Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 22672-22690 [2015-09368]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22672
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105–3901. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal addresses the following
FRAQMD rules: 10.9, 3.14, 3.20, 3.21
and 3.22. In the Rules and Regulations
section of this Federal Register, we are
approving these local rules in a direct
final action without prior proposal
because we believe these SIP revisions
are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the
comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule. Please note that
if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph or section of this
rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
we may adopt as final those provisions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
Dated: February 27, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015–09405 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902; FRL–9926–71–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request
and Associated Maintenance Plan for
the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for
the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
December 3, 2014 request to redesignate
to attainment the Johnstown
nonattainment area (Johnstown Area or
Area) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also
proposing to determine that the Area
continues to attain the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition, EPA is proposing to approve
as a revision to the Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan (SIP) the
associated maintenance plan that was
submitted with the redesignation
request, to show maintenance of the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The
maintenance plan includes the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) for the Area for both NAAQS,
which EPA is proposing to approve for
transportation conformity purposes.
Furthermore, EPA is proposing to
approve as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP the 2007 emissions
inventory that is also included in the
maintenance plan for the Area for both
NAAQS. This rulemaking action to
propose approval of the 1997 annual
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
redesignation request and associated
maintenance plan for the Johnstown
Area is based on EPA’s determination
that Pennsylvania has met the criteria
for redesignation to attainment specified
in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both
NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2014–0902 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode
3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014–
0902. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Copies of
the State submittal are available at the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose
Quinto, (215) 814–2182 or by email at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA’s Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on
Proposed Actions
A. Effect of the Court Decisions Regarding
EPA’s CSAPR
B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court Decision
Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under
Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA
V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
Submittal
A. Redesignation Request
B. Maintenance Plan
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
The first air quality standards for
PM2.5 were established on July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an
annual standard at a level of 15
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3),
based on a three-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS). In the same
rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a
24-hour standard of 65 mg/m3, based on
a three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA
published air quality area designations
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that
rulemaking action, EPA designated the
Johnstown Area as nonattainment for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. at
1000. The Johnstown Area is comprised
of Cambria County and portions of
Indiana County (Township of West
Wheatfield, Center, East Wheatfield, and
Armagh Borough and Homer City
Borough). See 40 CFR 81.339.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144),
EPA retained the annual average
standard at 15 mg/m3, but revised the 24hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again
on the three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations
(the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). On
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA
published designations for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became
effective on December 14, 2009. In that
rulemaking action, EPA designated the
Johnstown Area as nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Johnstown Area is comprised of
Cambria County and portions of Indiana
County. See 40 CFR 81.339.
On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863)
and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA
made determinations that the Johnstown
Area had attained the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.1004(c) and based on these
determinations, the requirements for the
Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to the
attainment of either the 1997 annual or
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and
continue to be, suspended until such
time as: the Area is redesignated to
attainment for each standard, at which
time the requirements no longer apply;
or EPA determines that the Area has
again violated any of the standards, at
which time such plans are required to
be submitted. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR
45424), EPA also determined, in
accordance with section 179(c) of the
CAA, that the Johnstown Area attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of April 5,
2010.
On December 3, 2014, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP),
formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Johnstown Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP
submitted a combined maintenance
plan for the Area as a SIP revision to
ensure continued attainment throughout
the Area over the next 10 years. The
maintenance plan includes the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22673
Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in
the maintenance plan is the 2007
comprehensive emissions inventory for
both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX,
sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and ammonia
(NH3).
In this proposed rulemaking action,
EPA also addresses the effects of several
decisions of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit Court) and a decision of
the United States Supreme Court: (1)
The D.C. Circuit Court’s August 21,
2012 decision to vacate and remand to
EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution
Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme
Court’s April 29, 2014 reversal of the
vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the
D.C. Circuit Court; (3) the D.C. Circuit
Court’s October 23, 2014 decision to lift
the stay of CSAPR; and (4) the D.C.
Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision
to remand to EPA two final rules
implementing the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
II. EPA’s Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to
Attainment
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) EPA
determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has
fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the
state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area
under section 110 and part D. Each of
these requirements are discussed in
Section V. of today’s proposed
rulemaking action.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in the ‘‘SIPs; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the CAA Amendments of
1990,’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)
(the General Preamble) and has
provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following
documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22674
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to
as the 1992 Calcagni Memorandum); (2)
‘‘SIP Actions Submitted in Response to
CAA Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
and (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review
(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after approval of a redesignation of
an area to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the state must submit
a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future PM2.5 violations.
The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum
provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The
Memorandum states that a maintenance
plan should address the following
provisions: (1) An attainment emissions
inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for
10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain
the existing monitoring network; (4)
verification of continued attainment;
and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations of the NAAQS.
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIP revisions for nonattainment areas
and maintenance plans for areas seeking
redesignation to attainment for a given
NAAQS. These emission control
strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and
attainment demonstration SIP revisions)
and maintenance plans also create
MVEBs based on onroad mobile source
emissions for the relevant criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors,
where appropriate, to address pollution
from onroad transportation sources. The
MVEBs are the portions of the total
allowable emissions that are allocated to
onroad vehicle use that, together with
emissions from all other sources in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
area, will provide attainment, RFP, or
maintenance, as applicable. The budget
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an
area’s planned transportation system.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an
area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan.
The maintenance plan for the
Johnstown Area, comprised of Cambria
County and portions of Indiana County
in Pennsylvania, includes the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes. The
transportation conformity determination
for the Area is further discussed in
Section V.C. of today’s proposed
rulemaking action and in a technical
support document (TSD), ‘‘Adequacy
Findings for the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets in the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Maintenance Plan for the
Johnstown, Pennsylvania 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,’’ dated
February 12, 2015, available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No.
EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902.
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to take several
rulemaking actions related to the
redesignation of the Johnstown Area to
attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to find that the Johnstown
Area meets the requirements for
redesignation of the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
thus proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s request to change the
legal designation of the Johnstown Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the associated maintenance
plan for the Johnstown Area as a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, including the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for
transportation conformity purposes.
Approval of the maintenance plan is
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
of the Area to attainment for both
NAAQS. Pennsylvania’s combined
maintenance plan is designed to ensure
continued attainment of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the Area for at least 10 years after
redesignation.
EPA previously determined that the
Johnstown Area attained both the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(see 74 FR 48863 (September 25, 2009)
and 77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012)), and
EPA is proposing to find that the Area
continues to attain both NAAQS. EPA is
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
also proposing to approve the 2007
comprehensive emissions inventory
submitted with Pennsylvania’s
maintenance plan that includes an
inventory of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and
NH3 for the Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
order to meet the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA’s
analysis of the proposed actions is
provided in Section V. of today’s
proposed rulemaking.
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on
Proposed Actions
A. Effect of the Court Decisions
Regarding EPA’s CSAPR
1. Background
The D.C. Circuit Court and the
Supreme Court have issued a number of
decisions and orders regarding the
status of EPA’s regional trading
programs for transported air pollution,
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
CSAPR, that impact this proposed
redesignation action. In 2008, the D.C.
Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR,
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without
vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76
FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit
Court’s remand, EPA promulgated
CSAPR, to address interstate transport
of emissions and resulting secondary air
pollutants and to replace CAIR.1 CSAPR
requires substantial reductions of SO2
and NOX emissions from electric
generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in
the Eastern United States.
Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs
would have superseded the CAIR capand-trade programs. Numerous parties
filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and
on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit
Court issued an order staying CSAPR
pending resolution of the petitions and
directing EPA to continue to administer
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30,
2011), Order at 2.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
Court issued its ruling, vacating and
remanding CSAPR to EPA and once
again ordering continued
implementation of CAIR. EME Homer
1 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual PM
2.5 NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR
addresses contributions from upwind states to
downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d
7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit
Court subsequently denied EPA’s
petition for rehearing en banc. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No.
11–1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan.
24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties
then petitioned the Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari, and the Supreme
Court granted the petitions on June 24,
2013. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit
Court’s decision regarding CSAPR, and
remanded that decision to the D.C.
Circuit Court to resolve remaining
issues in accordance with its ruling.
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA moved
to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light
of the Supreme Court decision. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
Case No. 11–1302, Document No.
1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014).
In its motion, EPA asked the D.C.
Circuit Court to toll CSAPR’s
compliance deadlines by three years, so
that the Phase 1 emissions budgets
apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012
and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions
budgets apply in 2017 and beyond
(instead of 2014 and beyond). On
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court
granted EPA’s motion and lifted the stay
of CSAPR which was imposed on
December 30, 2011. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302
(D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. On
December 3, 2014, EPA issued an
interim final rule to clarify how EPA
will implement CSAPR consistent with
the D.C. Circuit Court’s order granting
EPA’s motion requesting lifting the stay
and tolling the rule’s deadlines. See 79
FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim
final rulemaking). Consistent with that
rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR
on January 1, 2015.
2. Proposal on This Issue
Because CAIR was promulgated in
2005 and incentivized sources and
states to begin achieving early emission
reductions, the air quality data
examined by EPA in issuing a final
determination of attainment for the
Johnstown Area in 2009 (September 25,
2009, 74 FR 48863) and the air quality
data from the Area since 2005
necessarily reflect reductions in
emissions from upwind sources as a
result of CAIR, and Pennsylvania
included CAIR as one of the measures
that helped to bring the Area into
attainment. However, modeling
conducted by EPA during the CSAPR
rulemaking process, which used a
baseline emissions scenario that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
‘‘backed out’’ the effects of CAIR, see 76
FR 48223, projected that the counties in
the Johnstown Area would have design
values below the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 2012
and 2014 without taking into account
emission reductions from CAIR or
CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA’s ‘‘Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document,’’ (Pages B–57 and
B–86), which is available in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking action. In
addition, the 2011–2013 qualityassured, quality-controlled, and
certified monitoring data for the
Johnstown Area confirms that the PM2.5
design values for the Area remained
well below the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2013.
The status of CSAPR is not relevant to
this redesignation. CSAPR was
promulgated in June 2011, and the rule
was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court just
six months later, before the trading
programs it created were scheduled to
go into effect. As stated previously, EPA
began implementing CSAPR on January
1, 2015, subsequent to the emission
reductions documented in the
Commonwealth’s December 3, 2014
request for redesignation. Therefore, the
Area’s attainment of the 1997 annual or
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS cannot
have been a result of any emission
reductions associated with CSAPR. In
summary, neither the status of CAIR nor
the current status of CSAPR affects any
of the criteria for proposed approval of
this redesignation request for the
Johnstown Area.
B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court
Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part
D of Title I of the CAA
1. Background
On January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA,
the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA
the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007) and the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5’’ final
rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008)
(collectively, 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule). 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court
found that EPA erred in implementing
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant
to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title
I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the
particulate-matter-specific provisions of
subpart 4 of part D of Title I (subpart 4).
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision,
the states had worked towards meeting
the air quality goals of the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22675
EPA regulations and guidance derived
from subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the
CAA. In response to the D.C. Circuit
Court’s remand, EPA took this history
into account by setting a new deadline
for any remaining submissions that may
be required for moderate nonattainment
areas as a result of the D.C. Circuit
Court’s decision regarding the
applicability of subpart 4 of part D of
Title I of the CAA.
On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA
issued a final rule, ‘‘Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and
Deadlines for Submission of SIP
Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS’’ (the PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule),
which identifies the classification under
subpart 4 as ‘‘moderate’’ for areas
currently designated nonattainment for
the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule set a deadline
for states to submit attainment plans
and meet other subpart 4 requirements.
The rule specified December 31, 2014 as
the deadline for states to submit any
additional attainment-related SIP
elements that may be needed to meet
the applicable requirements of subpart 4
for areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and/
or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit
SIPs addressing the nonattainment NSR
requirements in subpart 4.
As explained in detail in the
following section, since Pennsylvania
submitted its request to redesignate the
Johnstown Area on December 3, 2014,
any additional attainment-related SIP
elements that may be needed for the
Area to meet the applicable
requirements of subpart 4 were not due
at the time Pennsylvania submitted its
request to redesignate the Area for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
2. Proposal on This Issue
In this proposed rulemaking action,
EPA addresses the effect of the D.C.
Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling
and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule on the
redesignation request for the Area. EPA
is proposing to determine that the D.C.
Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision
does not prevent EPA from
redesignating the Area to attainment for
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the D.C.
Circuit Court’s decision, redesignation
for this Area is appropriate under the
CAA and EPA’s longstanding
interpretations of the CAA’s provisions
regarding redesignation. EPA first
explains its longstanding interpretation
that requirements that are imposed, or
that become due, after a complete
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22676
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
redesignation request is submitted for
an area that is attaining the standard, are
not applicable for purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request.
Second, EPA then shows that, even if
EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements
to the redesignation request of the Area
and disregards the provisions of its 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently
remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court,
Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation
of the Area still qualifies for approval.
EPA’s discussion also takes into account
the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court’s
ruling and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5
Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline
Rule on the maintenance plan of the
Area, which EPA views as approvable
even when subpart 4 requirements are
considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under
Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the
Redesignation Request of the Area
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit
Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling rejected
EPA’s reasons for implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with
the provisions of subpart 1, and
remanded that matter to EPA, so that it
could address implementation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D
of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For
the purposes of evaluating
Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014
redesignation request for the Area, to
the extent that implementation under
subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated
nonattainment, EPA believes that those
requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for
the purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, and thus EPA is not required
to consider subpart 4 requirements with
respect to the redesignation of the Area.
Under its longstanding interpretation of
the CAA, EPA has interpreted section
107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold
matter, that the part D provisions which
are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must be
approved in order for EPA to
redesignate an area include only those
which came due prior to a state’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum. See also ‘‘SIP
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro
memorandum); Final Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459,
12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541
(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s
redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation and expressly rejecting
Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of
‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is
‘‘whatever should have been in the plan
at the time of attainment rather than
whatever actually was in the plan and
already implemented or due at the time
of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time
that Pennsylvania submitted its
redesignation request for the Johnstown
Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirements under subpart 4 were not
due.3
EPA’s view that, for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation of the Area,
the subpart 4 requirements were not due
at the time Pennsylvania submitted the
redesignation request is in keeping with
the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2
requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas
redesignated subsequent to the D.C.
Circuit Court’s decision in South Coast
Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the
D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was
not permitted to implement the 1997
8-hour ozone standard solely under
subpart 1, and held that EPA was
required under the statute to implement
the standard under the ozone-specific
requirements of subpart 2 as well.
Subsequent to the South Coast decision,
in evaluating and acting upon
redesignation requests for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard that were
submitted to EPA for areas under
subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding
interpretation of the CAA that
‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes
of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of
Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047,
22050, April 27, 2010). In those
rulemaking actions, EPA therefore did
not consider subpart 2 requirements to
be ‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of
evaluating whether the area should be
redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA.
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.
3 EPA found Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014
submittal for redesignation of the Area complete on
January 13, 2015. EPA’s complete determination is
available in the docket for this rulemaking at
regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–
2014–0902.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 18month 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.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In the context of this redesignation,
the timing and nature of the D.C. Circuit
Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in
NRDC v. EPA, and EPA’s June 2, 2014
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and
Deadline Rule compound the
consequences of imposing requirements
that come due after the redesignation
request is submitted. Pennsylvania
submitted its redesignation request for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS on December 3, 2014 for the
Johnstown Area, which is prior to the
deadline by which the area is required
to meet the attainment plan and other
requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
To require Pennsylvania’s fullycomplete and pending redesignation
request for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now
with requirements of subpart 4 that the
D.C. Circuit Court announced only in
January 2013 and for which the
December 31, 2014 deadline to comply
occurred subsequent to EPA’s receipt of
Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014
redesignation request, would be to give
retroactive effect to such requirements
and provide Pennsylvania a unique and
earlier deadline for compliance solely
on the basis of submitting its
redesignation request for the Area. The
D.C. Circuit Court recognized the
inequity of this type of retroactive
impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285
F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),4 where it
upheld the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling
refusing to make retroactive EPA’s
determination that the areas did not
meet their attainment deadlines. In that
case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit
Court to make EPA’s nonattainment
determination effective as of the date
that the statute required, rather than the
later date on which EPA actually made
the determination. The D.C. Circuit
Court rejected this view, stating that
applying it ‘‘would likely impose large
costs on States, which would face fines
and suits for not implementing air
pollution prevention plans . . . even
though they were not on notice at the
time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be
unreasonable to penalize Pennsylvania
by rejecting its December 3, 2014
redesignation request for the Johnstown
Area that EPA previously determined
was attaining the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that met all
applicable requirements known to be in
4 Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and
distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit Court
decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite
different context, where, unlike the situation here,
EPA sought to give its regulations retroactive effect.
National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA,
630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied
643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S.
Ct. 571 (2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
effect at the time of the request. For EPA
now to reject the redesignation request
solely because Pennsylvania did not
expressly address subpart 4
requirements which came due after
receipt of such request, (and for which
it had little to no notice), would inflict
the same unfairness condemned by the
D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v.
Whitman.
b. Subpart 4 Requirements and
Pennsylvania’s Redesignation Request
Even if EPA were to take the view that
the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013
decision, or the June 2, 2014 PM2.5
Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline
Rule, requires that, in the context of a
pending redesignation request for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, which were submitted prior to
December 31, 2014, subpart 4
requirements must be considered as
being due and in effect, EPA proposes
to determine that the Area still qualifies
for redesignation to attainment for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. As explained subsequently,
EPA believes that the redesignation
request for the Area, though not
expressed in terms of subpart 4
requirements, substantively meets the
requirements of that subpart for
purposes of redesignating the Area to
attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to evaluating the
relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating
the Area, EPA notes that subpart 4
incorporates components of subpart 1 of
part D, which contains general air
quality planning requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment. See
section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains
specific planning and scheduling
requirements for coarse particulate
matter (PM10) 5 nonattainment areas,
and under the D.C. Circuit Court’s
January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v.
EPA, these same statutory requirements
also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. EPA has longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting
the statutory requirements for SIPs for
nonattainment areas. See the General
Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA
discussed the relationship of subpart 1
and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and
pointed out that subpart 1 requirements
were to an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or
integrally related to, the more specific
PM10 requirements’’ (57 FR 13538, April
16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements
5 PM
10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22677
include, among other things, provisions
for attainment demonstrations, RACM,
RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
For the purposes of this redesignation
request, in order to identify any
additional requirements which would
apply under subpart 4, consistent with
EPA’s June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is
considering the areas to be ‘‘moderate’’
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As EPA
explained in its June 2, 2014 rule,
section 188 of the CAA provides that all
areas designated nonattainment areas
under subpart 4 are initially to be
classified by operation of law as
‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and
remain moderate nonattainment areas
unless and until EPA reclassifies the
area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area.
Accordingly, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to limit the evaluation of
the potential impact of subpart 4
requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment
areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart
4 apply to moderate nonattainment
areas and include the following: (1) An
approved permit program for
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM
(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4)
quantitative milestones demonstrating
RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section
189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4,
as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A),
refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit
provisions requirements of sections 172
and 173 to PM10, without adding to
them. Consequently, EPA believes that
section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself
impose for redesignation purposes any
additional requirements for moderate
areas beyond those contained in subpart
1.6 In any event, in the context of
redesignation, EPA has long relied on
the interpretation that a fully approved
nonattainment NSR program is not
considered an applicable requirement
for redesignation, provided the area can
maintain the standard with a prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD)
program after redesignation. A detailed
rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
6 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this
redesignation is discussed in this rulemaking
action.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22678
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Attainment.’’ See also rulemakings for
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468,
March 7, 1995); Cleveland-AkronLorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469–
20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23,
2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61
FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). With
respect to the specific attainment
planning requirements under subpart
4,7 when EPA evaluates a redesignation
request under either subpart 1 or 4, any
area that is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS
is viewed as having satisfied the
attainment planning requirements for
these subparts. For redesignations, EPA
has for many years interpreted
attainment-linked requirements as not
applicable for areas attaining the
standard. In the General Preamble, EPA
stated that: ‘‘The requirements for RFP
will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment since, at
a minimum, the air quality data for the
area must show that the area has already
attained. Showing that the State will
make RFP towards attainment will,
therefore, have no meaning at that
point.’’
The General Preamble also explained
that: ‘‘[t]he section 172(c)(9)
requirements are directed at ensuring
RFP and attainment by the applicable
date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the
standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section
175A for maintenance plans . . .
provides specific requirements for
contingency measures that effectively
supersede the requirements of section
172(c)(9) for these areas.’’ Id. EPA
similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum that, ‘‘The requirements
for reasonable further progress and other
measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they
only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.’’
It is evident that even if we were to
consider the D.C. Circuit Court’s January
4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, or the
June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule, to
mean that attainment-related
requirements specific to subpart 4 were
either due prior to Pennsylvania’s
December 3, 2014 redesignation request
or became due subsequent to the
December 3, 2014 redesignation request
and must now be imposed
retroactively,8 those requirements do
7 EPA refers here to attainment demonstration,
RFP, RACM, milestone requirements, and
contingency measures.
8 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
not apply to areas that are attaining the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for the purpose of evaluating a
pending request to redesignate the areas
to attainment. EPA has consistently
enunciated this interpretation of
applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble
was published more than twenty years
ago. Courts have recognized the scope of
EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ in the redesignation
context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, even outside the context of
redesignations, EPA has viewed the
obligations to submit attainment-related
SIP planning requirements of subpart 4
as inapplicable for areas that EPA
determines are attaining the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also
governed by the requirements of subpart
4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They
describe the effects of a determination of
attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See
‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso
Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR
27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso
Junction Proposed PM10 Redesignation,
(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952,
40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643–47, October 30, 2006). In
short, EPA in this context has also long
concluded that to require states to meet
superfluous SIP planning requirements
is not necessary and not required by the
CAA, so long as those areas continue to
attain the relevant NAAQS.
As stated previously in this proposed
rulemaking action, on September 25,
2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012
(77 FR 18922), EPA made
determinations that the Johnstown Area
had attained the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and
based on these determinations, the
requirements for the Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, RFP plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to the attainment
of either the 1997 annual or 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and continue
to be, suspended until such time as: the
Area is redesignated to attainment for
each standard, at which time the
requirements no longer apply; or EPA
determines that the Area has again
violated any of the standards, at which
requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club
v. Whitman, supra.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
time such plans are required to be
submitted. Under its longstanding
interpretation, EPA is proposing to
determine here that the Area meets the
attainment-related plan requirements of
subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that
the requirements to submit an
attainment demonstration under
189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section
189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are
satisfied for purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5
Precursors
The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v.
EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at
issue in the case with instructions to
EPA to re-promulgate them consistent
with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA
in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit
Court’s opinion with respect to PM2.5
precursors. While past implementation
of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for
control of PM10 precursors, such as NOX
from major stationary, mobile, and area
sources in order to attain the standard
as expeditiously as practicable, section
189(e) of the CAA specifically provides
that control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall
also apply to PM10 precursors from
those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources
of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which
exceed the standard in the area.’’
EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit
Court, contained rebuttable
presumptions concerning certain PM2.5
precursors applicable to attainment
plans and control measures related to
those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR
51.1002, EPA provided, among other
things, that a state was ‘‘not required to
address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5
attainment plan precursor[s] and to
evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3]
emissions in the State for control
measures.’’ EPA intended these to be
rebuttable presumptions. EPA
established these presumptions at the
time because of uncertainties regarding
the emission inventories for these
pollutants and the effectiveness of
specific control measures in various
regions of the country in reducing PM2.5
concentrations. EPA also left open the
possibility for such regulation of VOC
and NH3 in specific areas where that
was necessary.
The D.C. Circuit Court in its January
4, 2013 decision made reference to both
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and
stated that, ‘‘In light of our disposition,
we need not address the petitioners’
challenge to the presumptions in [40
CFR 51.1002] that VOCs and NH3 are
not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4
expressly governs precursor
presumptions.’’ NRDC v. EPA, at 27,
n.10.
Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court’s
opinion, however, the D.C. Circuit Court
observed: ‘‘NH3 is a precursor to fine
particulate matter, making it a precursor
to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10
nonattainment area governed by subpart
4, a precursor is presumptively
regulated. See 42 § U.S.C. 7513a(e)
[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7.
For a number of reasons, the
redesignation of the Johnstown Area for
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with the
D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on this
aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C.
Circuit Court, citing section 189(e),
stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by
subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively’
regulated,’’ the D.C. Circuit Court
expressly declined to decide the specific
challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule provisions
regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors.
The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion
to reach whether and how it was
substantively necessary to regulate any
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5
nonattainment area, and did not address
what might be necessary for purposes of
acting upon a redesignation request.
However, even if EPA takes the view
that the requirements of subpart 4 were
deemed applicable at the time the state
submitted the redesignation request,
and disregards the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule’s rebuttable
presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC
as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory
consequence would be to consider the
need for regulation of all precursors
from any sources in the Area to
demonstrate attainment and to apply the
section 189(e) provisions to major
stationary sources of precursors. In the
case of the Johnstown Area, EPA
believes that doing so is consistent with
proposing redesignation of the Area for
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area has attained
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS without any specific
additional controls of NH3 and VOC
emissions from any sources in the Area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are
specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which
requires, with important exceptions,
control requirements for major
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
stationary sources of PM10 precursors.9
Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior
implementation rule, all major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors
were subject to regulation, with the
exception of NH3 and VOC. Thus, EPA
must address here whether additional
controls of NH3 and VOC from major
stationary sources are required under
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to
redesignate the Area for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
explained subsequently, EPA does not
believe that any additional controls of
NH3 and VOC are required in the
context of this redesignation.
In the General Preamble, EPA
discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542.
With regard to precursor regulation
under section 189(e), the General
Preamble explicitly stated that control
of VOC under other CAA requirements
may suffice to relieve a state from the
need to adopt precursor controls under
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in
this rulemaking action, proposes to
determine that the Pennsylvania SIP
revision has met the provisions of
section 189(e) with respect to NH3 and
VOC as precursors. These proposed
determinations are based on EPA’s
findings that: (1) The Johnstown Area
contains no major stationary sources of
NH3; and (2) existing major stationary
sources of VOC are adequately
controlled under other provisions of the
CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.10 In
the alternative, EPA proposes to
determine that, under the express
exception provisions of section 189(e),
and in the context of the redesignation
of the Area, which is attaining the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, at present NH3 and VOC
precursors from major stationary
sources do not contribute significantly
to levels exceeding the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Area. See 57 FR 13539–42.
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule provisions in 40
CFR 51.1002 were not directed at
evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the
context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to
bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
9 Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for
purposes of demonstrating attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to
evaluate all economically and technologically
feasible control measures for direct PM emissions
and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures
that are deemed reasonably available.
10 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22679
NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to
attainment primarily requires the
nonattainment area to have already
attained due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can
continue to maintain the standard.
Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit
Court’s January 4, 2013 decision as
calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of
NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the
attainment planning provisions of
subpart 4, those provisions in and of
themselves do not require additional
controls of these precursors for an area
that already qualifies for redesignation.
Nor does EPA believe that requiring
Pennsylvania to address precursors
differently than it has already would
result in a substantively different
outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its
consideration here of precursor
requirements under subpart 4 is in the
context of a redesignation to attainment,
EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart
4 requirements with respect to
precursors in attainment plans for PM10
contemplates that states may develop
attainment plans that regulate only
those precursors that are necessary for
purposes of attainment in the area in
question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be
regulated for attainment and control
purposes.11 Courts have upheld this
approach to the requirements of subpart
4 for PM10.12 EPA believes that
application of this approach to PM2.5
precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Area has
already attained the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its
current approach to regulation of PM2.5
precursors, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to conclude in the context of
this redesignation that there is no need
to revisit an attainment control strategy
with respect to the treatment of
precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit
Court’s decision is construed to impose
an obligation, in evaluating this
redesignation request, to consider
additional precursors under subpart 4, it
would not affect EPA’s approval here of
Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation
of the Johnstown Area for the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. In the context of a
11 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).
12 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA
et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22680
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
redesignation, Pennsylvania has shown
that the Area has attained both
standards. Moreover, Pennsylvania has
shown, and EPA proposes to determine,
that attainment of the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this
Area is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions on all
precursors necessary to provide for
continued attainment of the NAAQS.
See Section V.A.3 of this proposed
rulemaking action. It follows logically
that no further control of additional
precursors is necessary. Accordingly,
EPA does not view the January 4, 2013
decision of the D.C. Circuit Court as
precluding redesignation of the Area to
attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
In summary, even if, prior to
submitting its December 3, 2014
redesignation request submittal or
subsequent to such submission and
prior to December 31, 2014,
Pennsylvania was required to address
precursors for the Area under subpart 4
rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA’s remanded 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA would
still conclude that the Area had met all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the
CAA.
redesignate the Johnstown Area to
attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to
approve into the Pennsylvania SIP the
associated maintenance plan for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 2007
comprehensive emissions inventory into
the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA for the Area for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
which is one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation. EPA’s proposed approval
of the redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are
based upon EPA’s determination that
the Area continues to attain both
standards, which EPA is proposing in
this rulemaking action, and that all
other redesignation criteria have been
met for the Area. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs included in the
maintenance plan for the Area for
transportation conformity purposes. The
following is a description of how
Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014
submittal satisfies the requirements of
the CAA including specifically section
107(d)(3)(E) for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
Submittal
1. Attainment
On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863)
and July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA
determined that the Johnstown Area
EPA is proposing several rulemaking
actions for the Johnstown Area: (1) To
A. Redesignation Request
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on quality-assured and certified
ambient air monitoring data for 2006–
2008 and by its applicable attainment
date of April 5, 2010 based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2007–2009,
respectively. In a separate rulemaking
action dated March 29, 2012 (77 FR
18922), EPA determined that the
Johnstown Area attained the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2008–2010. The
basis and effect of these determinations
of attainment for both the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were
discussed in the notices of the proposed
(74 FR 38158 (July 31, 2009) and 77 FR
2941 (January 20, 2012), respectively)
and final (74 FR 48863 and 77 FR
18922, respectively) rulemakings which
determined the Area attained the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively.
EPA has reviewed the ambient air
quality PM2.5 monitoring data in the
Area consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, and
recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) database, including qualityassured, quality-controlled, and statecertified data for the monitoring periods
2007–2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011,
2010–2012, and 2011–2013. This data,
provided in Tables 1 and 2, shows that
the Area continues to attain the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M 3) FOR 2007–2009,
2008–2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013
Monitor ID #
2007–2009
420210011 .................................................................
2008–2010
13.4
2009–2011
12.6
12.4
2010–2012
12.3
2011–2013
12.3
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS (μG/M 3) FOR 2007–
2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012, AND 2011–2013
Monitor ID #
2007–2009
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
420210011 .................................................................
EPA’s review of the monitoring data
from 2007 through 2013 supports EPA’s
previous determinations that the Area
has attained the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the
Area continues to attain both standards.
In addition, as discussed subsequently,
with respect to the maintenance plan,
Pennsylvania has committed to
continue monitoring ambient PM2.5
concentrations in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. Thus, based upon analysis
of currently available data, EPA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
2008–2010
32
2009–2011
30
proposing to determine that the
Johnstown Area continues to attain the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
In accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for the Johnstown Area must be
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30
2010–2012
30
2011–2013
30
fully approved under section 110(k) and
all the requirements applicable to the
Area under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements) and part D of
Title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for
nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for
a SIP, which include enforceable
emissions limitations and other control
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
measures, means, or techniques,
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air
quality, and programs to enforce the
limitations. The general SIP elements
and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to,
the following: (1) submittal of a SIP that
has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing;
(2) provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
(3) implementation of a minor source
permit program and provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(PSD); (4) provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions
for air pollution modeling; and (6)
provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission
control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state
from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To
implement this provision for various
NAAQS, EPA has required certain states
to establish programs to address
transport of air pollutants in accordance
with EPA’s Finding of Significant
Contribution and Rulemaking for
Certain States in the Ozone Transport
Assessment Group Region for Purposes
of Reducing Regional Transport of
Ozone (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998),
also known as the NOX SIP Call;
amendments to the NOX SIP Call (64 FR
26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222,
March 2, 2000), CAIR (70 FR 25162,
May 12, 2005) and CSAPR. However,
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a
state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, EPA does not believe that these
requirements are applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the
other section 110(a)(2) elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The Area will still be
subject to these requirements after it is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
redesignated. EPA concludes that the
section 110(a)(2) and part D
requirements which are linked with a
particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request, and that section 110(a)(2)
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October
10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996);
and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking
(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). For
additional discussion on this issue, see
the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65
FR at 37890, June 19, 2000) and the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October
19, 2001).
EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania
SIP and has concluded that it meets the
general SIP requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they
are applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of Pennsylvania’s
SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)
requirements, including provisions
addressing PM2.5. See 77 FR 58955
(September 25, 2012) (approving
infrastructure submittals for 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). These
requirements are, however, statewide
requirements that are not linked to the
PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Area.
Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP
elements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of
the Commonwealth’s PM2.5
redesignation request.
b. Subpart 1 Requirements
Subpart 1 sets forth the basic
nonattainment plan requirements
applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Under section 172, states with
nonattainment areas must submit plans
providing for timely attainment and
must meet a variety of other
requirements.
EPA’s longstanding interpretation of
the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once
an area is attaining the NAAQS, those
requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and
therefore need not be approved into the
SIP before EPA can redesignate the area.
In the 1992 General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth
its interpretation of applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22681
requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is
attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that
the requirements for RFP and other
measures designed to provide for
attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those
nonattainment planning requirements
‘‘have no meaning’’ for an area that has
already attained the standard. Id. This
interpretation was also set forth in the
1992 Calcagni Memorandum. EPA’s
understanding of section 172 also forms
the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which
was articulated with regard to PM2.5 in
40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a
state’s obligation to submit most of the
attainment planning requirements that
would otherwise apply, including an
attainment demonstration and planning
SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures under section
172(c)(9).13 Courts have upheld EPA’s
interpretation of section 172(c)(1)’s
‘‘reasonably available’’ control measures
and control technology as meaning only
those controls that advance attainment,
which precludes the need to require
additional measures where an area is
already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571
F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C.
Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d
735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).
Therefore, because attainment has
been reached for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Johnstown Area (see September 25,
2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012
(77 FR 18922)), no additional measures
are needed to provide for attainment,
and section 172(c)(1) requirements for
an attainment demonstration and RACM
are no longer considered to be
applicable for purposes of redesignation
as long as the Area continues to attain
each standard until redesignation.
Section 172(c)(2)’s requirement that
nonattainment plans contain provisions
promoting RFP toward attainment is
also not relevant for purposes of
redesignation because EPA has
determined that the Johnstown Area has
monitored attainment of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, because the Johnstown Area
has attained the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer
subject to a RFP requirement, the
requirement to submit the section
172(c)(9) contingency measures is not
13 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 rulemaking. However, the Clean
Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was
not at issue in that case.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22682
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires
the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of
the NAAQS. Because attainment has
been reached, no additional measures
are needed to provide for attainment.
The requirement under section
172(c)(3) of the CAA was not suspended
by EPA’s clean data determination for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and is the only remaining
requirement under section 172 to be
considered for purposes of
redesignation of the Area. Section
172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions. To satisfy
the 172(c)(3) requirement for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
Pennsylvania’s December 3, 2014
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS contains a 2007
comprehensive emissions inventory.
The 2007 emissions inventory was the
most current accurate and
comprehensive emissions inventory of
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3 for the
Area when the Area attained the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Thus, as part of this rulemaking action,
EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as
satisfying the requirement of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA for both standards.
Final approval of the 2007 base year
emissions inventory will satisfy the
emissions inventory requirement under
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory addresses the
general source categories of point
sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and non-road mobile sources. A
summary of the 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory is shown in Table
3. For more information on EPA’s
analysis of the 2007 emissions
inventory, see the TSD prepared by EPA
Region III Office of Air Monitoring and
Analysis dated March 3, 2015, ‘‘TSD for
the Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area’’ (Inventory TSD), available in the
docket for this rulemaking action at
www.regulations.gov. See Docket ID No.
EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902.
TABLE 3—2007 EMISSIONS FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA, IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY)
Sector
NOX
PM2.5
SO2
VOC
NH3
3,091
719
131
89
41,876
607
4,011
1,464
143,322
858
30
42
242
2,415
1,770
897
35
409
63
1
Total ..............................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .....................................................................................
Area ......................................................................................
Onroad .................................................................................
Nonroad ...............................................................................
4,031
47,958
144,252
5,325
508
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires
the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources in an area,
and section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the
nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that, since PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated
need not comply with the requirement
that a nonattainment NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’
Nevertheless, Pennsylvania currently
has an approved NSR program codified
in Pennsylvania’s regulations at 25 Pa.
Code 127.201 et seq. See 77 FR 41276
(July 13, 2012) (approving NSR program
into the SIP). See also 49 FR 33127
(August 21, 1984) (approving
Pennsylvania’s PSD program which
incorporates by reference the Federal
PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
However, Pennsylvania’s PSD program
will become effective in the Johnstown
Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires
the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted
previously, EPA believes the
Pennsylvania SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) that
are applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a
SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
‘‘for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.’’ On December 3, 2014, in
conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Johnstown Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Johnstown Area for at least 10 years
after redesignation, throughout 2025.
Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA
approve the maintenance plan to meet
the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA for both NAAQS. Once approved,
the maintenance plan for the Area will
ensure that the SIP for Pennsylvania
meets the requirements of the CAA
regarding maintenance of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
for the Area. EPA’s analysis of the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance plan is provided in Section
V.B. of this proposed rulemaking action.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal
Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other Federally
supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability which
EPA promulgated pursuant to its
authority under the CAA. EPA approved
Pennsylvania’s transportation
conformity SIP requirements on April
29, 2009 (74 FR 19541).
EPA interprets the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under CAA section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation, and
Federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2001) (upholding this interpretation)
and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)
(discussing Tampa, Florida).
Thus, for purposes of redesignating to
attainment the Johnstown Area for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA proposes that upon final
approval of the 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory as proposed in this
rulemaking action, Pennsylvania will
meet all the applicable SIP requirements
under part D of Title I of the CAA for
purposes of redesignating the Area to
attainment for both the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
c. The Area Has a Fully Approved
Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
Upon final approval of the 2007
comprehensive emissions inventory as
proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA
will have fully approved all applicable
requirements of Pennsylvania’s SIP for
the Johnstown Area for purposes of
redesignation to attainment for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in accordance with section 110(k) of the
CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA to
determine that the air quality
improvement in the area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP and
applicable Federal air pollution control
22683
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions. Pennsylvania
has calculated the change in emissions
between 2005, a year showing
nonattainment for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Johnstown Area, and 2007, one of the
years for which the Area monitored
attainment for both standards.
A summary of the emissions
reductions of PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC,
and NH3 from 2005 to 2007 in the
Johnstown Area, submitted by PADEP,
is provided in Table 4. For more
information on EPA’s analysis of the
2005 and 2007 emissions inventories,
see EPA’s Inventory TSD dated March 3,
2015 available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking action.
TABLE 4—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2005 TO 2007 IN THE JOHNSTOWN AREA
[TPY]
Sector
PM2.5 .................................................
NOX ...................................................
SO2 ....................................................
VOC ..................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NH3 ....................................................
2005
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
On-road ............................................
Non-road ..........................................
Total .................................................
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
On-road ............................................
Non-road ..........................................
Total .................................................
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
On-road ............................................
Non-road ..........................................
Total .................................................
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
On-road ............................................
Non-road ..........................................
Total .................................................
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
On-road ............................................
Non-road ..........................................
Total .................................................
The reduction in emissions and the
corresponding improvement in air
quality from 2005 to 2007 for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively, in the Johnstown Area can
be attributed to a number of regulatory
control measures that have been
implemented in the Area and
contributing areas in recent years.
11,872
1,201
142
84
13,299
41,646
751
4,483
1,364
48,244
152,657
1,859
61
112
154,689
344
3,092
1,919
945
6,300
5
511
67
1
584
2007
3,091
719
131
89
4,031
41,876
607
4,011
1,464
47,958
143,322
858
30
42
144,252
243
2,415
1,770
897
5,325
35
409
63
1
508
Net reduction
2005–2007
8,781
482
10
¥5
9,268
¥230
144
472
¥100
286
9,335
1,001
31
70
10,437
101
677
149
48
975
¥30
102
4
0
76
Percent
reduction
2005–2007
74
40
7
¥6
70
¥1
19
11
¥7
1
6
54
51
63
7
30
22
8
5
15
¥600
20
6
0
13
additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future.
a. Federal Measures Implemented
NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution.14
Affected states were required to comply
with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning
Control of NOX and SO2
in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007.
PM2.5 concentrations in the Johnstown Emission reductions resulting from
regulations developed in response to the
Area are impacted by the transport of
NOX SIP Call are permanent and
sulfates and nitrates, and the Area’s air
quality is strongly affected by regulation enforceable. By imposing an emissions
cap regionally, the NOX SIP Call
of SO2 and NOX emissions from power
reduced NOX emissions from large
plants.
Reductions in PM2.5 precursor
emissions have occurred statewide and
in upwind states as a result of Federal
emission control measures, with
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14 Although the NO SIP Call was issued in order
X
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.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22684
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EGUs and large non-EGUs such as
industrial boilers, internal combustion
engines, and cement kilns. In response
to the NOX SIP Call, Pennsylvania
adopted its NOX Budget Trading
Program regulations for EGUs and large
industrial boilers, with emission
reductions starting in May 2003.
Pennsylvania’s NOX Budget Trading
Program regulation was approved into
the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21,
2001 (66 FR 43795). To meet other
requirements of the NOX SIP Call,
Pennsylvania adopted NOX control
regulations for cement plants and
internal combustion engines, with
emission reductions starting in May
2005. These regulations were approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP on September
29, 2006 (71 FR 57428).
CAIR—As previously noted, CAIR (70
FR 25162, May 12, 2005) created
regional cap-and-trade programs to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27
eastern states, including Pennsylvania.
EPA approved the Commonwealth’s
CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the
Pennsylvania SIP on December 10, 2009
(74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone
season NOX trading program superseded
the NOX Budget Trading Program,
although the emission reduction
obligations of the NOX SIP Call were not
rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and
51.123(aa). EPA promulgated CSAPR to
replace CAIR as an emission trading
program for EGUs. As discussed
previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit
Court’s October 23, 2014 Order, the stay
of CSAPR has been lifted and
implementation of CSAPR commenced
in January 2015. EPA expects that the
implementation of CSAPR will preserve
the reductions achieved by CAIR and
result in additional SO2 and NOX
emission reductions throughout the
maintenance period.
Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles
and Gasoline Sulfur Standards
These emission control requirements
result in lower NOX emissions from new
cars and light duty trucks, including
sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules
were phased in between 2004 and 2009.
EPA estimated that, after phasing in the
new requirements, the following vehicle
NOX emission reductions will have
occurred nationwide: Passenger cars
(light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light
duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility
vehicles (86 percent); and larger sports
utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks
(69 to 95 percent). Some of the
emissions reductions resulting from
new vehicle standards occurred during
the 2008–2010 attainment period;
however, additional reductions will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
continue to occur throughout the
maintenance period as new vehicles
replace older vehicles. EPA expects fleet
wide average emissions to decline by
similar percentages as new vehicles
replace older vehicles.
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engine Rule in July 2000. This rule
included standards limiting the sulfur
content of diesel fuel, which went into
effect in 2004. A second phase took
effect in 2007 which reduced PM2.5
emissions from heavy-duty highway
engines and further reduced the
highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15
parts per million (ppm). Standards for
gasoline engines were phased in starting
in 2008. The total program is estimated
to achieve a 90 percent reduction in
direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent
reduction in NOX emissions for new
engines using low sulfur diesel fuel.
Nonroad Diesel Rule
On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA
promulgated the Nonroad Diesel Rule
for large nonroad diesel engines, such as
those used in construction, agriculture,
and mining, to be phased in between
2008 and 2014. The rule phased in
requirements for reducing the sulfur
content of diesel used in nonroad diesel
engines. The reduction in sulfur content
prevents damage to the more advanced
emission control systems needed to
meet the engine standards. It will also
reduce fine particulate emissions from
diesel engines. The combined engine
standards and the sulfur in fuel
reductions will reduce NOX and PM
emissions from large nonroad engines
by over 90 percent, compared to current
nonroad engines using higher sulfur
content diesel.
Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine
and Recreational Engine Standards
In November 2002, EPA promulgated
emission standards for groups of
previously unregulated nonroad
engines. These engines include large
spark-ignition engines such as those
used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles
using spark-ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, and snowmobiles; and
recreational marine diesel engines.
Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in
two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004
and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle
emission standards are being phased in
from 2006 through 2012. Marine diesel
engine standards were phased in from
2006 through 2009. With full
implementation of all of the nonroad
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
spark-ignition engine and recreational
engine standards, an overall 80 percent
reduction in NOX is expected by 2020.
Some of these emission reductions
occurred by the 2002–2007 attainment
period and additional emission
reductions will occur during the
maintenance period as the fleet turns
over.
Federal Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
As required by the CAA, EPA
developed Maximum Available Control
Technology (MACT) Standards to
regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from a published list of
industrial sources referred to as ‘‘source
categories.’’ The MACT standards have
been adopted and incorporated by
reference in Section 6.6 of
Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control
Act and implementing regulations in 25
Pa. Code § 127.35 and are also included
in Federally enforceable permits issued
by PADEP for affected sources. The
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional
(ICI) Boiler MACT standards (69 FR
55217, September 13, 2004 and 76 FR
15554, February 21, 2011) are estimated
to reduce emissions of PM, SO2, and
VOCs from major source boilers and
process heaters nationwide. Also, the
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE) MACT will reduce NOX
and PM emissions from engines located
at facilities such as pipeline compressor
stations, chemical and manufacturing
plants, and power plants.
b. State Measures
Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control
Program
In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the
Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control
Program for model years starting in May
2004. The program incorporates
California standards by reference and
required model year 2005 and beyond
heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be
certified to the California standards,
which were more stringent than the
Federal standards for model years 2005
and 2006. After model year 2006,
Pennsylvania required implementation
of the Federal standards that applied to
model years 2007 and beyond,
discussed in the Federal measures
section of this proposed rulemaking
action. This program reduced emissions
of NOX statewide.
Vehicle Emission Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) Program
Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Emission I/M
program was expanded into the
Johnstown Area in early 2004 and
applies to model year 1975 and newer
gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
pounds and under. The program,
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on
October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313), consists
of annual on-board diagnostics and gas
cap test for model year 1996 vehicles
and newer, and an annual visual
inspection of pollution control devices
and gas cap test for model year 1995
vehicles and older. This program
reduces emissions of NOX from affected
vehicles.
Consumer Products Regulation
Pennsylvania regulation ‘‘Chapter
130, Subpart B. Consumer products’’
established, effective January 1, 2005,
VOC emission limits for numerous
categories of consumer products, and
applies statewide to any person who
sells, supplies, offers for sale, or
manufactures such consumer products
on or after January 1, 2005 for use in
Pennsylvania. It was approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004
(69 FR 70895).
Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and
Solvents Regulation
Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in
2010 to control VOC emissions from
adhesives, sealants, primers and
solvents. This regulation was approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP on September
26, 2012 (77 FR 59090).
Based on the information summarized
above, Pennsylvania has adequately
demonstrated that the improvements in
air quality in the Johnstown Area are
due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions. The reductions
result from Federal and State
requirements and regulation of
precursors within Pennsylvania that
affect the Johnstown Area.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Maintenance Plan
On December 3, 2014, PADEP
submitted a combined maintenance
plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by
section 175A of the CAA. EPA’s analysis
for proposing approval of the
maintenance plan is provided in this
section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory is comprised
of the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment. PADEP determined
that the appropriate attainment
inventory year for the maintenance plan
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2007, one of the years
in the periods during which the
Johnstown Area monitored attainment
for both NAAQS. The 2007 emissions
inventory submitted by PADEP that was
included in the maintenance plan
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
contains primary PM2.5 emissions
(including condensables), SO2, NOX,
VOC, and NH3.
In its redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
submitted on December 3, 2014, PADEP
described the methods used for
developing its 2007 emissions
inventory. EPA reviewed the procedures
used to develop the inventory and
found them to be reasonable. EPA has
reviewed the documentation provided
by PADEP and found the 2007
emissions inventory to be approvable.
For more information on EPA’s analysis
of the 2007 emissions inventory, see
Appendices B–1 and C–1 of the
Pennsylvania submittal and EPA’s
Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015
available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking action.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a
SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
‘‘for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this
as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a
period of ten years following
redesignation.’’ The Federal and State
measures described in Section V.A.3 of
this proposed rulemaking action
demonstrate that the reductions in
emissions from point, area, and mobile
sources in the Area has occurred and
will continue to occur through 2025. In
addition, the following State and
Federal regulations and programs
ensure the continuing decline of SO2,
NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the
Area during the maintenance period and
beyond:
Non-EGUs Previously Covered Under
the NOX SIP Call
Pennsylvania established NOX
emission limits for the large industrial
boilers that were previously subject to
the NOX SIP Call, but were not subject
to CAIR. For these units, Pennsylvania
established an allowable ozone season
NOX limit based on the unit’s previous
ozone season’s heat input. A combined
NOX ozone season emissions cap of
3,418 tons applies for all of these units.
CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208)
EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace
CAIR as an emission trading program for
EGUs. As discussed previously,
implementation of CSAPR commenced
in January 2015. EPA expects that the
implementation of CSAPR will preserve
the reductions achieved by CAIR and
result in additional SO2 and NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22685
emission reductions throughout the
maintenance period.
Regulation of Cement Kilns
On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 52558), EPA
approved amendments to 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further
reduce NOX emissions from cement
kilns. The amendments established NOX
emission rate limits for long wet kilns,
long dry kilns, and preheater and
precalciner kilns that are lower by 35
percent to 63 percent from the previous
limit of 6 pounds of NOX per ton of
clinker that applied to all kilns. The
amendments were effective on April 15,
2011.
Stationary Source Regulations
Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 130, Subchapter D for
Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and
Solvents was approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP on September 26,
2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation
established VOC content limits for
various categories of adhesives, sealants,
primers, and solvent, and became
applicable on January 1, 2012.
Amendments to Pennsylvania
regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130,
Subchapter B, Consumer Products,
established, effective January 1, 2009,
new or more stringent VOC standards
for consumer products. This regulation
applies statewide to any person who
sells, supplies, offers for sale, or
manufactures such consumer products
on or after January 1, 2009 for use in
Pennsylvania. The amendments were
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on
October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717).
Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program
The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program (formerly, New Motor Vehicle
Control Program) incorporates by
reference the California Low Emission
Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it
allowed automakers to comply with the
NLEV program as an alternative to this
program until Model Year (MY) 2006.
The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in
25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D,
was modified to require CA LEVII to
apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on
January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The
Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by
reference the emission control standards
of CA LEVII, which, among other
requirements, reduces emissions of NOX
by requiring that passenger car emission
standards and fleet average emission
standards also apply to light duty
vehicles. Model year 2008 and newer
passenger cars and light duty trucks are
required to be certified for emissions by
the California Air Resource Board
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22686
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(CARB), in order to be sold, leased,
offered for sale or lease, imported,
delivered, purchased, rented, acquired,
received, titled or registered in
Pennsylvania. In addition,
manufacturers are required to
demonstrate that the California fleet
average standard is met based on the
number of new light-duty vehicles
delivered for sale in the
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth’s
submittal for the January 24, 2012
rulemaking projected that, by 2025, the
program will achieve approximately 36
tons more NOX reductions than Tier II
for the counties in the Johnstown Area.
Two Pennsylvania regulations—the
Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling
Act (August 1, 2011, 76 FR 45705) and
the Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler
regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR
58114)—were not included in the
projection inventories, but may also
assist in maintaining the standard. Also,
the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and
Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 29,
2014) establishes more stringent vehicle
emissions standards and will reduce the
sulfur content of gasoline beginning in
2017. The fuel standard will achieve
NOX reductions by further increasing
the effectiveness of vehicle emission
controls for both existing and new
vehicles.
Natural Gas Activities
The emissions growth due to a new
emissions source, development of
natural gas resources from Marcellus
Shale (and other deep formations), is
included in the Area source inventory.
PADEP requires annual emission
reporting under 25 Pa. Code Chapter
135 (relating to reporting of sources) of
unconventional natural gas
development companies. The initial
annual source reporting for
unconventional natural gas operations
began in 2012 for emissions during the
2011 calendar year. Emissions were
projected to 2017 and 2025 based on the
most recent emissions inventory reports
available (2013 for compressor engines
and 2012 for all other sources). See
Appendix B–3 of Pennsylvania’s
submittal for more details on the
methodology used for estimating
Marcellus Shale development activity
and for the emission totals by pollutant.
Starting January 2015, Federal
regulations (40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOOO) require wells to capture gas at
the wellhead. EPA estimates that VOC
emissions from hydraulically fractured
well completions will decrease by 95
percent as a result of this regulation.
The State and Federal regulations and
programs described above ensure the
continuing decline of SO2, NOX, PM2.5,
and VOC emissions in the Johnstown
Area during the maintenance period and
beyond. A summary of the projected
reductions from these measures from
2007 to 2025 is shown in Table 5. The
future year inventory included potential
emissions increases from natural gas
activities.
TABLE 5—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2007 TO 2025 DUE TO CONTROL MEASURES IN TPY
PM2.5
NOX
SO2
VOC
NH3
Point .....................................................................................
Area ......................................................................................
On-Road ...............................................................................
Non-Road .............................................................................
Natural Gas Activities ..........................................................
96
66
80
51
¥3
1,304
28
2,813
801
¥98
1,820
441
19
40
0
¥4
312
1193
444
¥91
¥1
¥7
22
0
0
Total ..............................................................................
290
4,848
2,320
1,854
14
Where the emissions inventory
method of showing maintenance is
used, its purpose is to show that
emissions during the maintenance
period will not increase over the
attainment year inventory. See 1992
Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9–10. For
a demonstration of maintenance,
emissions inventories are required to be
projected to future dates to assess the
influence of future growth and controls;
however, the demonstration need not be
based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA,
supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See
also 66 FR 53099–53100 and 68 FR
25430–32. PADEP uses projection
inventories to show that the Johnstown
Area will remain in attainment and
developed projection inventories for an
interim year of 2017 and a maintenance
plan end year of 2025 to show that
future emissions of NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
VOC, and NH3 will remain at or below
the attainment year 2007 for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively, throughout the Johnstown
Area through the year 2025.
EPA has reviewed the documentation
provided by PADEP for developing
annual 2017 and 2025 emissions
inventories for the Johnstown Area. See
Appendix C–2 and C–3 of
Pennsylvania’s submittal. EPA has
determined that the 2017 and 2025
projected emissions inventories
provided by PADEP are approvable. For
more information on EPA’s analysis of
the emissions inventories, see EPA’s
Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015
available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking action.
Tables 6a through 6e provide a
summary of the inventories in tpy for
the 2007 attainment year, as compared
to projected inventories for the 2017
interim year and the 2025 maintenance
plan end year for the Area. The future
year inventories include potential
emissions increases from natural gas
activities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 6a—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA
PM2.5
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Reduction
Point .............................
Area ..............................
On-Road .......................
Non-Road .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
3,091
719
131
89
Jkt 235001
2,788
692
71
52
PO 00000
Frm 00029
2,995
654
51
38
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
303
27
61
37
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
Percent
reduction
Reduction
10
4
46
41
23APP1
96
65
80
51
3
9
61
57
22687
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6a—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA—Continued
PM2.5
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Reduction
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
Percent
reduction
Reduction
Natural Gas Activities ..
........................
2
3
¥2
........................
¥3
........................
Total ......................
4,031
3,605
3,741
426
11
289
7
TABLE 6b—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF NOX FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA
NOX
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Reduction
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
Percent
reduction
Reduction
Point .............................
Area ..............................
On-Road .......................
Non-Road .....................
Natural Gas Activities ..
41,876
607
4,011
1,464
........................
37,562
576
1,946
910
52
40,572
579
1,198
663
98
4,314
31
2,065
554
¥52
10
5
51
39
........................
1,304
28
2,813
801
¥98
3
5
70
55
........................
Total ......................
47,958
41,046
43,110
6,912
14
4,848
10
TABLE 6c—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF SO2 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA
SO2
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Reduction
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
Percent
reduction
Reduction
Point .............................
Area ..............................
On-Road .......................
Non-Road .....................
Natural Gas Activities ..
143,322
858
30
42
........................
132,128
683
11
1
0
141,502
418
11
1
0
11,194
175
19
41
0
8
20
63
98
........................
1,820
440
19
41
0
1
51
64
98
........................
Total ......................
144,252
132,823
141,932
11,429
8
2,320
2
TABLE 6d—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF VOC FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA
VOC
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Reduction
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
Percent
reduction
Reduction
243
2,415
1,770
897
........................
234
2,219
899
526
47
247
2,103
577
453
91
9
196
871
371
¥47
4
8
49
41
........................
¥4
312
1,193
444
¥91
¥2
13
67
50
........................
Total ......................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .............................
Area ..............................
On-Road .......................
Non-Road .....................
Natural Gas Activities ..
5,325
3,925
3,471
1,400
26
1,854
35
TABLE 6e—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF NH3 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA
NH3
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
Reduction
Point .............................
Area ..............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
35
409
Jkt 235001
34
413
PO 00000
Frm 00030
36
416
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
1
¥4
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
3
¥1
23APP1
Reduction
¥1
¥7
Percent
reduction
0
¥2
22688
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6e—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 EMISSIONS OF NH3 FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA—Continued
NH3
2007–2017
Sector
2007
2017
2025
2007–2025
Percent
reduction
Reduction
Percent
reduction
Reduction
On-Road .......................
Non-Road .....................
Natural Gas Activities ..
63
1
........................
42
1
0
41
1
0
21
0
0
33
0
........................
22
0
0
35
0
........................
Total ......................
508
490
494
18
4
14
3
As shown in Tables 6a–6e, the
projected levels for PM2.5, NOx, SO2,
VOC, and NH3 are under the 2007
attainment levels for each of these
pollutants. Pennsylvania has adequately
demonstrated that the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
3. Monitoring Network
Pennsylvania’s maintenance plan
includes a commitment by PADEP to
continue to operate its EPA-approved
monitoring network, as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the NAAQS. Pennsylvania currently
operates a PM2.5 monitor in the
Johnstown Area. In its December 3, 2014
submittal, Pennsylvania stated that it
will consult with EPA prior to making
any necessary changes to the network
and will continue to operate the
monitoring network in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
To provide for tracking of the
emission levels in the Area, PADEP
will: (a) evaluate annually the vehicle
miles travelled (VMT) data and the
annual emissions reported from
stationary sources to compare them with
the assumptions used in the
maintenance plan, and (b) evaluate the
periodic emissions inventory for all
PM2.5 precursors prepared every three
years in accordance with EPA’s Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements
(AERR) to determine whether there is an
exceedance of more than ten percent
over the 2007 inventories. Also, as
noted in the previous subsection,
PADEP will continue to operate its
monitoring system in accordance with
40 CFR part 58 and remains obligated to
quality-assure monitoring data and enter
all data into the AQS in accordance
with Federal requirements. PADEP will
use this data, supplemented with
additional data, as necessary, to assure
continuing attainment in the Area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
5. Contingency Measures
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct any
violation of the 1997 annual and/or the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs
in the Johnstown Area after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure that a
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the events that would
‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and
implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
measure(s).
Pennsylvania’s maintenance plan
describes the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of
contingency measures to reduce
emissions should a violation occur.
Pennsylvania’s contingency measures
include a first level response and a
second level response. A first level
response is triggered when the annual
mean PM2.5 concentration exceeds 15.5
mg/m3 in a single calendar year within
the Area, when the 98th percentile 24hour PM2.5 concentration exceeds 35.0
mg/m3 in a single calendar year within
the Area, or when the periodic
emissions inventory for the Area
exceeds the attainment year inventory
(2007) by more than ten percent. The
first level response will consist of a
study to determine if the emissions
trends show increasing concentrations
of PM2.5, and whether this trend is likely
to continue. If it is determined through
the study that action is necessary to
reverse a trend of emissions increases,
Pennsylvania will, as expeditiously as
possible, implement necessary and
appropriate control measures to reverse
the trend.
A second level response will be
prompted if the two-year average of the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
annual mean concentration exceeds 15.0
mg/m3 or if the two-year average of 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration
exceeds 35.0 mg/m3 within the Area.
This would trigger an evaluation of the
conditions causing the exceedance,
whether additional emission control
measures should be implemented to
prevent a violation of the standard, and
analysis of potential measures that
could be implemented to prevent a
violation. Pennsylvania would then
begin its adoption process to implement
the measures as expeditiously as
practicable. If a violation of the PM2.5
NAAQS occurs, PADEP will propose
and adopt necessary additional control
measures in accordance with the
implementation schedule in the
maintenance plan.
Pennsylvania’s candidate contingency
measures include the following: (1) A
regulation based on the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) Model
Rule to update requirements for
consumer products; (2) a regulation
based on the Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) for industrial cleaning
solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects
such as diesel retrofit for public or
private local onroad or offroad fleets,
idling reduction technology for Class 2
yard locomotives, and idling reduction
technologies or strategies for truck
stops, warehouses, and other freighthandling facilities; (4) promotion of
accelerated turnover of lawn and garden
equipment, focusing on commercial
equipment; and (5) promotion of
alternative fuels for fleets, home heating
and agricultural use. Pennsylvania’s
rulemaking process and schedule for
adoption and implementation of any
necessary contingency measure is
shown in the SIP submittals as being 18
months from PADEP’s approval to
initiate rulemaking. For all of the
reasons discussed in this section, EPA is
proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Johnstown
Area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
Federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the
goals of SIPs. This means that such
actions will not cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, worsen the
severity of an existing violation, or
delay timely attainment of any NAAQS
or any interim milestone. Actions
involving Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding
or approval are subject to the
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR
part 93, subpart A). Under this rule,
metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state
air quality and transportation agencies,
EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to
demonstrate that their long range
transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs (TIP) conform to
applicable SIPs. This is typically
determined by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned
highway and transit systems are less
than or equal to the MVEBs contained
in the SIP.
On December 3, 2014, Pennsylvania
submitted a SIP revision that contains
the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX
onroad mobile source budgets for
Cambria County and portions of Indiana
County (Townships of West Wheatfield,
Center, East Wheatfield, and Armagh
Borough and Homer City Borough).
Pennsylvania did not provide MVEBs
22689
for SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it
concluded, consistent with the
presumptions regarding these
precursors in the Transportation
Conformity Rule at 40 CFR
93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and
were not disturbed by the litigation on
the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule,
that emissions of these precursors from
motor vehicles are not significant
contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air
quality problem. EPA issued conformity
regulations to implement the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and
May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004
and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). The
D.C. Circuit Court’s January 2013
decision does not affect EPA’s proposed
approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The
MVEBs are presented in Table 8.
TABLE 8—MVEBS FOR THE JOHNSTOWN AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS IN TPY
County
Year
Cambria County ...........................................................................................................................
2017
2025
2017
2025
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Indiana County (Partial) ...............................................................................................................
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining adequacy of MVEBs are set
out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
Additionally, to approve the MVEBs,
EPA must complete a thorough review
of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5
maintenance plan, and conclude that
with the projected level of motor vehicle
and all other emissions, the SIPs will
achieve its overall purpose, in this case
providing for maintenance of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA’s process for determining adequacy
of a MVEB consists of three basic steps:
(1) Providing public notification of a SIP
submission; (2) providing the public the
opportunity to comment on the MVEB
during a public comment period; and (3)
EPA taking action on the MVEB.
In this proposed rulemaking action,
EPA is also initiating the process for
determining whether or not the MVEBs
are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. The publication of
this proposed rulemaking action starts a
30-day public comment period on the
adequacy of the submitted MVEBs. This
comment period is concurrent with the
comment period on this proposed
rulemaking action and comments
should be submitted to the docket for
this rulemaking. EPA may choose to
make its determination on the adequacy
of the budgets either in the final
rulemaking on this maintenance plan
and redesignation request or by
informing Pennsylvania of the
determination in writing, publishing a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
notice in the Federal Register and
posting a notice on EPA’s adequacy Web
page (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/
adequacy.htm).15
EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and
finds that the submitted MVEBs are
consistent with the maintenance plan
and meet the criteria for adequacy and
approval in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX
MVEBs for Cambria County and
portions of Indiana County for
transportation conformity purposes.
Additional information pertaining to the
review of the MVEBs can be found in
the TSD dated February 12, 2015,
‘‘Adequacy Findings for the MVEBs in
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown,
Pennsylvania 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas,’’ available on line
at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No.
EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0902.
VI. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s request to redesignate
the Johnstown Area from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation
15 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 at 40039–40043.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5
62.79
46.71
7.95
4.38
NOX
1,707.03
1,077.46
238.50
120.98
request and determined that the Area
meets the redesignation criteria set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The
monitoring data demonstrates that the
Johnstown Area attained the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, as determined by EPA in prior
rulemaking actions and, for reasons
discussed herein, that it will continue to
attain both NAAQS. Final approval of
this redesignation request would change
the designation of the Johnstown Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the associated maintenance
plan for the Johnstown Area as a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because it meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA as described previously in this
proposed rulemaking. In addition, EPA
is proposing to approve the 2007
emissions inventory as meeting the
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA for both NAAQS. Furthermore,
EPA is proposing to approve the 2017
and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
Cambria County and portions of Indiana
County for transportation conformity
purposes. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
22690
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule proposing to
approve Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request, maintenance plan, 2007
emissions inventory for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes for the Johnstown Area for
both NAAQS, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 10, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015–09368 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket Nos. 14–170, 05–211, GN
Docket No. 12–268, RM–11395; FCC 15–49]
Request for Further Comment on
Issues Related to Competitive Bidding
Proceeding; Updating Competitive
Bidding Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; comment
request.
AGENCY:
In this Updating Part 1
Competitive Bidding Rules Additional
Request for Comment, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks additional comment
on changes to the Commission’s
Competitive Bidding rules suggested by
commenters in response to the
questions and proposals set forth in the
Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding
Rules Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Part 1 NPRM). This Updating Part 1
Competitive Bidding Rules Additional
Request for Comment will be referred to
as the Part 1 Request for Comment.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
May 14, 2015, and reply comments are
due on or before May 21, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
submit comments to the Part 1 Request
for Comment, WT Docket Nos. 14–170,
05–211, GN Docket No. 12–268, RM–
11395, by any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• FCC’s Web site: Federal
Communication Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS): https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: FCC Headquarters, 445 12th
Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, or audio format),
send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) Analysis:
This Part 1 Request for Comment
contains proposed new or modified
information collection requirements and
seeks PRA comment. The Part 1 NPRM
sought comment from the general public
and the Office of Management and
Budget on the information collection
requirements contained therein, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In
addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it may
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees’’ in the light of the
alternative proposals set forth in the
Part 1 Request for Comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Auctions and Spectrum Access Division:
Leslie Barnes at (202) 418–0660;
Spectrum and Competition Policy
Division (for questions related to joint
bidding arrangements): Michael Janson
at (202) 418–1310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Part 1 Request for
Comment in GN Docket No. 12–268, WT
Docket Nos. 14–170, 05–211, FCC 15–
49, released on April 17, 2015. The
complete text of this document,
including any attachment, is available
for public inspection and copying from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET)
Monday through Thursday or from 8
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the
FCC Reference Information Center, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Part 1
Request for Comment and related
documents also are available on the
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22672-22690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09368]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902; FRL-9926-71-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for
the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particulate Matter Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 request to
redesignate to attainment the Johnstown nonattainment area (Johnstown
Area or Area) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS
or standards). EPA is also proposing to determine that the Area
continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the associated maintenance
plan that was submitted with the redesignation request, to show
maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
through 2025 for the Area. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Area for both NAAQS, which
EPA is proposing to approve for transportation conformity purposes.
Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP the 2007 emissions inventory that is also included in
the maintenance plan for the Area for both NAAQS. This rulemaking
action to propose approval of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS redesignation request and associated maintenance
plan for the Johnstown Area is based on EPA's determination that
Pennsylvania has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0902 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the 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-
2014-0902. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
[[Page 22673]]
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182 or by
email at quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions
A. Effect of the Court Decisions Regarding EPA's CSAPR
B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I
of the CAA
V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Submittal
A. Redesignation Request
B. Maintenance Plan
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
established on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([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 January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published air quality area
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that rulemaking
action, EPA designated the Johnstown Area as nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. at 1000. The Johnstown Area is
comprised of Cambria County and portions of Indiana County (Township of
West Wheatfield, Center, East Wheatfield, and Armagh Borough and Homer
City Borough). See 40 CFR 81.339.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average
standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\, but revised the 24-hour standard to 35
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on the three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on
December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the
Johnstown Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The Johnstown Area is comprised of Cambria County and portions
of Indiana County. See 40 CFR 81.339.
On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 (77 FR
18922), EPA made determinations that the Johnstown Area had attained
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on these determinations, the
requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to the attainment of either the 1997 annual or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and continue to be, suspended until
such time as: the Area is redesignated to attainment for each standard,
at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that
the Area has again violated any of the standards, at which time such
plans are required to be submitted. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA
also determined, in accordance with section 179(c) of the CAA, that the
Johnstown Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.
On December 3, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally
submitted a request to redesignate the Johnstown Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a combined
maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued
attainment throughout the Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance
plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX
MVEBs for the Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in the maintenance plan is the
2007 comprehensive emissions inventory for both the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5,
NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and ammonia (NH3).
In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA also addresses the effects
of several decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) and a decision of the United
States Supreme Court: (1) The D.C. Circuit Court's August 21, 2012
decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution
Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme Court's April 29, 2014 reversal
of the vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the D.C. Circuit Court; (3) the
D.C. Circuit Court's October 23, 2014 decision to lift the stay of
CSAPR; and (4) the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision to
remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. EPA's Requirements
A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3)
EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation
of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has
fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing
such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section
110 and part D. Each of these requirements are discussed in Section V.
of today's proposed rulemaking action.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the ``SIPs; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of
1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the General Preamble) and has
provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the
following documents: (1) ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate
[[Page 22674]]
Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to
as the 1992 Calcagni Memorandum); (2) ``SIP Actions Submitted in
Response to CAA Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and (3) ``Part D New
Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5
violations.
The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan. The Memorandum states that a maintenance
plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions for nonattainment areas and maintenance
plans for areas seeking redesignation to attainment for a given NAAQS.
These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment
demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans also create MVEBs
based on onroad mobile source emissions for the relevant criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors, where appropriate, to address
pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the
portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to onroad
vehicle use that, together with emissions from all other sources in the
area, will provide attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as applicable. The
budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking
a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the
maintenance plan.
The maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area, comprised of Cambria
County and portions of Indiana County in Pennsylvania, includes the
2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes. The transportation conformity
determination for the Area is further discussed in Section V.C. of
today's proposed rulemaking action and in a technical support document
(TSD), ``Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown, Pennsylvania 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,'' dated February 12, 2015,
available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0902.
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the
redesignation of the Johnstown Area to attainment for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find
that the Johnstown Area meets the requirements for redesignation of the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve
Pennsylvania's request to change the legal designation of the Johnstown
Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, including the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX
MVEBs for the Area for transportation conformity purposes. Approval of
the maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of
the Area to attainment for both NAAQS. Pennsylvania's combined
maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area for at least
10 years after redesignation.
EPA previously determined that the Johnstown Area attained both the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (see 74 FR 48863
(September 25, 2009) and 77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012)), and EPA is
proposing to find that the Area continues to attain both NAAQS. EPA is
also proposing to approve the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory
submitted with Pennsylvania's maintenance plan that includes an
inventory of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and
NH3 for the Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in order to
meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA's analysis
of the proposed actions is provided in Section V. of today's proposed
rulemaking.
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions
A. Effect of the Court Decisions Regarding EPA's CSAPR
1. Background
The D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court have issued a number
of decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading
programs for transported air pollution, the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) and CSAPR, that impact this proposed redesignation action. In
2008, the D.C. Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to
EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit Court's
remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address interstate transport of
emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace
CAIR.\1\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28
states in the Eastern United States. Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade
programs would have superseded the CAIR 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 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR addresses contributions from
upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 22675]]
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C.
Circuit Court subsequently denied EPA's petition for rehearing en banc.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247
(D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then petitioned
the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court
granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to
the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with
its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014). EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light of the
Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case
No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In
its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit Court to toll CSAPR's compliance
deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply
in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions
budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court granted EPA's motion and
lifted the stay of CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23,
2014), Order at 3. On December 3, 2014, EPA issued an interim final
rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C.
Circuit Court's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay
and tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014)
(interim final rulemaking). Consistent with that rule, EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
2. Proposal on This Issue
Because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and
states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality
data examined by EPA in issuing a final determination of attainment for
the Johnstown Area in 2009 (September 25, 2009, 74 FR 48863) and the
air quality data from the Area since 2005 necessarily reflect
reductions in emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR, and
Pennsylvania included CAIR as one of the measures that helped to bring
the Area into attainment. However, modeling conducted by EPA during the
CSAPR rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that
``backed out'' the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR 48223, projected that the
counties in the Johnstown Area would have design values below the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 2012 and 2014
without taking into account emission reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See
Appendix B of EPA's ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document,'' (Pages B-57 and B-86), which is available in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2011-2013 quality-
assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data for the
Johnstown Area confirms that the PM2.5 design values for the
Area remained well below the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2013.
The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR
was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C.
Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it
created were scheduled to go into effect. As stated previously, EPA
began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015, subsequent to the emission
reductions documented in the Commonwealth's December 3, 2014 request
for redesignation. Therefore, the Area's attainment of the 1997 annual
or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS cannot have been a result of
any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In summary, neither the
status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the
criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation request for the
Johnstown Area.
B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA
1. Background
On January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court remanded
to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR
20586, April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5'' final rule (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) (collectively, 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court found that
EPA erred in implementing the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part
D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-
matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title I (subpart
4).
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance
derived from subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA. In response to
the D.C. Circuit Court's remand, EPA took this history into account by
setting a new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be
required for moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision regarding the applicability of subpart 4 of
part D of Title I of the CAA.
On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA issued a final rule,
``Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for
Submission of SIP Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS'' (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline
Rule), which identifies the classification under subpart 4 as
``moderate'' for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997
annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule set a
deadline for states to submit attainment plans and meet other subpart 4
requirements. The rule specified December 31, 2014 as the deadline for
states to submit any additional attainment-related SIP elements that
may be needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for
areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the
nonattainment NSR requirements in subpart 4.
As explained in detail in the following section, since Pennsylvania
submitted its request to redesignate the Johnstown Area on December 3,
2014, any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed
for the Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were not
due at the time Pennsylvania submitted its request to redesignate the
Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. Proposal on This Issue
In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effect of the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling and the June 2, 2014
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the
redesignation request for the Area. EPA is proposing to determine that
the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA
from redesignating the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit
Court's decision, redesignation for this Area is appropriate under the
CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions
regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding
interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due,
after a complete
[[Page 22676]]
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4
requirements to the redesignation request of the Area and disregards
the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania's request for
redesignation of the Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's
discussion also takes into account the effect of the D.C. Circuit
Court's ruling and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule on the maintenance plan of the Area,
which EPA views as approvable even when subpart 4 requirements are
considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating
the Redesignation Request of the Area
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it
could address implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS under
subpart 4 of part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the
purposes of evaluating Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 redesignation
request for the Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4
would impose additional requirements for areas designated
nonattainment, EPA believes that those requirements are not
``applicable'' for the purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and
thus EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements with
respect to the redesignation of the Area. Under its longstanding
interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to
mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are
``applicable'' and which must be approved in order for EPA to
redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a
state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See 1992
Calcagni Memorandum. See also ``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from
Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12,
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\2\ In
this case, at the time that Pennsylvania submitted its redesignation
request for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements under subpart 4 were not
due.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\3\ EPA found Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 submittal for
redesignation of the Area complete on January 13, 2015. EPA's
complete determination is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 22677]]
In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, and EPA's
June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline
Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due
after the redesignation request is submitted. Pennsylvania submitted
its redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 3, 2014 for the Johnstown Area,
which is prior to the deadline by which the area is required to meet
the attainment plan and other requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
To require Pennsylvania's fully-complete and pending redesignation
request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to
comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court
announced only in January 2013 and for which the December 31, 2014
deadline to comply occurred subsequent to EPA's receipt of
Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 redesignation request, would be to give
retroactive effect to such requirements and provide Pennsylvania a
unique and earlier deadline for compliance solely on the basis of
submitting its redesignation request for the Area. The D.C. Circuit
Court recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive impact in
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\4\ where it
upheld the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive
EPA's determination that the areas did not meet their attainment
deadlines. In that case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to
make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that
the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually
made the determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view,
stating that applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States,
which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution
prevention plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the
time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize
Pennsylvania by rejecting its December 3, 2014 redesignation request
for the Johnstown Area that EPA previously determined was attaining the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that met all
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the
request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because
Pennsylvania did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements which
came due after receipt of such request, (and for which it had little to
no notice), would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the D.C.
Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit Court decision that addressed retroactivity in a
quite different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA
sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. National
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C.
Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert
denied 132 S. Ct. 571 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Pennsylvania's Redesignation Request
Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision, or the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart
4 Classification and Deadline Rule, requires that, in the context of a
pending redesignation request for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, which were submitted prior to December 31,
2014, subpart 4 requirements must be considered as being due and in
effect, EPA proposes to determine that the Area still qualifies for
redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA believes that
the redesignation request for the Area, though not expressed in terms
of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that
subpart for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Area, EPA notes that
subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for coarse particulate
matter (PM10) \5\ nonattainment areas, and under the D.C.
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same
statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the
statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See the
General Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the
relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed
out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or
integrally related to, the more specific PM10 requirements''
(57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements include,
among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM,
RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 areas to be
``moderate'' PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As EPA explained in
its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA provides that all areas
designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are initially to be
classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and
remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies
the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes
that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact
of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C));
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\6\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the
area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D NSR Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
[[Page 22678]]
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). With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements
under subpart 4,\7\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under
either subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5
NAAQS is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
``The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for
redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data
for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that
the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no
meaning at that point.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is
discussed in this rulemaking action.
\7\ EPA refers here 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, or the June 2, 2014
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule, to mean
that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 were either
due prior to Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 redesignation request or
became due subsequent to the December 3, 2014 redesignation request and
must now be imposed retroactively,\8\ those requirements do not apply
to areas that are attaining the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the purpose of evaluating a pending request
to redesignate the areas to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated
this interpretation of applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty
years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of EPA's authority to
interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy'' rulemakings for the PM10
NAAQS, also governed by the requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's
reasoning. They describe the effects of a determination of attainment
on the attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4. See
``Determination of Attainment for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,''
(75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso Junction Proposed
PM10 Redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643-47, October 30, 2006). In short, EPA in this context has
also long concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP
planning requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so
long as those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.
As stated previously in this proposed rulemaking action, on
September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA
made determinations that the Johnstown Area had attained the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on these determinations, the
requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to the attainment of either the 1997 annual or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and continue to be, suspended until
such time as: the Area is redesignated to attainment for each standard,
at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that
the Area has again violated any of the standards, at which time such
plans are required to be submitted. Under its longstanding
interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the Area meets
the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4 for the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is
proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment
demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section
172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9)
are satisfied for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules
at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section
addresses the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion with respect to
PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for
PM10 has allowed for control of PM10 precursors,
such as NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources
in order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable,
section 189(e) of the CAA specifically provides that control
requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10
shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources,
except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such
precursors ``do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels
which exceed the standard in the area.''
EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, remanded by the
D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning
certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and
control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR
51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was ``not
required to address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5
attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and
NH3] emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA
intended these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these
presumptions at the time because of uncertainties regarding the
emission inventories for these pollutants and the effectiveness of
specific control measures in various regions of the country in reducing
PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for
such regulation of VOC and NH3 in specific areas where that
was necessary.
The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made
reference to both
[[Page 22679]]
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 Sec. U.S.C.
7513a(e) [section 189(e)].'' Id. at 21, n.7.
For a number of reasons, the redesignation of the Johnstown Area
for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on this aspect of
subpart 4. While the D.C. Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), stated
that ``for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is
`presumptively' regulated,'' the D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined
to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule provisions regarding NH3 and VOC as
precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion to reach whether and
how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor
in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not
address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a
redesignation request.
However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding NH3
and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence
would be to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any
sources in the Area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section
189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the
case of the Johnstown Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent
with proposing redesignation of the Area for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area has attained the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS without any specific
additional controls of NH3 and VOC emissions from any
sources in the Area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\9\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of
NH3 and VOC. Thus, EPA must address here whether additional
controls of NH3 and VOC from major stationary sources are
required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the
Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
As explained subsequently, EPA does not believe that any additional
controls of NH3 and VOC are required in the context of this
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve
a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e).
See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking action, proposes to determine
that the Pennsylvania SIP revision has met the provisions of section
189(e) with respect to NH3 and VOC as precursors. These
proposed determinations are based on EPA's findings that: (1) The
Johnstown Area contains no major stationary sources of NH3;
and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC are adequately
controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone
NAAQS.\10\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under
the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context
of the redesignation of the Area, which is attaining the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, at present NH3
and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 D.C. Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of
NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment
planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves
do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that
already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that
requiring Pennsylvania to address precursors differently than it has
already would result in a substantively different outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\11\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\12\ EPA believes that application of
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Area has already attained the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to
regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to conclude in the context of this redesignation that there
is no need to revisit an attainment control strategy with respect to
the treatment of precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court's decision
is construed to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation
request, to consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would
not affect EPA's approval here of Pennsylvania's request for
redesignation of the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In the context of a
[[Page 22680]]
redesignation, Pennsylvania has shown that the Area has attained both
standards. Moreover, Pennsylvania has shown, and EPA proposes to
determine, that attainment of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in this Area is due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for
continued attainment of the NAAQS. See Section V.A.3 of this proposed
rulemaking action. It follows logically that no further control of
additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the
January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court as precluding
redesignation of the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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).
\12\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, even if, prior to submitting its December 3, 2014
redesignation request submittal or subsequent to such submission and
prior to December 31, 2014, Pennsylvania was required to address
precursors for the Area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA's remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule, EPA would still conclude that the Area had met all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the CAA.
V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Submittal
EPA is proposing several rulemaking actions for the Johnstown Area:
(1) To redesignate the Johnstown Area to attainment for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to approve into the
Pennsylvania SIP the associated maintenance plan for the 1997 annual
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) to approve the
2007 comprehensive emissions inventory into the Pennsylvania SIP to
satisfy the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Area
for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which
is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation. EPA's proposed approval
of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are based upon EPA's
determination that the Area continues to attain both standards, which
EPA is proposing in this rulemaking action, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for the Area. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and
NOX MVEBs included in the maintenance plan for the Area for
transportation conformity purposes. The following is a description of
how Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 submittal satisfies the
requirements of the CAA including specifically section 107(d)(3)(E) for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
A. Redesignation Request
1. Attainment
On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and July 29, 2011 (76 FR
45424), EPA determined that the Johnstown Area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality-assured and certified ambient
air monitoring data for 2006-2008 and by its applicable attainment date
of April 5, 2010 based on quality-assured and certified ambient air
quality monitoring data for 2007-2009, respectively. In a separate
rulemaking action dated March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined
that the Johnstown Area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for 2008-2010. The basis and effect of these
determinations of attainment for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS were discussed in the notices of the proposed
(74 FR 38158 (July 31, 2009) and 77 FR 2941 (January 20, 2012),
respectively) and final (74 FR 48863 and 77 FR 18922, respectively)
rulemakings which determined the Area attained the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.
EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality PM2.5
monitoring data in the Area consistent with the requirements contained
in 40 CFR part 50, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database, including quality-assured, quality-controlled, and state-
certified data for the monitoring periods 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-
2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013. This data, provided in Tables 1 and 2,
shows that the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Table 1--Design Values for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS ([mu]g/m \3\) for 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor ID # 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
420210011.......................................................... 13.4 12.6 12.4 12.3 12.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Design Values for the Johnstown Area for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS ([mu]g/m \3\) for 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor ID # 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
420210011.......................................................... 32 30 30 30 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's review of the monitoring data from 2007 through 2013 supports
EPA's previous determinations that the Area has attained the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the Area
continues to attain both standards. In addition, as discussed
subsequently, with respect to the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania has
committed to continue monitoring ambient PM2.5
concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, based upon
analysis of currently available data, EPA is proposing to determine
that the Johnstown Area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Johnstown Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) and all the
requirements applicable to the Area under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP
requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control
[[Page 22681]]
measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient
air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but
are not limited to, the following: (1) submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; (2)
provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality; (3) implementation of a minor
source permit program and provisions for the implementation of part C
requirements (PSD); (4) provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions for air pollution
modeling; and (6) provisions for public and local agency participation
in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision
for various NAAQS, EPA has required certain states to establish
programs to address transport of air pollutants in accordance with
EPA's Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain
States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of
Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998),
also known as the NOX SIP Call; amendments to the
NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222,
March 2, 2000), CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and CSAPR. However,
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements
are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with
an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. The Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that the section
110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a particular
area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that section
110(a)(2) elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are
not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach is
consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). For additional
discussion on this issue, see the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR
at 37890, June 19, 2000) and the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).
EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania SIP and has concluded that it
meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA
has previously approved provisions of Pennsylvania's SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing
PM2.5. See 77 FR 58955 (September 25, 2012) (approving
infrastructure submittals for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
These requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not
linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Area.
Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of the Commonwealth's
PM2.5 redesignation request.
b. Subpart 1 Requirements
Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements
applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Under section 172,
states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely
attainment and must meet a variety of other requirements.
EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the
SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble
for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564
(April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other
measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the 1992
Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the
basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to
PM2.5 in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state's
obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that
would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and
planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and contingency measures under
section 172(c)(9).\13\ Courts have upheld EPA's interpretation of
section 172(c)(1)'s ``reasonably available'' control measures and
control technology as meaning only those controls that advance
attainment, which precludes the need to require additional measures
where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252
(D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir.
2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 rulemaking. However, the
Clean Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was not at
issue in that case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because attainment has been reached for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Johnstown Area (see
September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922)), no
additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section
172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM are no
longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation as
long as the Area continues to attain each standard until redesignation.
Section 172(c)(2)'s requirement that nonattainment plans contain
provisions promoting RFP toward attainment is also not relevant for
purposes of redesignation because EPA has determined that the Johnstown
Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, because the Johnstown Area has
attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is
no longer subject to a RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not
[[Page 22682]]
applicable for purposes of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires
the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment
of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional
measures are needed to provide for attainment.
The requirement under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA was not
suspended by EPA's clean data determination for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is the only remaining
requirement under section 172 to be considered for purposes of
redesignation of the Area. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions. To satisfy the 172(c)(3) requirement for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Pennsylvania's
December 3, 2014 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS contains a 2007
comprehensive emissions inventory. The 2007 emissions inventory was the
most current accurate and comprehensive emissions inventory of
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 for the Area when the Area attained the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, as part of this rulemaking
action, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as satisfying the requirement of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA for both standards. Final approval of the 2007
base year emissions inventory will satisfy the emissions inventory
requirement under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2007 comprehensive
emissions inventory addresses the general source categories of point
sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile
sources. A summary of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory is
shown in Table 3. For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2007
emissions inventory, see the TSD prepared by EPA Region III Office of
Air Monitoring and Analysis dated March 3, 2015, ``TSD for the
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area'' (Inventory TSD), available
in the docket for this rulemaking action at www.regulations.gov. See
Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902.
Table 3--2007 Emissions for the Johnstown Area, in Tons Per Year (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................... 3,091 41,876 143,322 242 35
Area............................ 719 607 858 2,415 409
Onroad.......................... 131 4,011 30 1,770 63
Nonroad......................... 89 1,464 42 897 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 4,031 47,958 144,252 5,325 508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation,
areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a
nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided
that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR.
A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated
October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Nevertheless,
Pennsylvania currently has an approved NSR program codified in
Pennsylvania's regulations at 25 Pa. Code 127.201 et seq. See 77 FR
41276 (July 13, 2012) (approving NSR program into the SIP). See also 49
FR 33127 (August 21, 1984) (approving Pennsylvania's PSD program which
incorporates by reference the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21).
However, Pennsylvania's PSD program will become effective in the
Johnstown Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted previously, EPA
believes the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2) that are applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' On December
3, 2014, in conjunction with its request to redesignate the Johnstown
Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to
provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Johnstown Area for at least 10 years
after redesignation, throughout 2025. Pennsylvania is requesting that
EPA approve the maintenance plan to meet the requirements of section
175A of the CAA for both NAAQS. Once approved, the maintenance plan for
the Area will ensure that the SIP for Pennsylvania meets the
requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Area. EPA's analysis of the
maintenance plan is provided in Section V.B. of this proposed
rulemaking action.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded or approved under
Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA
approved Pennsylvania's transportation conformity SIP requirements on
April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19541).
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under CAA section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation,
and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir.
[[Page 22683]]
2001) (upholding this interpretation) and 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995) (discussing Tampa, Florida).
Thus, for purposes of redesignating to attainment the Johnstown
Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
proposes that upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions
inventory as proposed in this rulemaking action, Pennsylvania will meet
all the applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA
for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for both the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
c. The Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
Upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory
as proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA will have fully approved all
applicable requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP for the Johnstown Area
for purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with section 110(k)
of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA to determine that the air quality
improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable
Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions. Pennsylvania has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005, a year showing nonattainment for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Johnstown Area,
and 2007, one of the years for which the Area monitored attainment for
both standards.
A summary of the emissions reductions of PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3 from 2005 to
2007 in the Johnstown Area, submitted by PADEP, is provided in Table 4.
For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2005 and 2007 emissions
inventories, see EPA's Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015 available in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
Table 4--Emission Reductions From 2005 to 2007 in the Johnstown Area
[TPY]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Sector 2005 2007 Net reduction reduction
2005-2007 2005-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5......................... Point........... 11,872 3,091 8,781 74
Area............ 1,201 719 482 40
On-road......... 142 131 10 7
Non-road........ 84 89 -5 -6
Total........... 13,299 4,031 9,268 70
NOX........................... Point........... 41,646 41,876 -230 -1
Area............ 751 607 144 19
On-road......... 4,483 4,011 472 11
Non-road........ 1,364 1,464 -100 -7
Total........... 48,244 47,958 286 1
SO2........................... Point........... 152,657 143,322 9,335 6
Area............ 1,859 858 1,001 54
On-road......... 61 30 31 51
Non-road........ 112 42 70 63
Total........... 154,689 144,252 10,437 7
VOC........................... Point........... 344 243 101 30
Area............ 3,092 2,415 677 22
On-road......... 1,919 1,770 149 8
Non-road........ 945 897 48 5
Total........... 6,300 5,325 975 15
NH3........................... Point........... 5 35 -30 -600
Area............ 511 409 102 20
On-road......... 67 63 4 6
Non-road........ 1 1 0 0
Total........... 584 508 76 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air
quality from 2005 to 2007 for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, in the Johnstown Area can be
attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that have been
implemented in the Area and contributing areas in recent years.
a. Federal Measures Implemented
Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred
statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the
future.
Control of NOX and SO2
PM2.5 concentrations in the Johnstown Area are impacted
by the transport of sulfates and nitrates, and the Area's air quality
is strongly affected by regulation of SO2 and NOX
emissions from power plants.
NOX SIP Call--On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA
issued the NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia
and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to
ozone pollution.\14\ Affected states were required to comply with Phase
I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007.
Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to
the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable. By imposing
an emissions cap regionally, the NOX SIP Call reduced
NOX emissions from large
[[Page 22684]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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 27 eastern states, including Pennsylvania.
EPA approved the Commonwealth's CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the Pennsylvania SIP on December
10, 2009 (74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone season NOX
trading program superseded the NOX Budget Trading Program,
although the emission reduction obligations of the NOX SIP
Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading program for
EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit Court's
October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and
implementation of CSAPR commenced in January 2015. EPA expects that the
implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR
and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission
reductions throughout the maintenance period.
Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards
These emission control requirements result in lower NOX
emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility
vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. EPA
estimated that, after phasing in the new requirements, the following
vehicle NOX emission reductions will have occurred
nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light
duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and
larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95
percent). Some of the emissions reductions resulting from new vehicle
standards occurred during the 2008-2010 attainment period; however,
additional reductions will continue to occur throughout the maintenance
period as new vehicles replace older vehicles. EPA expects fleet wide
average emissions to decline by similar percentages as new vehicles
replace older vehicles.
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule in July 2000. This
rule included standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel,
which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007
which reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to
15 parts per million (ppm). Standards for gasoline engines were phased
in starting in 2008. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90
percent reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent
reduction in NOX emissions for new engines using low sulfur
diesel fuel.
Nonroad Diesel Rule
On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA promulgated the Nonroad Diesel
Rule for large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in
construction, agriculture, and mining, to be phased in between 2008 and
2014. The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content
of diesel used in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in sulfur
content prevents damage to the more advanced emission control systems
needed to meet the engine standards. It will also reduce fine
particulate emissions from diesel engines. The combined engine
standards and the sulfur in fuel reductions will reduce NOX
and PM emissions from large nonroad engines by over 90 percent,
compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel.
Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine Standards
In November 2002, EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of
previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include large
spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport
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
Johnstown Area in early 2004 and applies to model year 1975 and newer
gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000
[[Page 22685]]
pounds and under. The program, approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on
October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313), consists of annual on-board diagnostics
and gas cap test for model year 1996 vehicles and newer, and an annual
visual inspection of pollution control devices and gas cap test for
model year 1995 vehicles and older. This program reduces emissions of
NOX from affected vehicles.
Consumer Products Regulation
Pennsylvania regulation ``Chapter 130, Subpart B. Consumer
products'' established, effective January 1, 2005, VOC emission limits
for numerous categories of consumer products, and applies statewide to
any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures such
consumer products on or after January 1, 2005 for use in Pennsylvania.
It was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004 (69 FR
70895).
Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents Regulation
Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in 2010 to control VOC emissions
from adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents. This regulation was
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090).
Based on the information summarized above, Pennsylvania has
adequately demonstrated that the improvements in air quality in the
Johnstown Area are due to permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions. The reductions result from Federal and State requirements
and regulation of precursors within Pennsylvania that affect the
Johnstown Area.
B. Maintenance Plan
On December 3, 2014, PADEP submitted a combined maintenance plan
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as
required by section 175A of the CAA. EPA's analysis for proposing
approval of the maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory is comprised of the emissions during the
time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year for the
maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS is 2007, one of the years in the periods during which the
Johnstown Area monitored attainment for both NAAQS. The 2007 emissions
inventory submitted by PADEP that was included in the maintenance plan
contains primary PM2.5 emissions (including condensables),
SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3.
In its redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS submitted on December 3,
2014, PADEP described the methods used for developing its 2007
emissions inventory. EPA reviewed the procedures used to develop the
inventory and found them to be reasonable. EPA has reviewed the
documentation provided by PADEP and found the 2007 emissions inventory
to be approvable. For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2007
emissions inventory, see Appendices B-1 and C-1 of the Pennsylvania
submittal and EPA's Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015 available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten
years following redesignation.'' The Federal and State measures
described in Section V.A.3 of this proposed rulemaking action
demonstrate that the reductions in emissions from point, area, and
mobile sources in the Area has occurred and will continue to occur
through 2025. In addition, the following State and Federal regulations
and programs ensure the continuing decline of SO2,
NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the Area during
the maintenance period and beyond:
Non-EGUs Previously Covered Under the NOX SIP Call
Pennsylvania established NOX emission limits for the
large industrial boilers that were previously subject to the
NOX SIP Call, but were not subject to CAIR. For these units,
Pennsylvania established an allowable ozone season NOX limit
based on the unit's previous ozone season's heat input. A combined
NOX ozone season emissions cap of 3,418 tons applies for all
of these units.
CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208)
EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading
program for EGUs. As discussed previously, implementation of CSAPR
commenced in January 2015. EPA expects that the implementation of CSAPR
will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and result in additional
SO2 and NOX emission reductions throughout the
maintenance period.
Regulation of Cement Kilns
On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 52558), EPA approved amendments to 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further reduce NOX
emissions from cement kilns. The amendments established NOX
emission rate limits for long wet kilns, long dry kilns, and preheater
and precalciner kilns that are lower by 35 percent to 63 percent from
the previous limit of 6 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker
that applied to all kilns. The amendments were effective on April 15,
2011.
Stationary Source Regulations
Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapter D for
Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and Solvents was approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation
established VOC content limits for various categories of adhesives,
sealants, primers, and solvent, and became applicable on January 1,
2012.
Amendments to Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130,
Subchapter B, Consumer Products, established, effective January 1,
2009, new or more stringent VOC standards for consumer products. This
regulation applies statewide to any person who sells, supplies, offers
for sale, or manufactures such consumer products on or after January 1,
2009 for use in Pennsylvania. The amendments were approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717).
Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program
The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (formerly, New Motor
Vehicle Control Program) incorporates by reference the California Low
Emission Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it allowed automakers to
comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this program until
Model Year (MY) 2006. The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, was modified to require CA LEVII to
apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP
on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The Clean Vehicles Program
incorporates by reference the emission control standards of CA LEVII,
which, among other requirements, reduces emissions of NOX by
requiring that passenger car emission standards and fleet average
emission standards also apply to light duty vehicles. Model year 2008
and newer passenger cars and light duty trucks are required to be
certified for emissions by the California Air Resource Board
[[Page 22686]]
(CARB), in order to be sold, leased, offered for sale or lease,
imported, delivered, purchased, rented, acquired, received, titled or
registered in Pennsylvania. In addition, manufacturers are required to
demonstrate that the California fleet average standard is met based on
the number of new light-duty vehicles delivered for sale in the
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's submittal for the January 24, 2012
rulemaking projected that, by 2025, the program will achieve
approximately 36 tons more NOX reductions than Tier II for
the counties in the Johnstown Area.
Two Pennsylvania regulations--the Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle
Idling Act (August 1, 2011, 76 FR 45705) and the Outdoor Wood-Fired
Boiler regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR 58114)--were not included
in the projection inventories, but may also assist in maintaining the
standard. Also, the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
(79 FR 23414, April 29, 2014) establishes more stringent vehicle
emissions standards and will reduce the sulfur content of gasoline
beginning in 2017. The fuel standard will achieve NOX
reductions by further increasing the effectiveness of vehicle emission
controls for both existing and new vehicles.
Natural Gas Activities
The emissions growth due to a new emissions source, development of
natural gas resources from Marcellus Shale (and other deep formations),
is included in the Area source inventory. PADEP requires annual
emission reporting under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 135 (relating to reporting
of sources) of unconventional natural gas development companies. The
initial annual source reporting for unconventional natural gas
operations began in 2012 for emissions during the 2011 calendar year.
Emissions were projected to 2017 and 2025 based on the most recent
emissions inventory reports available (2013 for compressor engines and
2012 for all other sources). See Appendix B-3 of Pennsylvania's
submittal for more details on the methodology used for estimating
Marcellus Shale development activity and for the emission totals by
pollutant. Starting January 2015, Federal regulations (40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOO) require wells to capture gas at the wellhead. EPA
estimates that VOC emissions from hydraulically fractured well
completions will decrease by 95 percent as a result of this regulation.
The State and Federal regulations and programs described above
ensure the continuing decline of SO2, NOX,
PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the Johnstown Area during the
maintenance period and beyond. A summary of the projected reductions
from these measures from 2007 to 2025 is shown in Table 5. The future
year inventory included potential emissions increases from natural gas
activities.
Table 5--Emission Reductions From 2007 to 2025 Due to Control Measures in TPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................... 96 1,304 1,820 -4 -1
Area............................ 66 28 441 312 -7
On-Road......................... 80 2,813 19 1193 22
Non-Road........................ 51 801 40 444 0
Natural Gas Activities.......... -3 -98 0 -91 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 290 4,848 2,320 1,854 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is
used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance
period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. See 1992
Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10. For a demonstration of maintenance,
emissions inventories are required to be projected to future dates to
assess the influence of future growth and controls; however, the
demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra;
Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100 and 68 FR 25430-
32. PADEP uses projection inventories to show that the Johnstown Area
will remain in attainment and developed projection inventories for an
interim year of 2017 and a maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show
that future emissions of NOX, SO2,
PM2.5, VOC, and NH3 will remain at or below the
attainment year 2007 for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, throughout the Johnstown Area
through the year 2025.
EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP for developing
annual 2017 and 2025 emissions inventories for the Johnstown Area. See
Appendix C-2 and C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal. EPA has determined
that the 2017 and 2025 projected emissions inventories provided by
PADEP are approvable. For more information on EPA's analysis of the
emissions inventories, see EPA's Inventory TSD dated March 3, 2015
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
Tables 6a through 6e provide a summary of the inventories in tpy
for the 2007 attainment year, as compared to projected inventories for
the 2017 interim year and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the
Area. The future year inventories include potential emissions increases
from natural gas activities.
Table 6a--Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of PM2.5 for the Johnstown Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2017 2007-2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2007 2017 2025 Percent Percent
Reduction reduction Reduction reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 3,091 2,788 2,995 303 10 96 3
Area.................................... 719 692 654 27 4 65 9
On-Road................................. 131 71 51 61 46 80 61
Non-Road................................ 89 52 38 37 41 51 57
[[Page 22687]]
Natural Gas Activities.................. .............. 2 3 -2 .............. -3 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 4,031 3,605 3,741 426 11 289 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6b--Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of NOX for the Johnstown Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2017 2007-2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2007 2017 2025 Percent Percent
Reduction reduction Reduction reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 41,876 37,562 40,572 4,314 10 1,304 3
Area.................................... 607 576 579 31 5 28 5
On-Road................................. 4,011 1,946 1,198 2,065 51 2,813 70
Non-Road................................ 1,464 910 663 554 39 801 55
Natural Gas Activities.................. .............. 52 98 -52 .............. -98 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 47,958 41,046 43,110 6,912 14 4,848 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6c--Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of SO2 for the Johnstown Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2017 2007-2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2007 2017 2025 Percent Percent
Reduction reduction Reduction reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 143,322 132,128 141,502 11,194 8 1,820 1
Area.................................... 858 683 418 175 20 440 51
On-Road................................. 30 11 11 19 63 19 64
Non-Road................................ 42 1 1 41 98 41 98
Natural Gas Activities.................. .............. 0 0 0 .............. 0 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 144,252 132,823 141,932 11,429 8 2,320 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6d--Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of VOC for the Johnstown Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2017 2007-2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2007 2017 2025 Percent Percent
Reduction reduction Reduction reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 243 234 247 9 4 -4 -2
Area.................................... 2,415 2,219 2,103 196 8 312 13
On-Road................................. 1,770 899 577 871 49 1,193 67
Non-Road................................ 897 526 453 371 41 444 50
Natural Gas Activities.................. .............. 47 91 -47 .............. -91 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 5,325 3,925 3,471 1,400 26 1,854 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6e--Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of NH3 for the Johnstown Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2017 2007-2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2007 2017 2025 Percent Percent
Reduction reduction Reduction reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 35 34 36 1 3 -1 0
Area.................................... 409 413 416 -4 -1 -7 -2
[[Page 22688]]
On-Road................................. 63 42 41 21 33 22 35
Non-Road................................ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas Activities.................. .............. 0 0 0 .............. 0 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 508 490 494 18 4 14 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Tables 6a-6e, the projected levels for
PM2.5, NOx, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 are under the 2007 attainment levels for each of these
pollutants. Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
3. Monitoring Network
Pennsylvania's maintenance plan includes a commitment by PADEP to
continue to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary
to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Pennsylvania
currently operates a PM2.5 monitor in the Johnstown Area. In
its December 3, 2014 submittal, Pennsylvania stated that it will
consult with EPA prior to making any necessary changes to the network
and will continue to operate the monitoring network in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Area, PADEP
will: (a) evaluate annually the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) data and
the annual emissions reported from stationary sources to compare them
with the assumptions used in the maintenance plan, and (b) evaluate the
periodic emissions inventory for all PM2.5 precursors
prepared every three years in accordance with EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (AERR) to determine whether there is an
exceedance of more than ten percent over the 2007 inventories. Also, as
noted in the previous subsection, PADEP will continue to operate its
monitoring system in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and remains
obligated to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into the
AQS in accordance with Federal requirements. PADEP will use this data,
supplemented with additional data, as necessary, to assure continuing
attainment in the Area.
5. Contingency Measures
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct
any violation of the 1997 annual and/or the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in the Johnstown Area after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that
a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
Pennsylvania's maintenance plan describes the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to reduce emissions
should a violation occur. Pennsylvania's contingency measures include a
first level response and a second level response. A first level
response is triggered when the annual mean PM2.5
concentration exceeds 15.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in a single calendar year within
the Area, when the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5
concentration exceeds 35.0 [mu]g/m\3\ in a single calendar year within
the Area, or when the periodic emissions inventory for the Area exceeds
the attainment year inventory (2007) by more than ten percent. The
first level response will consist of a study to determine if the
emissions trends show increasing concentrations of PM2.5,
and whether this trend is likely to continue. If it is determined
through the study that action is necessary to reverse a trend of
emissions increases, Pennsylvania will, as expeditiously as possible,
implement necessary and appropriate control measures to reverse the
trend.
A second level response will be prompted if the two-year average of
the annual mean concentration exceeds 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ or if the two-
year average of 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration
exceeds 35.0 [mu]g/m\3\ within the Area. This would trigger an
evaluation of the conditions causing the exceedance, whether additional
emission control measures should be implemented to prevent a violation
of the standard, and analysis of potential measures that could be
implemented to prevent a violation. Pennsylvania would then begin its
adoption process to implement the measures as expeditiously as
practicable. If a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS occurs, PADEP
will propose and adopt necessary additional control measures in
accordance with the implementation schedule in the maintenance plan.
Pennsylvania's candidate contingency measures include the
following: (1) A regulation based on the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products; (2) a
regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
industrial cleaning solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects such as
diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets,
idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives, and idling
reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and
other 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 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Johnstown
Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
[[Page 22689]]
C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and
the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.
On December 3, 2014, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision that
contains the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad
mobile source budgets for Cambria County and portions of Indiana County
(Townships of West Wheatfield, Center, East Wheatfield, and Armagh
Borough and Homer City Borough). Pennsylvania did not provide MVEBs for
SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it concluded,
consistent with the presumptions regarding these precursors in the
Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which
predated and were not disturbed by the litigation on the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that emissions of these
precursors from motor vehicles are not significant contributors to the
Area's PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA issued conformity
regulations to implement the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July
2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6,
2005). The D.C. Circuit Court's January 2013 decision does not affect
EPA's proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The MVEBs are
presented in Table 8.
Table 8--MVEBs for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS in TPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Year PM2.5 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambria County.................................................. 2017 62.79 1,707.03
2025 46.71 1,077.46
Indiana County (Partial)........................................ 2017 7.95 238.50
2025 4.38 120.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the
PM2.5 maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected
level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIPs will achieve
its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's process for
determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1)
Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the
public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment
period; and (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is also initiating the
process for determining whether or not the MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. The publication of this proposed
rulemaking action starts a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy
of the submitted MVEBs. This comment period is concurrent with the
comment period on this proposed rulemaking action and comments should
be submitted to the docket for this rulemaking. EPA may choose to make
its determination on the adequacy of the budgets either in the final
rulemaking on this maintenance plan and redesignation request or by
informing Pennsylvania of the determination in writing, publishing a
notice in the Federal Register and posting a notice on EPA's adequacy
Web page (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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 at 40039-40043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and finds that the submitted MVEBs are
consistent with the maintenance plan and meet the criteria for adequacy
and approval in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs
for Cambria County and portions of Indiana County for transportation
conformity purposes. Additional information pertaining to the review of
the MVEBs can be found in the TSD dated February 12, 2015, ``Adequacy
Findings for the MVEBs in the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown, Pennsylvania 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas,'' available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902.
VI. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to redesignate
the Johnstown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated
Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that the Area meets
the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. The monitoring data demonstrates that the Johnstown Area attained
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as
determined by EPA in prior rulemaking actions and, for reasons
discussed herein, that it will continue to attain both NAAQS. Final
approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of
the Johnstown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the associated maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area as a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA as described previously in this proposed rulemaking. In
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 emissions inventory as
meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both NAAQS.
Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for Cambria County and
portions of Indiana County for transportation conformity purposes. EPA
is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
[[Page 22690]]
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's
redesignation request, maintenance plan, 2007 emissions inventory for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes for the Johnstown Area for both
NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 10, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-09368 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P