality assure the 
monitoring data in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Area, PADEP 
requires major point sources to submit air emissions information 
annually and prepares a new periodic inventory for all PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors every three years in accordance with EPA's Air Emissions 
Reporting Requirements (AERR). Emissions information will be compared 
to the attainment year inventory (2007) to assure continued attainment 
with the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and will be used to assess 
emissions trends, as necessary. Also, as noted in the previous 
subsection, PADEP will continue to operate its monitoring system in 
accordance with 40 CFR 58 and remains obligated to quality-assure 
monitoring data and enter all data into the AQS in accordance with 
Federal requirements. PADEP will use this data, supplemented with 
additional data, as necessary, to assure continuing attainment in the 
Area.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct 
any violation of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS that occurs in 
the Area after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a 
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to ensure that a state will promptly correct a violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should 
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and 
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) 
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the 
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Pennsylvania's maintenance plan describes the procedures for the 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to reduce emissions 
should a violation occur. Pennsylvania's contingency measures include a 
first level response and a second level response. A first level 
response is triggered when the annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentration exceeds 35.0 [mu]g/m\3\ in a single calendar year within 
the Area, or if the periodic emissions inventory for the Area exceeds 
the attainment year inventory by more than ten percent. The first level 
response will consist of a study to determine if the emissions trends 
show increasing concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and whether this 
trend is likely to continue. If it is determined through the study that 
action is necessary to reverse a trend of emissions increases, 
Pennsylvania will, as expeditiously as possible, implement necessary 
and appropriate control measures to reverse the trend.
    A second level response will be prompted if the two-year average of 
the annual mean concentration exceeds 35.0 [mu]g/m\3\ within the Area. 
This would trigger an evaluation of the conditions causing the 
exceedence, whether additional emission control measures should be 
implemented to prevent a violation of the standard, and analysis of 
potential measures that could be implemented to prevent a violation. 
Pennsylvania would then begin its adoption process to implement the 
measures as expeditiously as practicable.
    Pennsylvania's candidate contingency measures include the 
following: (1) A regulation based on the Ozone Transport Commission 
(OTC) Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products; (2) a 
regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 
industrial cleaning solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects such as 
diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets, 
idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives, and idling 
reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and 
other freight-handling facilities; (4) promotion of accelerated 
turnover of lawn and garden equipment, focusing on commercial 
equipment; and (5) promotion of alternative fuels for fleets, home 
heating and agricultural use. Pennsylvania's rulemaking process and 
schedule for adoption and implementation of any necessary contingency 
measure is shown in the SIP submittals as being 18 months from PADEP's 
approval to initiate rulemaking. For all of the reasons discussed in 
this section, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance plan for the Allentown Area as meeting the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means 
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a 
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely 
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity 
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and 
the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation 
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to 
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated 
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are 
less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP. On September 5, 
2014, Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions that contain the 2017 and 
2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> onroad mobile source budgets 
for Lehigh and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania did not 
provide emission budgets for SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, that 
emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are not significant 
contributors to the Area's PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality problem. EPA 
issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). That decision does not affect EPA's 
proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The MVEBs are presented in 
Table 6.

[[Page 6034]]



 Table 6--MVEBs for Lehigh and Northampton Counties in Pennsylvania for
                     the 2006 24-Hour NAAQS, in tpy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                          PM2.5         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017..........................................          297        8,081
2025..........................................          234        5,303
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are 
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA 
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected 
level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIPs will achieve 
its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA's process for determining adequacy 
of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public 
notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the 
opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and 
(3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is also initiating the 
process for determining whether or not the MVEBs are adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes. The publication of this rule starts 
a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs. 
This comment period is concurrent with the comment period on this 
proposed action and comments should be submitted to the docket for this 
rulemaking. EPA may choose to make its determination on the adequacy of 
the budgets either in the final rulemaking on this maintenance plan and 
redesignation request or by informing Pennsylvania of the determination 
in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal Register and posting a 
notice on EPA's adequacy Web page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For additional information on the adequacy process, please 
refer to 40 CFR 93.118(f) and the discussion of the adequacy process 
in the preamble to the 2004 final transportation conformity rule. 
See 69 FR 40039-40043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and finds them consistent with the 
maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the criteria for adequacy 
and approval in 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve the 2017 and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs for 
Lehigh and Northampton Counties for transportation conformity purposes. 
Additional information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be 
found in the TSD, ``Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Allentown 2006 Fine Particulate 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area,'' dated 
December 1, 2014, available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 
No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0789.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to redesignate 
the Allentown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 
redesignation request and determined that the Area meets the 
redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 
The monitoring data demonstrates that the Area had attained the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as determined by EPA in a prior 
rulemaking, and, for the reasons discussed herein, that it will 
continue to attain the NAAQS. Final approval of this redesignation 
request would change the designation of the Allentown Area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan 
for the Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP because it meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA as described previously in this 
proposed rulemaking. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 
base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirement of section 
172(a)(3) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 
and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs for Lehigh and 
Northampton Counties for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is 
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. 
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 
redesignation request, maintenance plan, 2007 base year emissions 
inventory, and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the 
Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.


[[Page 6035]]


    Dated: January 21, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-02207 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>