[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76251-76267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29777]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0147; FRL-9920-70-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for 
the Reading, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual Fine 
Particulate Matter Standard, and 2007 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) 
request to redesignate to attainment the Reading, Pennsylvania 
nonattainment area (Reading Area or the Area) for the 1997 annual fine 
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS). In addition, EPA is proposing to approve, as a 
revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 
Reading Area maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 1997 annual 
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 
Reading Area for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which EPA is 
proposing to approve for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is 
also proposing to find adequate the MVEBs for Berks County. Finally, 
EPA is proposing to approve, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, the 
2007 base year emissions inventory for the Area for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

[[Page 76252]]


DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0147 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fe9eafde1eee1ebeaf5a1ecfde6fcfbe6e1eecfeaffeea1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f39596819d929d979689dd90819a80879a9d92b3968392dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0147, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the 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-
2014-0147. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c6c736b796e6f32717d6e757065725c796c7d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="56263921332425783b37243f3a2f381633263778313920">[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 EME Homer City Decision
    B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 DC 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> standard or the 
standard). In the same rulemaking, 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 January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), EPA published air quality 
area designations for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In that 
rulemaking action, EPA designated the Reading Area as nonattainment for 
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The Reading Area is comprised 
of Berks County in Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania). 
Since the Reading Area is designated nonattainment for the annual NAAQS 
promulgated in 1997, today's proposed rulemaking action addresses the 
redesignation to attainment only for this standard.
    On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863), EPA determined that the 
Reading Area had attained the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on this determination, the 
requirements for the Reading Area to submit an attainment demonstration 
and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a 
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other 
planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of the 1997 annual 
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. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA 
determined that the Reading Area had attained the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of April 5, 
2010. EPA's review of the most recent certified monitoring data for the 
Area shows that the Area continues to attain the standard.
    On November 25, 2013, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally 
submitted a request to redesignate the Reading Area from nonattainment 
to attainment for the 1997 annual 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 Areas for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to approve for transportation conformity 
purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory 
for the 1997 annual 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 (VOC), and (ammonia) NH<INF>3</INF>. EPA is proposing to 
approve as a SIP revision the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007 
emissions inventory to meet the emissions inventory requirement of 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

II. EPA's Requirements

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area

[[Page 76253]]

to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 
redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the area has 
attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the 
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the 
CAA; (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area 
as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the 
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Each of these 
requirements are discussed in section V (EPA's Analysis of 
Pennsylvania's SIP Submittal) of today's proposed rulemaking action.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the ``SIPs; General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 
1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the ``General Preamble'') and 
has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in 
the following documents: (1) ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter 
referred to as the ``1992 Calcagni Memorandum''); (2) ``SIP Actions 
Submitted in Response to CAA Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; 
and (3) ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994.

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
Under section 175A of the CAA, the plan must demonstrate continued 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval 
of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the 
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan 
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility 
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such 
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems 
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 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 Reading Area 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 subsection C of section V 
(Transportation Conformity) of today's proposed rulemaking action and 
in a technical support document (TSD) dated April 29, 2014, which is 
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the 
redesignation of the Reading Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Area meets 
the requirements for redesignation for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to 
approve the associated maintenance plan for the Reading Area as a 
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual 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. The approval of the maintenance plan is one of the 
CAA criteria for redesignation of the Area to attainment for the 1997 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Pennsylvania's maintenance plan is 
designed to ensure continued attainment in the Reading Area for 10 
years after redesignation.
    EPA previously determined that the Reading Area has attained the 
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See 76 FR 45424, (July 27, 2011). 
In this rulemaking action, EPA proposes to find that the Area continues 
to attain the standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007 
comprehensive emissions inventory that includes PM<INF>2.5,</INF> 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF> for the Reading 
Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual 
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 EME Homer City Decision

1. Background
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(D.C. Circuit Court) and the Supreme Court have issued a number of 
decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading 
programs for transported air pollution, the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR) and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), that impact this 
proposed redesignation action. In 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court 
initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to 
preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. 
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit Court's remand, EPA promulgated 
CSAPR, to address interstate transport of emissions and resulting 
secondary air pollutants and to replace CAIR.\1\ CSAPR requires 
substantial reductions of 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

[[Page 76254]]

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, 
2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).
    On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. 
Circuit Court's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to 
the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with 
its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014). EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted by the D.C. Circuit 
Court in light of the Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. 
Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit 
Court to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so that the 
Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 
2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 
(instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 
Court granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay of CSAPR which was 
imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 
No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    Because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and 
states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality 
data examined by EPA in issuing a final determination of attainment for 
the Reading Area in 2009 (September 25, 2009, 74 FR 48863) and the air 
quality data from the Area since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in 
emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR, and Pennsylvania 
includes CAIR as one of the measures that helped to bring the Area into 
attainment. However, modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR 
rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that 
``backed out'' the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR at 48223, projected that 
Berks County would have a PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual design value \2\ 
below the level of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard for 2012 
and 2014 without taking into account emission reductions from CAIR or 
CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA's ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 
Technical Support Document,'' (Page B-57), which is available in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010-2012 
quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data for 
the Reading Area confirms that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual design value 
for the Area remained well below the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section (1)(c). A 
monitoring site's design value is compared to the level of the 1997 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to determine compliance with the 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR 
was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C. 
Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it 
created were scheduled to go into effect. Therefore, the Reading Area's 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard cannot have 
been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In 
addition, on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the stay 
on CSAPR. In sum, neither the status of CAIR nor the current status of 
CSAPR affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this 
redesignation request for the Area.

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding 
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 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 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance 
derived from subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, EPA took this 
history into account and responded to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand 
by proposing to set a new deadline for any remaining submissions that 
may be required for a moderate nonattainment area due to the 
applicability of subpart 4.
    On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566) EPA finalized the ``Identification of 
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of SIP 
Provisions for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS'' rule (the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 
Classification and Deadline Rule). The rule identifies the 
classification under subpart 4 for areas currently designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standards, and sets a new deadline for states to submit attainment-
related and other SIP elements required for these areas pursuant to 
subpart 4. The rule also identifies EPA guidance that is currently 
available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule specifies December 31, 2014 
as the deadline for the 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 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and to 
submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment NSR requirements in subpart 4. 
Therefore, as explained in detail in the following section, since 
Pennsylvania submitted its request to redesignate the Reading Area for 
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on November 25, 2013, any 
additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed for the 
Reading Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were not 
due at the time that Pennsylvania submitted its redesignation request 
for the Area.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effect of the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling and the June 2, 2014 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline 
Rule on the Reading Area redesignation request. EPA is proposing to 
determine that the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision does 
not prevent EPA from redesignating the Reading Area to attainment. Even 
in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, redesignation for the 
Area is appropriate

[[Page 76255]]

under the CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA 
provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding 
interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, 
after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is 
attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a 
redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies 
the subpart 4 requirements to the Reading Area redesignation request 
and disregards the provisions of its 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
implementation rule remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, the States' 
request for redesignation of the Area still qualifies for approval. 
EPA's discussion takes into account the effect of the D.C. Circuit 
Court's ruling and the June 2, 2014 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 
Classification and Deadline Rule on the Area's maintenance plan, which 
EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating 
the Reading Area Redesignation Request
    With respect to the 1997 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 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
under subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of 
evaluating the Commonwealth's redesignation request for the Reading 
Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose 
additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA 
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the 
purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to 
consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the redesignation of 
the Reading Area. Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA 
has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, 
that the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' and which must be 
approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only those 
which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation 
request. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. See also ``State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation 
to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' 
Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air 
and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final 
Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 
1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-
27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 
2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this 
interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the 
meaning of ``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have 
been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever 
actually was in the plan and already implemented or due at the time of 
attainment'').\3\ In this case, at the time that Pennsylvania submitted 
its November 25, 2013 redesignation request, the requirements under 
subpart 4 were not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 76256]]

    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and EPA's 
April 25, 2014 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification 
and Deadline Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements 
that come due after the redesignation requests are submitted. 
Pennsylvania submitted its redesignation request for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on November 25, 2013, which is prior to the 
deadline by which the Reading Area is required to meet the applicable 
requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
    To require the Pennsylvania's fully-completed and pending 
redesignation request for the 1997 annual 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 the Commonwealth a unique and earlier deadline 
for compliance solely on the basis of submitting its redesignation 
request for the Reading Area. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the 
inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 
285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\4\ where it upheld the D.C. Circuit 
Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive EPA's determination that 
the St. Louis area did not meet its attainment deadline. In that case, 
petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA's nonattainment 
determination effective as of the date that the statute required, 
rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the 
determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, stating that 
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would 
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention 
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the States by 
rejecting their redesignation request for an area that is already 
attaining the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard and that met all 
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the 
requests. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely 
because Pennsylvania did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements 
which have not yet come due, would inflict the same unfairness 
condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Pennsylvania's Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending 
redesignations for the 1997 annual 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 Reading 
Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA believes 
that the redesignation request for the Reading Area, though not 
expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meet the 
requirements of that subpart for purposes of redesignating the Area to 
attainment for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of 
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Reading Area, EPA notes 
that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which 
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated 
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 
specific planning and scheduling requirements for coarse particulate 
matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) \5\ nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. 
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 
statutory requirements also apply for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 Reading 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.\6\ In any 
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the 
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not 
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the 
area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale 
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, 
``Part D NSR Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is 
discussed in this rulemaking action.

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

[[Page 76257]]

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under 
subpart 4,\7\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either 
subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the 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 the area has already attained. Showing that 
the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no 
meaning at that point.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These attainment planning requirements include attainment 
demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone requirements, 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 \8\, or prior to December 13, 2014 and, thus, were due 
prior to Pennsylvania's redesignation request, those requirements do 
not apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 annual 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the D.C. 
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as 
to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra 
Club v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has 
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning 
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines 
are attaining the1997 annual 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 notice, EPA proposes to determine that the 
Reading Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is 
proposing to determine here that the Reading Area meets the attainment-
related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that all 
applicable requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 
189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section 172(c)(1) and section 
189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1), and contingency 
measure requirements under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes 
of evaluating this redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of 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 NOx from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to 
attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, section 189(e) of 
the CAA specifically provides that control requirements for major 
stationary sources of direct 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 ammonia] as . . . PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and 
ammonia] emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA intended 
these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions 
at the time because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories 
for these pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures 
in various regions of the country in reducing 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 ammonia 
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: ``Ammonia 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, EPA believes that its proposed 
redesignation of the Reading Area for the 1997 annual 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

[[Page 76258]]

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 Reading Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with 
proposing redesignation of the Area for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The Reading Area has attained the 1997 annual 
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.\9\ 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 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. As explained 
subsequently, we do not believe that any additional controls of 
NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC are required in the context of this 
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 Pennsylvania's SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with 
respect to NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC as precursors. This proposed 
determination is based on our findings that: (1) The Reading 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.\10\ In 
the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express 
exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the 
redesignation of the Reading Area, which is attaining the 1997 annual 
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 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Area. See 57 FR 
13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Reading Area has reduced VOC emissions through the 
implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations and various on-road 
and non-road motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 D.C. 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.\11\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM<INF>10</INF>.\12\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Reading Area has already attained the 1997 
annual 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 D.C. Circuit Court's decision is construed 
to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to 
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect 
EPA's approval here of Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the 
Reading Area for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In the context 
of a redesignation, the Area has shown that it has attained the 
standards. Moreover, Pennsylvania has shown and EPA has proposed to 
determine that attainment of the 1997 annual 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 
standard (see section V.A.3 of this rulemaking notice). It follows 
logically that no further control of additional precursors is 
necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013 decision 
of the D.C. Circuit Court as precluding redesignation of the Reading 
Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at this 
time. In summary, even if, prior to the date of the redesignation 
request submittal, Pennsylvania was required to address precursors for 
the Reading Area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as 
interpreted in EPA's remanded 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation 
Rule, EPA would still conclude that the Reading Area had met all 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance 
with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 NOx emissions and did not 
impose controls on SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, or NH<INF>3</INF> 
emissions).
    \12\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is proposing several rulemaking actions for the Reading Area: 
(1) To redesignate the Area to attainment for

[[Page 76259]]

the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS; (2) to approve into the 
Pennsylvania SIP, the associated maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS; and, (3) to approve the 2007 comprehensive 
emissions inventory into the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA requirement for the Area, one of the criteria for 
redesignation. EPA's proposed approvals of the redesignation request 
and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are 
based upon EPA's determination that the Area continues to attain the 
1997 annual 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 Reading Area. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 
2017 and 2025 MVEBs for Berks County, Pennsylvania, for transportation 
conformity purposes. The following is a description of how the 
Pennsylvania November 25, 2013 submittal satisfies the requirements of 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS.

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    As noted previously, in the final rulemaking action dated July 29, 
2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA determined that the Reading Area had attained 
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by its applicable attainment 
date. EPA based this determination of attainment upon complete, 
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 
the period of 2006-2008 showing that the Area had attained the 1997 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Further discussion of pertinent air 
quality issues underlying this determination was provided in the July 
29, 2011 final rulemaking action for EPA's determination of attainment 
for this Area.
    Pennsylvania's redesignation request submittal includes the 
historic monitoring data for the annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring 
site in the Reading Area. The historic monitoring data shows that the 
Reading Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. PADEP assures that all PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring data for the Reading Area has been quality-assured, quality-
controlled, and certified by the State in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10. 
Furthermore, EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient air quality 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data for PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the Reading 
Area, as submitted by the Commonwealth and recorded in EPA's Air 
Quality System (AQS). Table 1 shows the PM<INF>2.5</INF> quality-
assured, quality-controlled, and state-certified 2008-2013 air quality 
data which indicates that the Reading Area continues to attain the 1997 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See the AQS design value reports dated 
April 16, 2014 and October 8, 2014 included in the docket for this 
proposed rulemaking action.

  Table 1--Design Values in the Reading Area for the 1997 Annual PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS for 2008 Through 2013
                                                  ([mu]g/m \3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Monitor ID No.                      2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
420110011 (Reading Airport).....................            11.1            10.7            10.9            11.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Reading Area's recent monitoring data supports EPA's previous 
determinations that the Area has attained the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In addition, as discussed subsequently with 
respect to the Reading Area's maintenance plan, the Commonwealth 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 Reading Area continues to attain the 
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
of the CAA
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP 
revisions for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the Reading 
Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and all the 
requirements applicable to the Area under section 110 of the CAA 
(general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP 
requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general 
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations 
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the 
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect 
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. 
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are not limited to, the following: 
(1) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after 
reasonable public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment 
and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air 
quality; (3) implementation of a source permit program; provisions for 
the implementation of Part C requirements (PSD); (4) provisions for the 
implementation of Part D requirements for NSR permit programs; (5) 
provisions for air pollution modeling; and, (6) provisions for public 
and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule 
development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain 
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing 
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, 
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the 
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the 
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), and CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). However, section 
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requirements for a state are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that 
state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular 
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements 
are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements 
of the CAA not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not 
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements 
for purposes of

[[Page 76260]]

redesignation. The Reading Area will still be subject to these 
requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA and part D requirements which are linked with a 
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that 
section 110(a)(2) elements of the CAA not linked in the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability 
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels 
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings 
(61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 
1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 53099, October 19, 2001).
    EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania SIP and has concluded that it 
meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA 
has previously approved provisions of Pennsylvania's SIP addressing 
section 110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. See 76 FR 47062, August 4, 2011. These requirements 
are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment status of the Reading Area. Therefore, 
EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements 
for purposes of review of 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. The 
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I discusses the evaluation 
of these requirements in the context of EPA's consideration of a 
redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of 
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation 
requests when an area is attaining the standard. See 57 FR 13498, April 
16, 1992.
    As noted previously, EPA has determined that the Reading Area has 
attained the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 
172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are 
not ``applicable'' for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and, 
therefore, need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate 
the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, 
EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for 
purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining 
a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the 
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures 
designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating 
redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning 
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained 
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the 
Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the 
basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to 
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 reasonable further progress (RFP), RACM, 
and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).\13\ Courts have 
upheld EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1)'s ``reasonably 
available'' control measures and control technology as meaning only 
those controls that advance attainment, which precludes the need to 
require additional measures where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. 
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 
155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th 
Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 VI of this notice. 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 Reading Area, 
no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and 
section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM 
are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation 
as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until 
redesignation. The section 172(c)(2) requirement that nonattainment 
plans contain provisions promoting reasonable further progress toward 
attainment is also not relevant for purposes of redesignation because 
EPA has determined that the Reading Area has monitored attainment of 
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In addition, because the 
Reading Area has attained the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and is 
no longer subject to an RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the 
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for purposes 
of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control 
measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because 
attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to 
provide for attainment.
    The requirement under section 172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA's 
clean data determination for the 1997 annual 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 Reading Area. 
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As 
part of Pennsylvania's redesignation request submittal, the 
Commonwealth submitted a 2007 base year emissions inventory for the 
Reading Area for the 1997 annual 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>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF>.
    In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the Reading 
Area 2007 base year emissions inventory in accordance with section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA. Final approval of the 2007 base year emissions 
inventory will satisfy the emissions inventory requirement under 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For more information on the development 
of the 2007 base year emissions inventory, see Appendix C of the 
Commonwealth's submittal, and, for information on EPA's analysis, see 
the emissions inventory technical support document (TSD) dated April 
18, 2014, both available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking 
action. A summary of the 2007 base year emissions inventory is shown in 
Table 2.

[[Page 76261]]



                  Table 2--Reading Area 2007 Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) by Source Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                    PM2.5            NOX             SO2             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................           1,272           5,793          15,140           1,237              21
Area............................           1,859           1,289           2,389           5,877           3,632
Nonroad.........................             383          11,374              81           4,415             163
Onroad..........................             191           2,532             106           2,096               2
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           3,704          20,988          17,716          13,625           3,818
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and 
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified 
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA 
requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. 
EPA has determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after 
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the 
requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is 
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 entitled, ``Part D NSR 
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' 
Nevertheless, Pennsylvania currently has an approved NSR program, 
codified in Pa. Chapter 127, Subchapter E. See 77 FR 41276, August 13, 
2012 (approving NSR revisions into the SIP). However, Pennsylvania's 
PSD program for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS will become 
effective in the Reading Area upon redesignation to attainment. See 49 
FR 33128, August 21, 1984 (approving PSD program into the SIP).
    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the 
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted 
previously, EPA believes the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that are applicable for purposes of 
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking 
redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the 
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the 
redesignation.'' In conjunction with its request to redesignate the 
Reading Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions 
to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 
the Area through 2025, which is at least 10 years after redesignation. 
Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as 
meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the 
maintenance plan for the Reading Area will ensure that the SIP for 
Pennsylvania meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of 
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the Area. EPA's analysis of 
the maintenance plan is provided in subsection B of section V 
(Maintenance Plan) of today's proposed rulemaking action.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of 
the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported 
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation 
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity 
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability 
which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA 
approved Pennsylvania's transportation conformity SIP requirements on 
April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19541). Thus, for purposes of redesignating the 
Reading Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 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 Reading 
Area will meet all applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I 
of the CAA for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment.
c. Pennsylvania Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 
110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory 
proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA will have fully SIP-approved 
all applicable requirements of the Pennsylvania SIP for the Area for 
purposes of redesignaton to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in accordance with section 110(k) of the CAA. As 
noted above, in this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the 
Reading Area 2007 emissions inventory (submitted as part of its 
maintenance plan) as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of 
the CAA for the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Therefore, upon 
final approval of the 2007 emissions inventory, EPA will have satisfied 
all applicable requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA for the 
Reading Area.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air 
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and 
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions. In making this demonstration, 
Pennsylvania has calculated the change in emissions between 2002, one 
of the years used to designate the Area as nonattainment, and 2007, one 
of the years the Area monitored attainment, as shown in Table 3.

[[Page 76262]]



       Table 3--Emission Reductions From 2002 Base Year to 2007 Attainment Year in the Reading Area (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Sector                                    2002            2007          Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM[ihel2].[ihel5]:
    Stationary Point............................................             577           1,272            -695
    Area........................................................           2,608           1,859             750
    Onroad......................................................             459             383              77
    Nonroad.....................................................             212             191              22
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           3,856           3,705             154
                                                                 ===============================================
NOX:
    Stationary Point............................................           5,363           5,793            -431
    Area........................................................           1,502           1,289             213
    Onroad......................................................          14,922          11,374           3,548
    Nonroad.....................................................           3,323           2,532             791
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          26,110          21,988           4,121
                                                                 ===============================================
SO[ihel2]:
    Stationary Point............................................          14,834          15,140            -305
    Area........................................................           2,131           2,389            -258
    Onroad......................................................             306              81             225
    Nonroad.....................................................             242             106             136
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          17,513          17,716            -202
                                                                 ===============================================
VOC:
    Stationary Point............................................           1,740           1,237             503
    Area........................................................           8,819           5,877           2,942
    Onroad......................................................           5,237           4,415             823
    Nonroad.....................................................           2,331           2,096             235
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          18,127          13,625           4,203
                                                                 ===============================================
NH[ihel3]:
    Stationary Point............................................               9              21             -11
    Area........................................................           4,284           3,632             651
    Onroad......................................................             180             163              17
    Nonroad.....................................................               2               2               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           4,475           3,818           1,314
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the 2002 inventory for PM<INF>2.5</INF> did 
not include condensible emissions for many stationary point sources in 
the Commonwealth, and that the 2007 inventory was later augmented to 
include calculated condensible emissions for EGUs, resulting in an 
apparent increase of PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions in 2007 for stationary 
point source emissions. Similarly, emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> for stationary and area sources show small increases in 
2007. Nevertheless, the Area was able to attain the standard during the 
time period that included 2007, as decreases in other precursors more 
than compensated for any increases.
    The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air 
quality from 2002 to 2007 in the Reading Area can be attributed to a 
number of regulatory control measures that have been implemented in the 
Area and contributing areas in recent years. For more information on 
EPA's analysis of the 2002 and 2007 emissions inventory, see EPA's 
emissions inventory TSD dated April 18, 2014, available in the docket 
for this proposed rulemaking action.
a. Federal Measures Implemented
    Reductions in 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. Data collected from EPA's long-term national air quality and 
deposition monitoring networks show that these regional cap-and-trade 
programs have been effective in reducing emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> nationwide.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program, 2012 Progress Report 
(December 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR_12_downloads/ARPCAIR12_01.pdf; Clean Air 
Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NO<INF>X</INF> Budget 
Trading Program, 2012 Progress Report (May 2014), available at 
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR_12_downloads/ARPCAIR12_02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO<INF>X</INF> 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.\15\ 
Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call 
beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 
resulting from regulations developed in response to the 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 adopted its NO<INF>X</INF> 
Budget Trading Program regulations for EGUs and large industrial 
boilers, with emission reductions starting in May

[[Page 76263]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 27 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. 
EPA approved the Commonwealth's CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. 
Code Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 
10, 2009 (74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone season 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). As of 
this proposal, CAIR remains in the Pennsylvania SIP. However, EPA 
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading program for 
EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's October 
23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and implementation of 
CSAPR will commence in January 2015. EPA expects that the 
implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR 
and result in additional 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%, 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 starting in 2007. Recreational 
vehicle emission standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. 
Marine Diesel engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. 
With full implementation of all of the nonroad spark-ignition engine 
and recreational engine standards, an overall 80 percent reduction in 
NO<INF>X</INF> are expected by 2020. Some of these emission reductions 
occurred by the 2002-2007 attainment period and additional emission 
reductions will occur during the maintenance period as the fleet turns 
over.
Federal Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
    As required by the CAA, EPA developed Maximum Available Control 
Technology (MACT) Standards to regulate emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants from a published list of industrial sources referred to as 
``source categories.'' The MACT standards have been adopted and 
incorporated by reference in Section 6.6 of Pennsylvania's Air 
Pollution Control Act and implementing regulations in 25 Pa. Code 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 
results in 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 
Reading Area in early 2004, and applies to model year 1975 and newer 
gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000 pounds and under. The program, 
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313), 
consists of annual on-board diagnostics and gas cap test for model

[[Page 76264]]

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 VOC emission limits [effective January 1, 2005] 
for numerous categories of consumer products, and applies statewide to 
any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures such 
consumer products on or after January 1, 2005 for use in Pennsylvania. 
It was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 
70895).
    Based on the information summarized above, Pennsylvania has 
adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality in the 
Reading Area is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. 
The reductions result from Federal and State requirements and 
regulation of precursors within Pennsylvania that affect the Reading 
Area.

B. Maintenance Plan

    On November 25, 2013, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the 
Reading Area for the 1997 annual 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, one of the years in the period during which the 
Reading Area monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard, 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 Berks County that were directly reported by the 
facilities. Since the reported emissions did not include condensible 
emissions, the EGU inventory was augmented to account for condensibles 
by application of emission factors developed for the Mid-Atlantic 
Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) in 2008.
    The nonpoint source emissions inventory for 2007 was developed 
using 2007 specific activity data along with EPA emission factors and 
the most recently available emission calculation methodologies. PADEP 
used 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data to fill in any 
missing categories in the 2007 inventory.
    For 2007 nonroad mobile sources, PADEP generated emissions using 
EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 2008 model. Since marine, 
air and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions are not part of the NONROAD 
model, they were calculated separately outside of the NONROAD model.
    The 2007 onroad mobile source inventory was developed using EPA's 
highway mobile source emissions model MOVES2010. PADEP used local 
acivity to replace default inputs in the model where appropriate.
    EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and found the 
2007 emissions inventory acceptable for meeting the requirements under 
section 172(c)(3). For more information on the emissions inventories 
submitted by PADEP for the Reading Area and EPA's analysis of the 
inventories, see Appendix B of the Commonwealth's submittal and see 
also EPA's TSD dated April 18, 2014, both of which are available in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment 
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in 
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has 
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten 
years following redesignation.'' Where the emissions inventory method 
of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions 
during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment 
year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10.
    For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are 
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of 
future growth and controls; however, the maintenance demonstration need 
not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, 
supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100; 68 FR 25430-32. PADEP uses 
projection inventories to show that the Area will remain in attainment 
and developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a 
maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2,</INF> VOC, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> will remain 
at or below the attainment year 2007 emissions levels throughout the 
Area through the year 2025. Although emissions of NH<INF>3</INF> are 
projected to increase from 2007 to 2017 and from 2007 to 2025, the 
increase will not affect the Area's ability to maintain the standard 
because such increases are more than compensated by the significant 
reductions of the other precursors that are projected during the 
maintenance period.
    The Federal and State measures described in Section V.A.3. of this 
proposed rulemaking action demonstrate that the reductions in emissions 
from point, area, and mobile sources in the Area have occurred and will 
continue to occur through 2025. In addition, the following State and 
Federal regulations and programs ensure the continuing decline of 
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.
Regulation of Cement Kilns
    On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 52558), EPA approved amendments to 25 Pa. 
Code Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further reduce 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% from the previous 
limit of 6 pounds of NO<INF>X</INF> per ton of clinker that applied to 
all kilns. The amendments became effective on April 15, 2011.
Stationary Source VOC Regulations
    Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapter D for 
Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and Solvents was approved into the 
Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation 
established VOC content limits for various categories of adhesives, 
sealants, primers, and solvent, and became applicable on January 1, 
2012.

[[Page 76265]]

    Amendments to Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, 
Subchapter B established, effective January 1, 2009, new or more 
stringent VOC standards for consumer products. The amendments were 
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717).
Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program
    The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (formerly, New Motor 
Vehicle Control Program) incorporates by reference the California Low 
Emission Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it allowed automakers to 
comply with the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program as an 
alternative to this program until Model Year (MY) 2006. The Clean 
Vehicles Program, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, 
was modified to require CA LEVII to apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and 
was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 
3386). The Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by reference the 
emission control standards of CA LEVII, which, among other 
requirements, reduces emissions of 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 almost 40 tons more NO<INF>X</INF> reductions 
than Tier II for the counties in the Reading Area.
    Two Pennsylvania regulations--Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling 
Act (approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on August 1, 2011, See 76 FR 
45705) and Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler regulation (approved into the 
Pennsylvania SIP on September 20, 2011, see 76 FR 58114)--were not 
included in the projection inventories, but may also assist in 
maintaining the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Also, EPA's Tier 3 
Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 
2014) establishes more stringent vehicle emissions standards and will 
reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017. This fuel 
standard will achieve NO<INF>X</INF> reductions by further increasing 
the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls for both existing and 
new vehicles. Finally, with the lifting of the CSAPR stay by the DC 
Circuit Court on October 23, 3014, the implementation of CSAPR will 
preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and will achieve additional 
emission reductions in the Area from upwind states.
    The projection inventories for the 2017 and 2025 point, area, and 
nonroad sources were taken from regional inventories coordinated by 
MARAMA for the states in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 
and Virginia (MANE-VU+VA), which includes Pennsylvania. Detailed 
discussion of how 2017 and 2025 projections were developed are 
contained in Appendix C-2 and C-3, respectively, of the Commonwealth's 
submittal. EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and 
found the methodologies acceptable.
    EPA has determined that the 2017 and 2025 projected emissions 
inventories provided by PADEP are approvable. For detailed information 
on the projected inventories, see Appendices A-3, B-3, D-2, and E-3 of 
the State submittal, and for more information on EPA's analysis of the 
emissions inventory, see EPA's TSD dated April 18, 2014, both of which 
are available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. Table 
4 provides a summary of the inventories for the 2007 attainment year, 
as compared to the projected inventories for the 2017 interim year and 
the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Area.

  Table 4--Comparision of 2007 Attainment Year Inventory With 2017 and 2025 Projected Emissions in the Reading
                                                   Area (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Reductions      Reductions
                                       2007            2017            2025          2007-2017       2007-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM[ihel2].[ihel5]...............           3,704           3,307           3,215             397             489
NOX.............................          20,988          12,386          10,186           8,602          10,802
SO[ihel2].......................          17,716          15,567          15,908           2,149           1,808
VOC.............................          13,625          10,697           9,692           2,928           3,933
NH[ihel3].......................           3,818           4,119           4,368            -301            -550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 4, the projected levels of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and VOC are under the 2007 attainment 
year levels for each of these pollutants. While the emissions of 
NH<INF>3</INF> are projected to be higher than the 2007 inventory for 
this pollutant for both the interim year and the end-year, the 
decreases in the other precursors, particularly the significant 
reductions in NO<INF>X</INF>, more than compensate for the increase, 
therefore, the increase in NH<INF>3</INF> is not considered to affect 
the Area's ability to maintain the NAAQS. The projected emissions 
inventories show that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS during the 10 year maintenance period. 
Moreover, the modeling analysis conducted for the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS indicates that the 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value for this Area is expected to 
continue to decline through 2020. Given the significant decrease in 
overall precursor emissions projected through 2025, it is reasonable to 
conclude that monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in this area will also 
continue to decrease through 2025.
3. Monitoring Network
    Pennsylvania currently operates one PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor in the 
Reading Area, which is located at the Reading Airport. The Reading Area 
maintenance plan includes a commitment by PADEP to continue to operate 
its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to demonstrate 
ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. In its November 25, 2013 maintenance 
plan submittal, PADEP states that it will consult with EPA prior to 
making any necessary changes to the network and will continue to 
quality assure the monitoring data in accordance with the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Area, PADEP 
requires major point sources to submit air emissions information 
annually and prepares a new periodic inventory for

[[Page 76266]]

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 1997 annual 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 part 58 and remains 
obligated to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into the 
AQS in accordance with federal requirements. PADEP will use this data, 
supplemented with additional data, as necessary, to assure continuing 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Area.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions for maintenance plans are designed 
to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan 
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that 
a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs 
after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events 
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency 
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and 
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the 
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    The Reading maintenance plan includes a commitment by Pennsylvania 
to adopt and expeditiously implement necessary corrective actions in 
the event of a violation of the NAAQS, or in the event of certain 
triggers. The maintenance plan describes the procedures and schedule 
for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to reduce 
emissions should an exceedance or a violation occur, and consists of a 
first level response and a second level response.
    A first level response is triggered when the annual mean 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration exceeds 15.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in a single 
calendar year within the Reading Area, or if the periodic emissions 
inventory for the Reading Area exceeds the attainment year inventory by 
more than ten percent. The first level response will consist of a study 
to determine if the emissions trends show increasing concentrations of 
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 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ within the Area. 
This would trigger an evaluation of the conditions causing the 
exceedance, whether additional emission control measures should be 
implemented to prevent a violation of the standard, and analysis of 
potential measures that could be implemented to prevent a violation. 
Pennsylvania would then begin its adoption process to implement the 
measures as expeditiously as practicable.
    Pennsylvania's candidate contingency measures include the 
following: (1) A regulation based on the Ozone Transport Commission 
(OTC) Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products; (2) a 
regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 
industrial cleaning solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects such as 
diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets, 
idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives, and idling 
reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and 
other 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. The Commonwealth's rulemaking process and 
schedule for adoption and implementation of any necessary contingency 
measure is shown in the plan as being 18 months from PADEP's receipt of 
approval to initiate rulemaking.
    For all of the reasons discussed in this section, EPA is proposing 
to approve Pennsylvania's 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance plan 
for the Reading Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the 
CAA.

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means 
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a 
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely 
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity 
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and 
the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation 
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to 
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated 
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are 
less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.
    On November 25, 2013, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision that 
contains the 2017 and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> onroad 
mobile source budgets for the Reading Area comprised of Berks County, 
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 was 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). Those actions were not part of the final 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC 
v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (January 4, 2013), because the Court concluded that 
EPA must implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific 
implementation provisions of subpart 4, rather than solely under the 
general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not affect EPA's 
proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Reading Area. The MVEBs are 
presented in Table 5.

 Table 5--MVEBs for Berks County, Pennsylvania for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
                                  (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                 PMPM[ihel2].[ihel5]        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017...............................                200             5,739
2025...............................                146             3,719
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are 
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA 
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected 
level of motor vehicle

[[Page 76267]]

and all other emissions, the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, in 
this case providing for maintenance of the 1997 annual 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.
    EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and found them consistent with the 
maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the criteria for adequacy 
and approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve as well as find 
adequate the 2017 and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs 
for Berks County for transportation conformity purposes. Additional 
information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the 
TSD dated April 29, 2014, available on line at www.regulations.gov, 
Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0147. Any comments relating to EPA's 
proposal to approve as well as find adequate the 2017 and 2025 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs for Berks County for 
transportation conformity purposes, as submitted by Pennsylvania, 
should be submitted in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve the request submitted by Pennsylvania 
to redesignate the Reading Area from nonattainment to attainment for 
the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA has evaluated the 
Commonwealth's redesignation request and determined that it meets the 
redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 
The monitoring data demonstrates that the Reading Area has attained the 
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and, for the reasons discussed 
previously, that it will continue to attain the NAAQS. EPA is also 
proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Reading Area as a 
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP because it meets the requirements of 
section 175A of the CAA as described previously in this proposed 
rulemaking notice. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 
base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of section 
172(a)(3) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve as well 
as find adequate the 2017 and 2025 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for Berks County for transportation 
purposes. Final approval of the redesignation request would change the 
designation of Reading Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 
1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments 
on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <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 
Reading Area for the 1997 annual 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 dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: December 4, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-29777 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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