[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6019-6035]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02207]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's request to redesignate to
attainment the Allentown nonattainment area (Allentown Area or Area)
for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to
determine that the Allentown Area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve as a
revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the
associated maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The maintenance plan
includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Area
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to
approve for transportation conformity purposes. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the 2007
base year emissions inventory for the Area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking action to propose approval of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS redesignation request and
associated maintenance plan for the Allentown Area is based on EPA's
determination that Pennsylvania has met the criteria for redesignation
to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Requirements
    A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
    B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions
    A. Effects of the August 21, 2012 D.C. Circuit Court Decision
Regarding EPA's CSAPR
    B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision
Regarding the PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of
Part D of Title I of the CAA
V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's SIP Submittal
    A. Redesignation Request
    B. Maintenance Plan
    C. Transportation Conformity
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
established on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\),
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS). In the same
rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average
standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\, but revised the 24-hour standard to 35
[mu]g/m\3\ based on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of
the 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS).
On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on December
14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Allentown Area
as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Allentown Area is comprised of Lehigh and Northampton Counties. See 40
CFR 81.339.
    On March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the Allentown
Area had clean data and monitored attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on this
determination, the requirements for the Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures,
and other planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until such time as: The
Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard, at which time the
section 51.1004(c) requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that
the Area has again violated the standard, at which time such plans are
required to be submitted. EPA's review of the most recent certified
monitoring data for the Area shows that the Area continues to attain
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On September 5, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally
submitted a request to redesignate the Allentown Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Area as
a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Area over
the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory for the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia
(NH3).
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effects of
several decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) and a decision of the United
States Supreme Court: (1) The D.C. Circuit Court's August 21, 2012
decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution
Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme Court's April 29, 2014 reversal
of the vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the D.C. Circuit Court; (3) the
D.C. Circuit Court's October 23, 2014 decision to lift the stay of
CSAPR; and (4) the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision to
remand to EPA two final rules implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. EPA's Requirements

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

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

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

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A of the CAA, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval
of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5
violations.
    The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The Memorandum states that a maintenance
plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment
areas and for areas seeking redesignation to attainment for a given
NAAQS. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and
attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create
MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for the relevant criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors, where appropriate, to address
pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the
portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to onroad
vehicle use that, together with emissions from all other sources in the
area, will provide attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as applicable. The
budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking
a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the
maintenance plan.
    The maintenance plan for the Allentown Area, that comprises Lehigh
and Northampton Counties in Pennsylvania, includes the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes. The transportation conformity determination for the Area is
further discussed in Section V.C. of today's proposed rulemaking action
and in a technical support document (TSD) dated December 1, 2014, which
is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the
redesignation of the Allentown Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Area meets
the requirements for redesignation for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
thus proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to change the legal
definition for the Allentown Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the associated maintenance plan for the Area as a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
including the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs
for the Area for transportation conformity purposes. Approval of the
maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of the
Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Pennsylvania's maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued
attainment in the Area for at least 10 years after redesignation for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA previously determined that the Allentown Area had clean data
showing monitored attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and EPA is proposing to find that the Allentown Area continues
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory
submitted by PADEP that includes PM2.5, SO2,
NOX, VOC, and NH3 for the Area as a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
order to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions

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

1. Background
    The D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court have issued a number
of decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading
programs for transported air pollution, the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) and CSAPR, that impact this proposed redesignation action. In
2008, the D.C. Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to
EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit Court's
remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address interstate transport of
emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace
CAIR.\1\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28
states in the Eastern United States. Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade
programs would have superseded the CAIR cap-and-trade programs.
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December
30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order staying CSAPR pending
resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR addressed the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS and
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR addresses contributions from
upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 in light of the
Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case
No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In
its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit Court to toll CSAPR's compliance
deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply
in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions
budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the
stay of CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order
at 3. EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will
implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's order granting
EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the rule's
deadlines. See 79 FR 71663, December 3, 2014 (interim final
rulemaking). Consistent with the rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR on
January 1, 2015.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    Because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and
states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality
data examined by EPA in issuing a final determination of attainment for
the Allentown Area in 2012 (March 29, 2012, 77 FR 18922) and the air
quality data from the Area since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in
emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR, and Pennsylvania
included CAIR as one of the measures that helped to bring the Area into
attainment. However, modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR
rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that
``backed out'' the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR at 48223, projected that
Lehigh and Northampton Counties would have a PM2.5 24-hour
design value below the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
for 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emission reductions from
CAIR or CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA's ``Air Quality Modeling Final
Rule Technical Support Document,'' (Page B-86), which is available in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010-
2012 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data
for the Allentown Area confirms that the 24-hour PM2.5
design value for the Area remained well below the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012.
    The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR
was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C.
Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it
created were scheduled to go into effect. Therefore, the Allentown
Area's attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS cannot
have been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In
addition, on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court lifted the stay
on CSAPR and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. In
summary, neither the status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR
affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation
request for the Area.

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of
the CAA

1. Background
    On January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court remanded
to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR
20586, April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5'' final rule (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) (collectively, 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court found that
EPA erred in implementing the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part
D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-
matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title I (subpart
4). Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance derived from
subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. In response to the D.C.
Circuit Court's remand, EPA took this history into account by setting a
new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be required for
moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the D.C. Circuit Court's
decision regarding the applicability of subpart 4 of part D of Title I
of the CAA.
    On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA issued a final rule,
``Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for
Submission of SIP Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS'' (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline
Rule), which identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule set a deadline for states to
submit attainment plans and meet other subpart 4 requirements. The rule
specifies December 31, 2014 as the deadline for states to submit any
additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed to meet
the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment
new source review (NSR) requirements in subpart 4.
    As explained in detail in the following section, since Pennsylvania
submitted its request to redesignate the Allentown Area on September 5,
2014, any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed
for the Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were not
due at the time Pennsylvania submitted its request to redesignate the
Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effect of the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling and the June 2, 2014
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the
Area's redesignation request. EPA is proposing to determine that the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA from
redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's
decision, redesignation for this Area is appropriate under the CAA and
EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4
requirements to the redesignation request of the Area and disregards
the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania's request for
redesignation

of the Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes into
account the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling and the June 2,
2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the
maintenance plan of the Area, which EPA views as approvable when
subpart 4 requirements are considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating
the Redesignation Request of the Area
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it
could address implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS under
subpart 4 of part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the
purposes of evaluating Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the
Allentown Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would
impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and thus EPA is not
required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the
redesignation of the Area. Under its longstanding interpretation of the
CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold
matter, that the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' and which
must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only
those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. See also ``SIP
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after
November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro
memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459,
12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri,
(68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking
applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view
that the meaning of ``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever
should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than
whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented or due at the
time of attainment'').\2\ In this case, at the time that Pennsylvania
submitted its redesignation request for the Allentown Area for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements under subpart 4 were
not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the redesignation of
the Area, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time
Pennsylvania submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the
EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006). In South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was not
permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under
subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to
implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart
2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and
acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable
requirements,'' for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those
rulemaking actions, EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2
requirements to be ``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating
whether the area should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA.
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of section
107(d)(3) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area
to be redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable'
to the area under section 110 and part D.'' Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)
provides that EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for
the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together
support EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those
requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete
redesignation request.
    First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, and EPA's
June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline
Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due
after the redesignation request is submitted. Pennsylvania submitted
its redesignation request for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
on September 5, 2014 for the Allentown Area, which is prior to the
deadline by which the Area is required to meet the attainment plan and
other requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
    To require Pennsylvania's fully-completed and pending redesignation

request for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now with
requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court announced only in
January 2013 and for which the deadline to comply has not yet come
would be to give retroactive effect to such requirements and provide
Pennsylvania a unique and earlier deadline for compliance solely on the
basis of submitting its redesignation request for the Area. The D.C.
Circuit Court recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive
impact in Sierra Club Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\3\ where
it upheld the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive
EPA's determination that the Area did not meet its attainment deadline.
In that case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA's
nonattainment determination effective as of the date that the statute
required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the
determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, stating that
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit Court decision that addressed retroactivity in a
quite different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA
sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. National
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C.
Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert
denied 132 S. Ct. 571 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize Pennsylvania
by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is already
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that met all
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the
request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because
Pennsylvania did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements which
have not yet come due and for which it had little to no notice, would
inflict the same unfairness condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in
Sierra Club v. Whitman.
b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Pennsylvania's Redesignation Requests
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending
redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, subpart 4
requirements were due and in effect at the time Pennsylvania submitted
its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Area
still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA believes that
the redesignation request for the Area, though not expressed in terms
of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that
subpart for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Allentown Area, EPA notes
that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for coarse particulate
matter (PM10) \4\ nonattainment areas, and under the D.C.
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same
statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the
statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See the
General Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the
relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed
out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or
integrally related to, the more specific PM10 requirements''
(57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements include,
among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM,
RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PM10 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 PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the Allentown Area
to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5 nonattainment area. As EPA
explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA provides
that all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are
initially classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment
areas, and remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA
reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly,
EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of
subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the
following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and
modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an
attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for
RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones
demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\5\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the
area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D NSR Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458,
20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\6\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either
subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS
is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning requirements for
these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many years interpreted
attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining
the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that: ``The
requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for
redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data
for the area must show that

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

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

    The General Preamble also explained that: ``[t]he section 172(c)(9)
requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has
attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore,
section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements
for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of
section 172(c)(9) for these areas.'' Id. EPA similarly stated in its
1992 Calcagni Memorandum that, ``The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that
attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed
retroactively \7\ or prior to December 31, 2014 and thus, were due
prior to Pennsylvania's redesignation request, those requirements do
not apply to an area that is attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a pending request
to redesignate the area to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated
this interpretation of applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty
years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of EPA's authority to
interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As explained earlier, EPA does not believe that the D.C.
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as
to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra
Club v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines
are attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's prior
``Clean Data Policy'' rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also
governed by the requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning.
They describe the effects of a determination of attainment on the
attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4. See
``Determination of Attainment for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,''
(75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso Junction Proposed
PM10 Redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643-47, October 30, 2006). In short, EPA in this context has
also long concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP
planning requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so
long as those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.
    Elsewhere in this rule, EPA determined that the Area has attained
and continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Under
its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here
that the Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of
subparts 1 and 4 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA
is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment
demonstration under section 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under
section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9)
are satisfied for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules
at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section
addresses the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion with respect to
PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for
PM10 has allowed for control of PM10 precursors
such as NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources
in order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable,
section 189(e) of the CAA specifically provides that control
requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10
shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources,
except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such
precursors ``do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels
which exceed the standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, remanded by the
D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning
certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and
control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR
51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was ``not
required to address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5
attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and
NH3] emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA
intended these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these
presumptions at the time because of uncertainties regarding the
emission inventories for these pollutants and the effectiveness of
specific control measures in various regions of the country in reducing
PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for
such regulation of VOC and NH3 in specific areas where that
was necessary.
    The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made
reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated that,
``In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners'
challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that VOCs and
NH3 are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4
expressly governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
    Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion, however, the D.C.
Circuit Court observed: ``NH3 is a precursor to fine
particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and
PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by
subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C.
7513a(e) [section 189(e)].'' Id. at 21, n.7.
    For a number of reasons, the redesignation of the Allentown Area
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C.
Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a
PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is
`presumptively' regulated,'' the D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined
to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule provisions regarding NH3 and VOC as
precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion to reach whether and
how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor
in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not
address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a
redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding NH3
and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence
would be to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any
sources in the Area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section
189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the
case of the Allentown Area, EPA

believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of
the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS without any specific
additional controls of NH3 and VOC emissions from any
sources in the Area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\8\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of
NH3 and VOC. Thus EPA must address here whether additional
controls of NH3 and VOC from major stationary sources are
required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the
Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained
subsequently, any additional controls of NH3 and VOC are
required in the context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve
a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e).
See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking action, proposes to determine
that the Pennsylvania SIP revisions have met the provisions of section
189(e) with respect to NH3 and VOC as precursors. This
proposed determination is based on EPA's findings that: (1) The Area
contains no major stationary sources of NH3, and (2)
existing major stationary sources of VOC are adequately controlled
under other provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.\9\ In the
alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express
exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the
redesignation of the Area, which is attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, at present NH3 and VOC precursors
from major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to levels
exceeding the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 57
FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Area has reduced VOC emissions through the
implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations and various on-road
and non-road motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the nonattainment area
to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to
maintain the standard. Thus, even if we regard the DC Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of
NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment
planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves
do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that
already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that
requiring Pennsylvania to address precursors differently than it has
already would result in a substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\10\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\11\ EPA believes that application of
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Area has already attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of
PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment
of precursors. Even if the DC Circuit Court's decision is construed to
impose an obligation, in evaluating these redesignation requests, to
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect
EPA's approval here of Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the
Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In the context of a
redesignation, the Area has shown that it has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, Pennsylvania has shown and EPA has
proposed to determine that attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in this Area is due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for
continued attainment of the NAAQS. See Section V.A.3. of this
rulemaking. It follows logically that no further control of additional
precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4,
2013 decision of the DC Circuit Court as precluding redesignation of
the Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM10
Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-
Hour and Annual PM10 Standards,'' (69 FR 30006, May 26,
2004) (approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose
controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and
did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or NH3
emissions).
    \11\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, even if, prior to the date of the redesignation request
submittal, Pennsylvania was required to address precursors for the Area
under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA's
remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA would still
conclude that the Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v) of
the CAA.

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

    EPA is proposing, several rulemaking actions for the Allentown
nonattainment area: (1) To redesignate the Allentown Area to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to approve into the
Pennsylvania SIP the associated maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory into the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Area, which is one
of the criteria for redesignation. EPA's proposed approval of the
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS are based upon EPA's determination that the Area
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA
is proposing in this rulemaking action, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for the Area. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs for Lehigh and Northampton
Counties, Pennsylvania for transportation conformity purposes. The

following is a description of how the Pennsylvania September 5, 2014
submittal satisfies the requirements of the CAA including specifically
section 107(d)(3)(E) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    As noted previously, in the final rulemaking action dated March 29,
2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the Allentown Area had clean
data for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA based this
determination upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the Area has
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
on the 2008-2010 data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality PM2.5
monitoring data in the Area consistent with the requirements contained
at 40 CFR part 50, and recorded in EPA's AQS database. To support the
previous determination of attainment of the Area, EPA has also reviewed
more recent data in its AQS database, including certified, quality-
assured data for the period from 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012 and
2011-2013. This data, shown in Table 1, shows that the Area continues
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, as
discussed subsequently with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring ambient PM2.5
concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Area continues to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
of the CAA
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP
revisions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Allentown
Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and all the
requirements applicable to the Area under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP
requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are not limited to the following: (1)
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable
public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; (3) implementation of a minor source permit program;
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (PSD); (4)
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for NSR permit
programs; (5) provisions for air pollution modeling; and (6) provisions
for public and local agency participation in planning and emission
control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the
NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), amendments to
the NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222,
March 2, 2000), CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005), and CSAPR. However,
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification
in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements
are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements
of the CAA not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that section
110(a)(2) of the CAA and part D requirements which are linked with a
particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that
section 110(a)(2) elements of the CAA not linked in the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and
Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation
(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
redesignation (66 FR 53099, October 19, 2001).
    EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania SIP and has concluded that it
meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA
has previously approved provisions of Pennsylvania's SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing
PM2.5. See 77 FR 58955 (September 25, 2012). These
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked
to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Area. Therefore,
EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements
for purposes of review of

Pennsylvania's PM2.5 redesignation request.
b. Subpart 1 Requirements
    Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements
applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Under section 172
of the CAA, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing
for timely attainment and meet a variety of other requirements.
    EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the
SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble
for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564
(April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other
measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the 1992
Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the
basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to
PM2.5 in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state's
obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that
would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and
planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and contingency measures under
section 172(c)(9).\12\ Courts have upheld EPA's interpretation of
section 172(c)(1)'s ``reasonably available'' control measures and
control technology as meaning only those controls that advance
attainment, which precludes the need to require additional measures
where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252
(D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir.
2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This regulation was promulgated as part of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule that was subsequently
challenged and remanded in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.
2013), as discussed in Section IV.B of this rule. However, the Clean
Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was not at issue in
that case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Allentown
Area, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and
section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM
are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation
as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until
redesignation. Section 172(c)(2)'s requirement that nonattainment plans
contain provisions promoting reasonable further progress toward
attainment is also not relevant for purposes of redesignation because
EPA has determined that the Allentown Area has monitored attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, because the
Allentown Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
is no longer subject to a RFP requirement, the requirement to submit
the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the
NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are
needed to provide for attainment.
    The requirement under section 172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA's
clean data determination for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and is the only remaining requirement under section 172 of the CAA to
be considered for purposes of redesignation of the Area. Section
172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of Pennsylvania's redesignation request submittal, Pennsylvania
submitted a 2007 base year emissions inventory for the Area for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS which includes emissions estimates
that cover the general source categories of point sources, nonroad
mobile sources, area sources and on-road mobile sources. The pollutants
that comprise the inventory are NOX, VOC, PM2.5,
NH3, and SO2.
    In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007
base year emissions inventory in accordance with section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA for the Area. Final approval of the 2007 base year emissions
inventory will satisfy the emissions inventory requirement under
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For more information on the evaluation
and EPA's analysis of the 2007 base year emissions inventory, see
Appendices B-1 and C-1 of Pennsylvania's submittals and the emissions
inventory technical support document (TSD) dated December 17, 2014,
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
The summary of the 2007 base year emissions inventory in tons per year
(tpy) are shown in Table 2.

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

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

Attainment.'' Nevertheless, Pennsylvania currently has an approved NSR
program, codified in the Commonwealth's regulations at 25 Pa. Code
127.201 et seq. See 77 FR 41276 (July 13, 2012) (approving NSR program
into the SIP). See also 49 FR 33127 (August 21, 1984) (approving
Pennsylvania's PSD program). However, Pennsylvania's PSD program for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will become effective in the
Allentown Area upon redesignation to attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted
previously, Pennsylvania SIP revisions meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA that are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to
attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of
the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.'' In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to
provide for maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Area for at least 10 years after redesignation, through 2025.
Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as
meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the
maintenance plan for the Area will ensure that the SIP for Pennsylvania
meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Area. EPA's analysis of the
maintenance plan is provided in Section V.B. of today's proposed
rulemaking action.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of
the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA
approved Pennsylvania's transportation conformity SIP requirements on
April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19541).
    Thus, for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determines that upon final
approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory as proposed in
this rulemaking action, the Area will meet all applicable SIP
requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA for purposes of
redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
c. Pennsylvania Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory
proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA will have fully SIP-approved,
all applicable requirements of the Pennsylvania SIP revisions for the
Area for purposes of redesignaton to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with section 110(k) of the CAA. As
noted in this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the Area's
2007 emissions inventory (submitted as part of the maintenance plan) as
meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, upon approval of the 2007
emissions inventory, Pennsylvania will have satisfied all applicable
requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA for the Area.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions. In making this demonstration,
Pennsylvania has calculated the change in emissions between 2005, which
is the year used to designate the Area as nonattainment, and 2007,
which is one of the years the Area monitored attainment, as shown in
Table 3. The reduction in emissions (negative values) in tpy, and the
corresponding improvement in air quality from 2005 to 2007 in the Area
can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that have
been implemented in the Area and contributing areas in recent years.
For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2005 and 2007 emissions
inventories, see EPA's emissions inventory TSD dated December 17, 2014,
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.

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

a. Federal Measures Implemented
    Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred
statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the
future.
    NOX SIP Call--On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone
pollution.\13\ Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of
the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission
reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the
NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable. By imposing an
emissions cap regionally, the NOX SIP Call reduced
NOX emissions from large EGUs and large non-EGUs such as
industrial boilers, internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. In
response to the NOX SIP Call, Pennsylvania

adopted its NOX Budget Trading Program regulations for EGUs
and large industrial boilers, with emission reductions starting in May
2003. Pennsylvania's NOX Budget Trading Program regulation
was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21, 2001 (66 FR
43795). To meet other requirements of the NOX SIP Call,
Pennsylvania adopted NOX control regulations for cement
plants and internal combustion engines, with emission reductions
starting in May 2005. These regulations were approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57428).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although the NOX SIP Call was issued in order to
address ozone pollution, reductions of NOX as a result of
that program have also impacted PM2.5 pollution, for
which NOX is also a precursor emission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAIR--As previously noted, CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) created
regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions in 28 eastern states, including Pennsylvania.
EPA approved the Commonwealth's CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the Pennsylvania SIP on December
10, 2009 (74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone season NOX
trading program superseded the NOX Budget Trading Program,
although the emission reduction obligations of the NOX SIP
Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading program for
EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the DC Circuit Court's
October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and
implementation of CSAPR began in January 2015. EPA expects that the
implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR
and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission
reductions throughout the maintenance period.

Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards

    These emission control requirements result in lower NOX
emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility
vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. EPA
estimated that, after phasing in the new requirements, the following
vehicle NOX emission reductions will have occurred
nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light
duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and
larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95
percent). Some of the emissions reductions resulting from new vehicle
standards occurred during the 2008-2010 attainment period; however,
additional reductions will continue to occur throughout the maintenance
period as new vehicles replace older vehicles. EPA expects fleet wide
average emissions to decline by similar percentages as new vehicles
replace older vehicles.

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule

    EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule in July 2000. This
rule included standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel,
which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007
which reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to
15 ppm. Standards for gasoline engines were phased in starting in 2008.
The total program is estimated to achieve a 90 percent reduction in
direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent reduction in
NOX emissions for new engines using low sulfur diesel fuel.

Nonroad Diesel Rule

    On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA promulgated the Nonroad Diesel
Rule for large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in
construction, agriculture, and mining, to be phased in between 2008 and
2014. The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content
of diesel used in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in sulfur
content prevents damage to the more advanced emission control systems
needed to meet the engine standards. It will also reduce fine
particulate emissions from diesel engines. The combined engine
standards and the sulfur in fuel reductions will reduce NOX
and PM emissions from large nonroad engines by over 90 percent,
compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel.

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine Standards

    In November 2002, EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of
previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include large
spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport
ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles using spark-ignition
engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and
snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Emission standards
from large spark-ignition engines were implemented in two tiers, with
Tier 1 starting in 2004 and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle
emission standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. Marine
Diesel engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. With
full implementation of all of the nonroad spark-ignition engine and
recreational engine standards, an overall 80 percent reduction in
NOX is expected by 2020. Some of these emission reductions
occurred by the 2002-2007 attainment period and additional emission
reductions will occur during the maintenance period as the fleet turns
over.

Federal Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

    As required by the CAA, EPA developed Maximum Available Control
Technology (MACT) Standards to regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from a published list of industrial sources referred to as
``source categories.'' The MACT standards have been adopted and
incorporated by reference in Section 6.6 of Pennsylvania's Air
Pollution Control Act and implementing regulations in 25 Pa. Code 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,
SO2, and VOCs from major source boilers and process heaters
nationwide. Also, the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE)
MACT will reduce NOX and PM emissions from engines located
at facilities such as pipeline compressor stations, chemical and
manufacturing plants, and power plants.
b. State Measures

Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program

    In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions
Control Program for model years starting in May 2004. The program
incorporates California standards by reference and required model year
2005 and beyond heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be certified to
the California standards, which were more stringent than the Federal
standards for model years 2005 and 2006. After model year 2006,
Pennsylvania required implementation of the Federal standards that
applied to model years 2007 and beyond, discussed in the Federal
measures section of this proposed rulemaking action. This program
reduced emissions of NOX statewide.

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program

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

of annual on-board diagnostics and gas cap test for model year 1996
vehicles and newer, and an annual visual inspection of pollution
control devices and gas cap test for model year 1995 vehicles and
older. This program reduces emissions of NOX from affected
vehicles.

Consumer Products Regulation

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

Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents Regulation

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

B. Maintenance Plan

    On September 5, 2014, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the
Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as required
by section 175A of the CAA. EPA's analysis for proposing approval of
the maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the
nonattainment area. For a maintenance plan, states are required to
submit an inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area
which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS, referred to as the attainment
inventory (or the maintenance plan base year inventory), and which
should be based on actual emissions. PADEP submitted an attainment
inventory for 2007, which is one of the years in the period during
which the Allentown Area monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The inventory for 2007 is comprised of
NOX, PM2.5, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 emissions from point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad
mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.
    The 2007 point source inventory contained emissions for EGU and
non-EGU sources in Lehigh and Northampton Counties that were directly
reported by the facilities. Since the reported emissions did not
include condensable emissions, the EGU inventory was augmented to
account for condensable emissions by application of emission factors
developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association
(MARAMA) in 2008. The nonpoint source emissions inventory for 2007 was
developed using 2007 specific activity data along with EPA emission
factors and the most recent available emission calculation
methodologies. PADEP used the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
data to fill in any missing categories in the 2007 inventory. For the
2007 nonroad mobile sources, PADEP generated emissions using EPA's
National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 2008 model. Since marine, air
and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions are not part of the NONROAD model,
they were calculated separately outside of the NONROAD model. The 2007
onroad mobile source inventory was developed using EPA's highway mobile
source emissions model MOVES2010. PADEP used local activity to replace
default inputs in the model where appropriate.
    EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and found the
2007 emissions inventory acceptable for meeting the requirements under
section 172(c)(3). For more information on the emissions inventory
submitted by PADEP for the Area and EPA's analysis of the emissions
inventory, see Appendices B-1 and C-1 of the Pennsylvania submittal and
the emissions inventory TSD dated December 17, 2014, which is available
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten
years following redesignation.'' Where the emissions inventory method
of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions
during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment
year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10.
    For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of
future growth and controls; however, the maintenance demonstration need
not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA,
supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100; 68 FR 25430-32. PADEP uses
projection inventories to show that the Area will remain in attainment
and developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a
maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of
NOX, SO2, VOC, NH3, and
PM2.5 will remain at or below the attainment year 2007
emissions levels throughout the Area through the year 2025.
    The Federal and State measures described in Section V.A.3. of this
proposed rulemaking action demonstrate that the reductions in emissions
from point, area, and mobile sources in the Area has occurred and will
continue to occur through 2025. In addition, the following State and
Federal regulations and programs ensure the continuing decline of
SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in
the Area during the maintenance period and beyond:

Non-EGUs Previously Covered Under the NOX SIP Call

    Pennsylvania established NOX emission limits for the
large industrial boilers that were previously subject to the
NOX SIP Call, but were not subject to CAIR. For these units,
Pennsylvania established an allowable ozone season NOX limit
based on the unit's previous ozone season's heat input. A combined
NOX ozone season emissions cap of 3,418 tons applies for all
of these units.

CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208)

    EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading
program for EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit
Court's October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and
EPA began implementation of CSAPR in January 2015. EPA expects that the
implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR
and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission
reductions throughout the maintenance period.

Regulation of Cement Kilns

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

Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further reduce NOX emissions
from cement kilns. The amendments established NOX emission
rate limits for long wet kilns, long dry kilns, and preheater and
precalciner kilns that are lower by 35 to 63 percent from the previous
limit of 6 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker that applied to
all kilns. The amendments were effective on April 15, 2011.

Stationary Source Regulations

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

Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program

    The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (formerly, New Motor
Vehicle Control Program) incorporates by reference the California Low
Emission Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it allowed automakers to
comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this program until
Model Year (MY) 2006. The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, was modified to require CA LEVII to
apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP
on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The Clean Vehicles Program
incorporates by reference the emission control standards of CA LEVII,
which, among other requirements, reduces emissions of NOX by
requiring that passenger car emission standards and fleet average
emission standards also apply to light duty vehicles. Model year 2008
and newer passenger cars and light duty trucks are required to be
certified for emissions by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), in
order to be sold, leased, offered for sale or lease, imported,
delivered, purchased, rented, acquired, received, titled or registered
in Pennsylvania. In addition, manufacturers are required to demonstrate
that the California fleet average standard is met based on the number
of new light-duty vehicles delivered for sale in the Commonwealth. The
Commonwealth's submittal for the January 24, 2012 rulemaking projected
that, by 2025, the program will achieve 318 tons more NOX
reductions than Tier II for the counties in the Allentown Area.
    Two Pennsylvania regulations--its Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle
Idling Act (August 1, 2011, 76 FR 45705) and its Outdoor Wood-Fired
Boiler regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR 58114)--were not included
in the projection inventories, but may also assist in maintaining the
NAAQS. Also, the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79
FR 23414, April 29, 2014) establishes more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and will reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in
2017. The fuel standard will achieve NOX reductions by
further increasing the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls for
both existing and new vehicles.
    The projection inventories for the 2017 and 2025 point, area, and
nonroad sources were taken from regional inventories coordinated by
MARAMA for the states in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
and Virginia (MANE-VU+VA), which includes Pennsylvania. Detailed
discussion of how 2017 and 2025 projections were developed are
contained in Appendix C-2 and C-3, respectively, of Pennsylvania's
submittal. EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and
found the methodologies acceptable.
    EPA has determined that the 2017 and 2025 projected emissions
inventories provided by PADEP are approvable. For more information on
EPA's analysis of the emissions inventory, see EPA's TSD dated December
17, 2014, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking
action. Table 5 provides a summary of the inventories for the 2007
attainment year, as compared to the projected inventories for the 2017
interim year and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Area in
tpy.

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

    As shown in Table 5, the projected levels of PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, NH3, and VOC are well under
the 2007 attainment year levels for each of these pollutants.
Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that the Area will continue to
maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year
maintenance period.
    While Pennsylvania's maintenance plan submitted for the Allentown
Area for CAA section 175A did not specifically include or mention the
SO2 emission limits EPA imposed on the Portland Generating
Station located in Northampton County, Pennsylvania (Portland Facility)
in 2011, EPA notes that those limits will likely support the Allentown
Area's ability to maintain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS going
forward because SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5.
Thus, reduced SO2 emissions from the Portland Facility
should also reduce subsequent PM2.5 formation. Pursuant to
section 126 of the CAA, on November 7, 2011, EPA promulgated
SO2 emission limitations and reporting requirements for the
coal-fired boilers (Units 1 and 2) at the Portland Facility after EPA
made a finding that the coal-fired units at the Portland Facility
significantly contribute to nonattainment for the 1-hour 2010
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. See 76 FR 69052 (relating to final
response to petition from New Jersey regarding SO2 emissions
from the Portland Facility). The federally enforceable SO2
emission limitations and reporting requirements for the coal-fired
boilers (Units 1 and 2) at the Portland Facility are established in 40
CFR 52.2039.
    The SO2 emission limits in 40 CFR 52.2039 represent an
81 percent reduction of SO2 emissions from the Portland
Facility's previously permitted levels. In 2010, Portland emitted
approximately 23,000 tons of SO2. The

limits and requirements in 40 CFR 52.2039 are ``applicable
requirements'' as defined in 25 Pa. Code Sec.  121.1 (which is included
in the federally enforceable Pennsylvania SIP) because they have been
promulgated or approved by the EPA under the CAA or the regulations
adopted under the CAA through rulemaking. As applicable requirements,
they must therefore be included in a Title V operating permit for the
Portland Facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code Sec.  127.502.
3. Monitoring Network
    Pennsylvania's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue
to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Pennsylvania currently
operates a PM2.5 monitor at the Freemansburg monitoring site
in Northampton County. In its September 5, 2014 submittal, Pennsylvania
stated that it will consult with EPA prior to making any necessary
changes to the network and will continue to quality assure the
monitoring data in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Area, PADEP
requires major point sources to submit air emissions information
annually and prepares a new periodic inventory for all PM2.5
precursors every three years in accordance with EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (AERR). Emissions information will be compared
to the attainment year inventory (2007) to assure continued attainment
with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and will be used to assess
emissions trends, as necessary. Also, as noted in the previous
subsection, PADEP will continue to operate its monitoring system in
accordance with 40 CFR 58 and remains obligated to quality-assure
monitoring data and enter all data into the AQS in accordance with
Federal requirements. PADEP will use this data, supplemented with
additional data, as necessary, to assure continuing attainment in the
Area.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct
any violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in
the Area after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that a state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Pennsylvania's maintenance plan describes the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to reduce emissions
should a violation occur. Pennsylvania's contingency measures include a
first level response and a second level response. A first level
response is triggered when the annual mean PM2.5
concentration exceeds 35.0 [mu]g/m\3\ in a single calendar year within
the Area, or if the periodic emissions inventory for the Area exceeds
the attainment year inventory by more than ten percent. The first level
response will consist of a study to determine if the emissions trends
show increasing concentrations of PM2.5, and whether this
trend is likely to continue. If it is determined through the study that
action is necessary to reverse a trend of emissions increases,
Pennsylvania will, as expeditiously as possible, implement necessary
and appropriate control measures to reverse the trend.
    A second level response will be prompted if the two-year average of
the annual mean concentration exceeds 35.0 [mu]g/m\3\ within the Area.
This would trigger an evaluation of the conditions causing the
exceedence, whether additional emission control measures should be
implemented to prevent a violation of the standard, and analysis of
potential measures that could be implemented to prevent a violation.
Pennsylvania would then begin its adoption process to implement the
measures as expeditiously as practicable.
    Pennsylvania's candidate contingency measures include the
following: (1) A regulation based on the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products; (2) a
regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
industrial cleaning solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects such as
diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets,
idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives, and idling
reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and
other freight-handling facilities; (4) promotion of accelerated
turnover of lawn and garden equipment, focusing on commercial
equipment; and (5) promotion of alternative fuels for fleets, home
heating and agricultural use. Pennsylvania's rulemaking process and
schedule for adoption and implementation of any necessary contingency
measure is shown in the SIP submittals as being 18 months from PADEP's
approval to initiate rulemaking. For all of the reasons discussed in
this section, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Allentown Area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and
the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP. On September 5,
2014, Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions that contain the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad mobile source budgets
for Lehigh and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania did not
provide emission budgets for SO2, VOC, and NH3
because it concluded, consistent with the presumptions regarding these
precursors in the Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR
93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and were not disturbed by the
litigation on the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that
emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are not significant
contributors to the Area's PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA
issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1,
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). That decision does not affect EPA's
proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The MVEBs are presented in
Table 6.

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

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the
PM2.5 maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected
level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIPs will achieve
its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's process for determining adequacy
of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the
opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and
(3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is also initiating the
process for determining whether or not the MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. The publication of this rule starts
a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs.
This comment period is concurrent with the comment period on this
proposed action and comments should be submitted to the docket for this
rulemaking. EPA may choose to make its determination on the adequacy of
the budgets either in the final rulemaking on this maintenance plan and
redesignation request or by informing Pennsylvania of the determination
in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal Register and posting a
notice on EPA's adequacy Web page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and finds them consistent with the
maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the criteria for adequacy
and approval in 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
Lehigh and Northampton Counties for transportation conformity purposes.
Additional information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be
found in the TSD, ``Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Allentown 2006 Fine Particulate
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area,'' dated
December 1, 2014, available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID
No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0789.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to redesignate
the Allentown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's
redesignation request and determined that the Area meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
The monitoring data demonstrates that the Area had attained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as determined by EPA in a prior
rulemaking, and, for the reasons discussed herein, that it will
continue to attain the NAAQS. Final approval of this redesignation
request would change the designation of the Allentown Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan
for the Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP because it meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA as described previously in this
proposed rulemaking. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007
base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirement of section
172(a)(3) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017
and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for Lehigh and
Northampton Counties for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's
redesignation request, maintenance plan, 2007 base year emissions
inventory, and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the
Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

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