[Federal Register: May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 27015-27017]
[DOCID:fr12my08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0021]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 28 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective May 12, 2008. The exemptions expire
on May 12, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On March 24, 2008, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (73 FR 15567). That notice listed 28 applicants' case histories.
The 28 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 28 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on April 23, 2008.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective

lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely.
    The 28 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, prosthesis, central scotoma,
optic nerve atrophy, retinal detachment, macular scar, extropia,
cataract, retinal scar, glaucoma, central serous choroidopathy, and
loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. All but nine of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The
nine individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have
had them for periods ranging from 4 to 48 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. All these
applicants satisfied the testing standards for their State of
residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 28 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 44
years. In the past 3 years, three of the drivers had convictions for
traffic violations and none of them were involved in crashes.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 24, 2008
notice (73 FR 15567).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-98-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes. (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971.) A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 28 applicants, two of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for failure to
obey a traffic device, but none of the applicants were involved in
crashes. The applicants achieved this record of safety while driving
with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they
have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As
the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies
are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their
ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
    We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in

interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in
intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these
applicants from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 28
applicants listed in the notice of March 24, 2008 (73 FR 15567).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 28 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed
opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs,
including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1) Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to
the public and makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the Agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally (4) suggests
that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision
exemptions.
    The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR
51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR
69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230
(September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not
address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Gerald L. Anderson, Leo G. Becker, Delmas C. Bergdoll, Stanley
W. Davis, Marvin T. Fowler, Sean O. Feeny, Michael J. Frein, Jimmy G.
Hall, Dennis R. Irvin, Mark L. LeBlanc, Keith A. Lighthall, Michael G.
Martin, Paul M. Matherne, David A. Miller, Justin T. Richman, Steve J.
Sherar, Robert F. Skinner, Jr., William T. Smiley, Richard M. Smith,
Robert A. Stoeckle, Aaron S. Taylor, Martin L. Taylor, Jr., Marion E.
Terry, Michael J. Tisher, Gary R. Thomas, William B. Thomas, Dean A.
Weaver, and Kevin R. White from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption;
    (2) The exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained before it was granted; or
    (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: May 2, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-10526 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16568-16571]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07106]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0636; FRL-9922-77-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Rules; Preconstruction
Permit Requirements--Nonattainment; New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting full
approval of a revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted on June 25, 2012 (June 2012 SIP
submittal) by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) as
amended by PADEP in letters dated February 20, 2013 and June 27, 2014.
The SIP revision pertains to ACHD's Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) preconstruction permitting regulations which incorporate by
reference Pennsylvania's NNSR provisions. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0636. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
and 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; and Allegheny County
Health Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air
Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Summary of SIP Revision

    On December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75104), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR
proposed full approval of the June 2012 SIP submittal which included
revisions to the ACHD's NNSR program contained in the Pennsylvania SIP.
The revisions to ACHD's NNSR program include ACHD's Article XXI which
incorporates by reference Pennsylvania's NNSR provisions at 25 Pa. Code
127.201-127.217. The June 2012 SIP submittal also includes other
changes to ACHD's NNSR program including changes to regulatory
definitions and text, deletions of certain provisions, reordered
paragraphs, and inclusion of plantwide applicability limit
requirements.
    ACHD amended the ACHD NNSR regulations at Article XXI, sections
2101 and 2102, to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. This approval
action replaces the previous version of Article XXI which was approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP on November 14, 2002. See 67 FR 68935.
    The June 2012 SIP submittal includes amendments to the following
sections of ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI: section 2101.20
(Definitions); section 2102.04 (Installation permits); section 2102.06
(Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area); and
section 2102.08 (Emissions Offset Registration). After the June 2012
SIP submittal, PADEP had provided two letters clarifying the June 2012
SIP submittal. In a letter dated February 20, 2013, PADEP stated it had
inadvertently redacted via strike out certain regulatory text from one
provision in an ACHD regulation submitted for SIP approval in the June
2012 SIP submittal. PADEP accidentally deleted language at the end of
subsection (f) of ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section
2102.06(f) (Requirements for Modeling). The February 20, 2013 PADEP
letter requested EPA to include the full text of Article XXI, section
2102.06(f) for the revised Pennsylvania SIP including the text
inadvertently deleted in the June 2012 SIP submission.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the Pennsylvania SIP, ACHD's Article XXI, section
2102.06(f) (Requirements for Modeling) should read as follows:
``Where air quality models are used to meet the provisions of this
section, modeling shall be based on the applicable models and other
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (Guideline on
Air Quality Models). Where an air quality model is inappropriate,
the model may be modified or another model may be substituted only
on a case-by-case basis at the Department's discretion upon written
approval by the administrator of EPA. In addition, use of a modified
or substituted model must be subject to notice and opportunity for
public comment under procedures set forth in 40 CFR 51.102.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a second letter from PADEP dated June 27, 2014, PADEP modified
the June 2012 SIP submittal and withdrew from its SIP submittal
specific language from an ACHD regulation included in the June 2012 SIP
submittal. The regulatory text PADEP withdrew from our consideration
for inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP was regulatory text in ACHD's
Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(b)(1), (b)(3)(a),
(e), and (g) which provided a process for automatically incorporating
additions, revisions, or deletions from Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations
into ACHD's SIP effective on the date of revision to Pennsylvania's
NNSR regulations.\2\ See 79 FR 75104 (discussing withdrawn text
language). As a result of PADEP's June 27, 2014 letter, the language
withdrawn by Pennsylvania from the June 2012 SIP submittal is not part
of this rulemaking action. However, as a result of PADEP's February 20,
2013 letter, the inadvertently redacted language from ACHD's Rules and
Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(f) is part of this rulemaking
language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The language excluded from the Pennsylvania SIP from ACHD's
Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, section 2102.06(b)(1),
(b)(3)(a), (e), and (g) is the following language ``[a]dditions,
revisions, or deletions to such regulations by the Commonwealth are
incorporated in this Subsection and are effective on the date
established by the state regulation, unless otherwise established by
regulation under this Article.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's November 17, 2014 technical support document (TSD) explains
in detail the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP contained in the
Commonwealth's June 2012 SIP submittal. The TSD is included in the
docket for this rulemaking action and is available online at
www.regulations.gov. The TSD also explains in detail the language
withdrawn from ACHD's Article XXI, section 2102.06, includes EPA's
analysis of the June 2012 SIP submittal, and provides support for the
proposed and final actions on the submittal. Because ACHD incorporated
by reference Pennsylvania's SIP approved NNSR regulations into ACHD's
NNSR regulations, EPA stated in the NPR there was no need to re-
evaluate the same NNSR elements EPA had already approved for the
Pennsylvania SIP on May 14, 2012. As discussed in the NPR and in the
TSD, the June 2012 SIP submittal includes revisions to ACHD's NNSR
program which are consistent with the CAA, with currently promulgated
Federal NNSR regulations, and with NNSR regulations which EPA has
previously approved into Pennsylvania's SIP.
    The NPR and TSD contain detailed discussions of the Pennsylvania
SIP submission for Allegheny County and EPA's rationale for approving
the June 2012 SIP submittal which addresses NNSR requirements in the
CAA and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 applicable as of
the time of the June 2012 SIP submittal. Therefore, those discussions
will not be restated

here. No comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the
Commonwealth's June 2012 SIP submittal, as amended by PADEP in letters
dated February 20, 2013 and June 27, 2014, which includes ACHD's NNSR
regulations at Article XXI, sections 2101 and 2102.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text
proposing to include in a final rule that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ACHD regulations at
Article XXI, sections 2101 and 2102 regarding Nonattainment New Source
Review permitting requirements for Allegheny County. The EPA has made
and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission thaIt 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) This final rule
approves Allegheny County's nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
preconstruction air quality permit program.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by:
0
a. Under Part A, revising the 7th entry for ``2101.20''; and
0
b. Under Part B, revising the entries for ``2102.04'', ``2102.06'',
``2102.08.''

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State                          Additional explanation/
   Article XX or XXI citation       Title/subject    effective date   EPA approval date  Sec.   52.2063 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Part A--General
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2101.20........................  Definitions.......        4/3/2012  3/30/2015 [Insert   Revise the latest entry
                                                                      Federal Register    dated 11/26/14, 79 FR
                                                                      citation].          70471 by revising the
                                                                                existing definition of
                                                                                ``Major Source'' and
                                                                                ``Major
                                                                                Modification''.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Part B--Permits Generally
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2102.04........................  Permits Generally.        4/3/2012  3/30/2015 [Insert
                                                                      Federal Register
                                                                      citation].

                                                   * * * * * *
2102.06........................  Major Sources             4/3/2012  3/30/2015 [Insert   As per request by PADEP
                                  Locating in or                      Federal Register    in a letter to EPA
                                  Impacting a                         citation].          dated June 27, 2014,
                                  Nonattainment                                           the following language
                                  Area.                                                   appearing at paragraph
                                                                                b.1; subparagraph
                                                                                b.3.A; and Subsections
                                                                                e and g, is excluded
                                                                                from the SIP:
                                                                                ``Additions,
                                                                                revisions, or
                                                                                deletions to such
                                                                                regulations by the
                                                                                Commonwealth are
                                                                                incorporated in this
                                                                                Subsection and are
                                                                                effective on the date
                                                                                established by the
                                                                                state regulation,
                                                                                unless otherwise
                                                                                established by
                                                                                regulation under this
                                                                                Article.''
                                                                                As per letter from
                                                                                PADEP dated 2/20/2013,
                                                                                the June 25, 2012 SIP
                                                                                submission
                                                                                inadvertently deleted
                                                                                language from the end
                                                                                of subsection (f) of
                                                                                the regulation
                                                                                submitted with SIP
                                                                                submittal. The SIP
                                                                                revision incorporating
                                                                                Article XXI Sec.
                                                                                2102.06(f) should read
                                                                                as follows ``f.
                                                                                Requirements for
                                                                                Modeling. Where air
                                                                                quality models are
                                                                                used to meet the
                                                                                provisions of this
                                                                                section, modeling
                                                                                shall be based on the
                                                                                applicable models and
                                                                                other requirements
                                                                                specified in 40 CFR
                                                                                Part 51 Appendix W
                                                                                (Guideline on Air
                                                                                Quality Models). Where
                                                                                an air quality model
                                                                                is inappropriate, the
                                                                                model may be modified
                                                                                or another model may
                                                                                be substituted only on
                                                                                a case-by-case basis
                                                                                at the Department's
                                                                                discretion upon
                                                                                written approval by
                                                                                the administrator of
                                                                                EPA. In addition, use
                                                                                of a modified or
                                                                                substituted model must
                                                                                be subject to notice
                                                                                and opportunity for
                                                                                public comment under
                                                                                procedures set forth
                                                                                in 40 CFR 51.102.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
2102.08........................  Emission Offset           4/3/2012  3/30/2015 [Insert
                                  Registration.                       Federal Register
                                                                      citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-07106 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P