Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area, 54961-54967 [2020-18394]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
While most of the state’s SIP
submittal narrative and the EPA’s
analysis focused on the statutory and
regulatory authorities necessary to meet
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), the EPA’s TSD
noted that ‘‘Washington receives CAA
sections 103 and 105 grant funds from
the EPA and provides state matching
funds necessary to carry out SIP
requirements’’ as part of our basis to
propose approval of this element. We
are supplementing the docket with the
source materials that support the
analysis in the TSD. Specifically, we are
including the ‘‘Federal Fiscal Year
2020–2021 Performance Partnership
Grant’’ (PPG) award and associated
documents. The PPG details Federal and
state funding for the air program by
budget category under the CAA section
105 grant program, reporting
requirements, and, critically, the level of
state matching funds. We are also
including the ‘‘State Fiscal Years 2020–
2021 Environmental Performance
Partnership Agreement’’ (PPA) that
serves as a joint workplan the PPG and
provides specific outcome measures and
outputs in determining progress. Lastly,
we are including our most recent annual
evaluation of the state air program
under the PPG/PPA which concluded
that, ‘‘Ecology is meeting all air-related
PPA objectives and no issues were
identified that would impact the
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG).’’
We note that most of these materials are
already publicly available at https://
sgita.epa.gov/apex/sgitapub/
f?p=SGITAPUB:Home.
Aside from supplementing the docket
with the inadvertently omitted TSD and
other supporting materials described
previously, we are making no changes to
the proposed action in our original May
26, 2020 document. The EPA is
providing an additional 30 days for
public review and comment on the
proposed action. We will address all
comments received on the original
proposal and on this supplemental
action in our final action.
II. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
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, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted
below and is also not approved to apply
in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Washington’s SIP is approved to apply
on non-trust land within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54961
provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey
Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the
EPA provided a consultation
opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a
letter dated July 15, 2019.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 12, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020–17980 Filed 9–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0316; FRL–10013–
55–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards Second
Maintenance Plan for the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to
the Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997
ozone NAAQS’’) in the ScrantonWilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania area
(Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area). This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0316 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
54962
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria A. Pino, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2181. Ms. Pino can also be reached
via electronic mail at pino.maria@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
10, 2020, DEP submitted a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a
plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Area through December 19, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
In 1979, under section 109 of the
CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm), averaged over
a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38856),1 EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient
air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour
period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS
based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes
adverse health effects at lower
1 In
March 2008, EPA completed another review
of the primary and secondary ozone standards and
tightened them further by lowering the level for
both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a
review of the primary and secondary ozone
standards and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
concentrations and over longer periods
of time than was understood when the
pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was
set.
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the
NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23858), EPA designated the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area as nonattainment for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area consists of
Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, and
Wyoming counties in Pennsylvania.
Once a nonattainment area has three
years of complete and certified air
quality data that has been determined to
attain the NAAQS, and the area has met
the other criteria outlined in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E),2 the state can
submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have
been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred
to as ‘‘maintenance areas.’’ One of the
criteria for redesignation is to have an
approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A. The maintenance plan
must demonstrate that the area will
continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and it must contain such
additional measures as necessary to
ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to
assure that violations of the standard
will be promptly corrected.
On November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64948
effective December 19, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and
maintenance plan) from DEP for the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area. In
accordance with section 175A(b), at the
end of the eighth year after the effective
date of the redesignation, the state must
also submit a second maintenance plan
to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years.
EPA’s final implementation rule for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked the
1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that
one consequence of revocation was that
areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer
needed to submit second 10-year
maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).3 However, in South Coast Air
2 The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)
include attainment of the NAAQS, full approval
under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP,
determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all
applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and
a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
3 See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Quality Management District v. EPA 4
(South Coast II), the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA’s
interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard,
second maintenance plans were not
required for ‘‘orphan maintenance
areas,’’ (i.e., areas like the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area) that had been
redesignated to attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS and were designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Thus, states with these ‘‘orphan
maintenance areas’’ under the 1997
ozone NAAQS must submit
maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period.
As previously discussed, CAA section
175A sets forth the criteria for adequate
maintenance plans. In addition, EPA
has published longstanding guidance
that provides further insight on the
content of an approvable maintenance
plan, explaining that a maintenance
plan should address five elements: (1)
An attainment emissions inventory; (2)
a maintenance demonstration; (3) a
commitment for continued air quality
monitoring; (4) a process for verification
of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni
Memo 5 provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by
either performing air quality modeling
to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or by showing
that future emissions of a pollutant and
its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the
area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See 1992
Calcagni Memo at p. 9. EPA further
clarified in three subsequent guidance
memos describing ‘‘limited maintenance
plans’’ (LMPs) 6 that the requirements of
CAA section 175A could be met by
demonstrating that the area’s design
value 7 was well below the NAAQS and
4 882
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992
Calcagni Memo).
6 See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
7 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
5 ‘‘Procedures
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
54963
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
that the historical stability of the area’s
air quality levels showed that the area
was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in
the future. Specifically, EPA believes
that if the most recent air quality design
value for the area is at a level that is
below 85% of the standard, or in this
case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA
considers the state to have met the
section 175A requirement for a
demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Accordingly, on March 10, 2020,
DEP submitted an LMP for the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area, following EPA’s
LMP guidance and demonstrating that
the area will maintain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through December 19, 2027,
i.e., through the entire 20-year
maintenance period.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
DEP’s March 10, 2020 SIP submittal
outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
which addresses the criteria set forth in
the 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should
develop a comprehensive and accurate
inventory of actual emissions for an
attainment year which identifies the
level of emissions in the area which is
sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. The
inventory should be developed
consistent with EPA’s most recent
guidance. For ozone, the inventory
should be based on typical summer
day’s emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC), the precursors to ozone
formation. In the first maintenance plan
for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area, DEP
used 2004 for the attainment year
inventory, because 2004 was one of the
years in the 2004–2006 three-year
period when the area first attained the
1997 ozone NAAQS.8 The ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area continued to monitor
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
2014. Therefore, the emissions
inventory from 2014 represents
emissions levels conducive to continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the
NAAQS. Thus, DEP is using 2014 as
representing attainment level emissions
for its second maintenance plan.
Pennsylvania used 2014 summer day
emissions from EPA’s 2014 version 7.0
modeling platform as the basis for the
2014 inventory presented in Table 1.9
TABLE 1—2014 TYPICAL SUMMER DAY NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE SCRANTON-WILKES-BARRE AREA
[Tons/day]
Source category
Lackawanna ..................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Nonpoint .......................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Nonpoint .......................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Nonpoint .......................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Point ..............................................................................
Nonpoint .......................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Luzerne .........................................................................
Monroe ..........................................................................
Wyoming .......................................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX
emissions
County
VOC
emissions
0.71
2.89
8.96
1.14
1.12
3.93
15.62
2.32
0.13
1.18
9.63
1.78
1.56
2.64
1.73
0.52
0.46
9.33
3.72
1.51
0.95
15.10
6.15
4.24
0.13
5.84
4.06
5.08
0.49
7.21
0.75
1.96
The data shown in Table 1 is based on
the 2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) version 2.10 The inventory
addresses four anthropogenic emission
source categories: Stationary (point)
sources, stationary nonpoint (area)
sources, nonroad mobile, and onroad
mobile sources. Point sources are
stationary sources that have the
potential to emit (PTE) more than 100
tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than
50 tpy of NOX, and which are required
to obtain an operating permit. Data are
collected for each source at a facility
and reported to DEP. Examples of point
sources include kraft mills, electrical
generating units (EGUs), and
pharmaceutical factories. Nonpoint
sources include emissions from
equipment, operations, and activities
that are numerous and in total have
significant emissions. Examples include
emissions from commercial and
consumer products, portable fuel
containers, home heating, repair and
refinishing operations, and crematories.
The onroad emissions sector includes
emissions from engines used primarily
to propel equipment on highways and
other roads, including passenger
vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy-duty
diesel trucks. The nonroad emissions
sector includes emissions from engines
that are not primarily used to propel
transportation equipment, such as
generators, forklifts, and marine
pleasure craft.
EPA reviewed the emissions
inventory submitted by DEP and
proposes to conclude that the plan’s
inventory is acceptable for the purposes
of a subsequent maintenance plan under
CAA section 175A(b).
8 For more information, see EPA’s September 25,
2007 notice proposing to redesignate the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area to attainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (72 FR 54390).
9 For more information, visit https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_
1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.
10 The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions of criteria pollutants,
criteria precursors, and hazardous air pollutants
from air emissions sources. The NEI is released
every three years based primarily upon data
provided by State, Local, and Tribal air agencies for
sources in their jurisdictions and supplemented by
data developed by EPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Maintenance Demonstration
In order to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily average ozone
concentrations (design value, or ‘‘DV’’)
at each monitor within an area must not
exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, the standard is
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
54964
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
attained if the DV is 0.084 or below.
CAA section 175A requires a
demonstration that the area will
continue to maintain the NAAQS
throughout the duration of the requisite
maintenance period. Consistent with the
prior guidance documents discussed
previously in this document as well as
EPA’s November 20, 2018 ‘‘Resource
Document for 1997 Ozone NAAQS
Areas: Supporting Information for States
Developing Maintenance Plans’’ (2018
Resource Document),11 EPA believes
that if the most recent DV for the area
is well below the NAAQS (e.g., below
85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm),
the section 175A demonstration
requirement has been met, provided that
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements, any control
measures already in the SIP, and any
Federal measures remain in place
through the end of the second 10-year
maintenance period (absent a showing
consistent with section 110(l) that such
measures are not necessary to assure
maintenance).
For the purposes of demonstrating
continued maintenance with the 1997
ozone NAAQS, DEP provided 3-year
DVs at monitors located in the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area from 2007 to 2018.
This includes DVs at monitors for 2005–
2007, 2006–2008, 2007–2009, 2008–
2010, 2009–2011, 2010–2012, 2011–
2013, 2012–2014, 2013–2015, 2014–
2016, 2015–2017, and 2016–2018,
which are shown in Table 2.12 In
addition, EPA has reviewed the most
recent ambient air quality monitoring
data for ozone in the Scranton-WilkesBarre Area, as submitted by
Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA’s Air
Quality System (AQS). The most recent
DVs (i.e., 2017–2019) at monitors
located in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Area are also shown in Table 2.13
TABLE 2—1997 OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SCRANTON-WILKES-BARRE AREA
[Parts per million [ppm]]
County
Lackawanna ....................................
Lackawanna a ..................................
Luzerne b .........................................
Luzerne ...........................................
Monroe c ..........................................
AQS site ID
42–069–0101
42–069–2006
42–079–1100
42–079–1101
42–089–0002
2005–
2007
2006–
2008
2007–
2009
2008–
2010
2009–
2011
2010–
2012
2011–
2013
2012–
2014
2013–
2015
2014–
2016
2015–
2017
2016–
2018
2017–
2019
.074
.075
.067
.076
( a)
.072
.074
.067
.075
.076
.071
.071
.066
.069
.069
.072
.069
.069
.065
.070
.071
.066
.065
.062
.066
.072
.071
.066
.066
.070
.070
.069
.064
.065
.064
.066
..........
..........
.063
.063
.065
..........
..........
.063
.063
.067
..........
..........
.064
.065
.067
.064
..........
.064
.067
.064
.061
..........
.064
.068
.059
.060
..........
.062
.065
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
a This monitor (AQS Site ID 42–069–2006) was relocated and shut down from March 2014 to July 2014. The relocation and resulting shutdown of the monitor
caused incomplete data for 2014, which is why there are no design values listed for 2012–2014, 2013–2015, and 2014–2016.
b This monitor (AQS Site ID 42–079–1100) was discontinued on July 1, 2014. Therefore, there are no design values after 2011–2013.
c The monitor located in Monroe County (AQS Site ID 42–089–002) began operation in April 2006, therefore, the first valid design value is for 2006–2008.
As can be seen in Table 2, DVs at all
monitors located in the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area have been well below
85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e.,
0.071 ppm) since the 2011–2013 period.
The highest DV for the 2017–2019
period at a monitor in the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area is 0.065 ppm, which
is well below 85% of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
Additionally, states can support the
demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or
improving air quality trends. According
to EPA’s 2018 Resource Document,
several kinds of analyses can be
performed by states wishing to make
such a showing. One approach is to take
the most recent DV at a monitor located
in the area and add the maximum
design value increase (over one or more
consecutive years) that has been
observed in the area over the past
several years. For an area with multiple
monitors, the highest of the most recent
DVs should be used. A sum that does
not exceed the level of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS may be a good indicator of
expected continued attainment. As
shown in Table 2, the largest increase in
DVs at a monitor located in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area was 0.005
ppm, which occurred between the
2009–2011 (0.066 ppm) and 2010–2012
(0.071 ppm) DVs at the monitor located
in Lackawanna County (AQS ID 42–
069–2006). Adding 0.005 ppm to the
highest DV for the 2017–2019 period
(0.065 ppm) results in 0.070 ppm, a sum
that is still below the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
The Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area has
maintained air quality levels well below
the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area
first attained the NAAQS in 2006.14
Additional supporting information that
the area is expected to continue to
maintain the standard can be found in
projections of future year DVs that EPA
recently completed to assist states with
the development of interstate transport
SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Those projections, made for the year
2023, show that the highest DV at a
monitor located in the Scranton-WilkesBarre Area is expected to be 0.0558
ppm.15 Therefore, EPA proposes to
determine that future violations of the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the ScrantonWilkes-Barre Area are unlikely.
11 This resource document is included in the
docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0316 and is also available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/
documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_
document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
12 See also Table II–2 of DEP’s March 10, 2020
submittal, included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2020–0316.
13 This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2020–0316 and is also available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report.
14 As explained in EPA’s September 25, 2007
notice proposing to redesignate the Scranton-
Wilkes-Barre Area as attainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (72 FR 54390), the 2004–2006 DV for the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area was 0.075 ppm.
15 See U.S. EPA, ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document for the Updated 2023 Projected
Ozone Design Values’’, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated June 2018, available
at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-qualitymodeling-technical-support-document-updated2023-projected-ozone-design.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring
and Verification of Continued
Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated to
attainment, the state remains obligated
to maintain an air quality network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, in
order to verify the area’s attainment
status. In the March 10, 2020 submittal,
DEP commits to continue to operate
their air monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. DEP
also commits to track the attainment
status of the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the
review of air quality and emissions data
during the second maintenance period.
This includes an annual evaluation of
vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and
stationary source emissions data
compared to the assumptions included
in the LMP. DEP also states that it will
evaluate the periodic (i.e., every three
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
years) emission inventories prepared
under EPA’s Air Emission Reporting
Requirements (40 CFR part 51, subpart
A). Based on these evaluations, DEP will
consider whether any further emission
control measures should be
implemented for the Scranton-WilkesBarre Area. EPA has analyzed the
commitments in DEP’s submittal and is
proposing to determine that they meet
the requirements for continued air
quality monitoring and verification of
continued attainment.
D. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must require that the state will
implement all pollution control
measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to
attainment. See section 175(A)(d) of the
CAA.
DEP’s March 10, 2020 submittal
includes a contingency plan for the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area. In the
event that the fourth highest eight-hour
ozone concentrations at a monitor in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area exceeds 84
ppb (equivalent to 0.084 ppm) for two
consecutive years, but prior to an actual
violation of the NAAQS, DEP will
evaluate whether additional local
emission control measures should be
implemented that may prevent a
violation of the NAAQS.16 After
analyzing the conditions causing the
excessive ozone levels, evaluating the
effectiveness of potential corrective
measures, and considering the potential
effects of federal, state, and local
measures that have been adopted but
not yet implemented, DEP will begin the
process of implementing selected
measures so that they can be
implemented as expeditiously as
practicable following a violation of the
54965
NAAQS. In the event of a violation, DEP
commits to adopting additional
emission reduction measures as
expeditiously as practicable in
accordance with the schedule included
in the contingency plan as well as the
CAA and applicable Pennsylvania
statutory requirements.
DEP will use the following criteria
when considering additional emission
reduction measures to adopt to address
a violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area: (1) Air
quality analysis indicating the nature of
the violation, including the cause,
location, and source; (2) emission
reduction potential, including extent to
which emission generating sources
occur in the nonattainment area; (3)
timeliness of implementation in terms
of the potential to return the area to
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable; and (4) costs, equity, and
cost-effectiveness. The measures DEP
would consider pursuing for adoption
in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
include, but are not limited to, those
summarized in Table 3. If additional
emission reductions are necessary, DEP
commits to adopt additional emission
reduction measures to attain and
maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
TABLE 3—SCRANTON-WILKES-BARRE AREA SECOND MAINTENANCE PLAN CONTINGENCY MEASURES
Non-Regulatory Measures:
Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip reflash’’ (installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines).
Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: 17
Additional control on consumer products.18
Additional controls on portable fuel containers.19
The contingency plan includes
schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory
and regulatory contingency measures,
including schedules for adopting
potential land use planning strategies
not listed in Table 3, which are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR SCRANTON-WILKES-BARRE AREA NON-REGULATORY CONTINGENCY
MEASURES
Time after triggering event
Action
Within 2 months ..............................
Within 3 months ..............................
DEP will identify stakeholders for potential non-regulatory measures for further development.
If funding is necessary, DEP will identify potential sources of funding and the timeframe for when funds
would be available.
16 A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an
area’s 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS.
17 These regulatory measures were considered
potential cost-effective and timely control strategies
by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) as well
as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union. The OTC is a multi-state
organization responsible for developing regional
solutions to ground-level ozone pollution in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, including the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
development of model rules that member states may
adopt. OTC member states include: Connecticut,
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia. For more information on the
OTC, visit https://otcair.org/index.asp. To view the
model rules developed by the OTC, including those
for consumer products and portable fuel containers,
visit https://otcair.org/
document.asp?fview=modelrules.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18 Pennsylvania’s existing controls on consumer
products are under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130,
Subchapters B and C (38 Pa.B. 5598). This
contingency measure includes the adoption of
additional controls on consumer products such as
VOC limits for adhesive removers.
19 Existing controls on portable fuel containers
can be found under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F—
Control of Evaporative Emissions From New and InUse Portable Fuel Containers.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
54966
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR SCRANTON-WILKES-BARRE AREA NON-REGULATORY CONTINGENCY
MEASURES—Continued
Time after triggering event
Action
Within 6 months ..............................
DEP will work with the relevant planning commission(s) to identify potential land use planning strategies
and projects with quantifiable and timely emission benefits. DEP will also work with the Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development and other state agencies to assist with these
measures.
If state loans or grants are required, DEP will enter into agreements with implementing organizations. DEP
will also quantify projected emission benefits.
DEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
DEP will implement strategies and projects.
Within 9 months ..............................
Within 12 months ............................
Within 12–24 months ......................
TABLE 5—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR SCRANTON-WILKES-BARRE AREA REGULATORY CONTINGENCY MEASURES
Time after triggering event
Action
Within 1 month ................................
Within 3 months ..............................
DEP will submit request to begin regulatory development process.
Request will be reviewed by the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory
Council, and other advisory committees as appropriate.
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) meeting/action.
DEP will publish regulatory measure in the Pennsylvania Bulletin for comment as proposed rulemaking.
DEP will hold a public hearing and comment period on proposed rulemaking.
House and Senate Standing Committee and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRCC) comment on proposed rule.
AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council, and other committees will review responses to comment(s), if applicable, and the draft final rulemaking.
EQB meeting/action.
The IRCC will take action on final rulemaking.
Attorney General’s review/action.
DEP will publish the regulatory measure as a final rulemaking in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and submit to
EPA as a SIP revision. The regulation will become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
Within
Within
Within
Within
6 months ..............................
8 months ..............................
10 months ............................
11 months ............................
Within 13 months ............................
Within
Within
Within
Within
16
17
18
19
months
months
months
months
............................
............................
............................
............................
EPA proposes to find that the
contingency plan included in DEP’s
March 10, 2020 submittal satisfies the
pertinent requirements of CAA section
175A(d). EPA notes that while six of the
potential contingency measures
included in the Commonwealth’s
second maintenance plan are nonregulatory, their inclusion among other
measures is overall SIP-strengthening,
and their inclusion does not alter EPA’s
proposal to find the LMP is fully
approvable. EPA also finds that the
submittal acknowledges Pennsylvania’s
continuing requirement to implement
all pollution control measures that were
contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the Scranton-WilkesBarre Area to attainment.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
176(c)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at
40 CFR part 93 requires that
transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to SIPs and establish
the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the
motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB)
contained in the control strategy SIP
revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR
93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is
defined as ‘‘that portion of the total
allowable emissions defined in the
submitted or approved control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for
the purpose of meeting reasonable
further progress milestones or
demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).’’
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas
may demonstrate conformity without a
regional emission analysis (40 CFR
93.109(e)). However, because LMP areas
are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity
determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs, and
projects. Specifically, for such
determination, RTPs, TIPs, and
transportation projects still will have to
demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105
and 93.112) and transportation control
measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR
93.113). Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must
be determined no less frequently than
every four years, and conformity of plan
and TIP amendments and transportation
projects is demonstrated in accordance
with the timing requirements specified
in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for
projects to be approved, they must come
from a currently conforming RTP and
TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115). The
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area remains
under the obligation to meet the
applicable conformity requirements for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA’s review of DEP’s March 10, 2020
submittal indicates that it meets all
applicable CAA requirements,
specifically the requirements of CAA
section 175A. EPA is proposing to
approve the second maintenance plan
for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area as a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. 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 approves 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• 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 proposed rule,
proposing approval of Pennsylvania’s
second maintenance plan for the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area, does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 17, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020–18394 Filed 9–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0804; FRL–10013–01–
OW]
RIN 2040–AG00
Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water
Quality Criteria Applicable to Maine
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or Agency) proposes to amend the
federal regulations to withdraw human
health criteria (HHC) for toxic pollutants
applicable to waters in the State of
Maine. EPA proposes to take this action
because Maine adopted, and EPA
approved, HHC that the Agency
determined are protective of the
designated uses for these waters. EPA is
providing an opportunity for public
comment on this proposed withdrawal
of federally promulgated HHC. The
withdrawal would enable Maine to
implement its EPA-approved HHC,
submitted on April 24, 2020, and
approved on June 23, 2020, as
applicable criteria for Clean Water Act
(CWA or the Act) purposes.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 19, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2015–0804, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54967
instructions for submitting comments at
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Office of Water Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Courier (by
scheduled appointment only): EPA
Docket Center, WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket
Center’s hours of operations are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Out of an abundance of
caution for members of the public and
our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes.
Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment
only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
EPA is offering two virtual public
hearings so that interested parties may
also provide oral comments on this
proposed rulemaking. For more details
on the public hearings and to register to
attend the hearings, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-qualitystandards-regulations-maine. Refer to
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Brundage, Office of Water,
Standards and Health Protection
Division (4305T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 566–1265;
email address: brundage.jennifer@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed rule is organized as follows:
I. Public Participation
A. Written Comments
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54961-54967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18394]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316; FRL-10013-55-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-
Wilkes-Barre Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the
Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the
``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania area
(Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area). This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0316 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
[[Page 54962]]
from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2181. Ms. Pino can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 2020, DEP submitted a revision
to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area through December 19,
2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A.
I. Background
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\1\ EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone
to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area consists of Lackawanna, Luzerne,
Monroe, and Wyoming counties in Pennsylvania.
Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64948 effective December 19, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from DEP for
the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at
the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer needed to submit
second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However,
in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area) that had been redesignated to attainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under
the 1997 ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
\4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni Memo \5\
provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either
performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by
showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will
not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See 1992
Calcagni Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent
guidance memos describing ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \6\ that
the requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that
the area's design value \7\ was well below the NAAQS and
[[Page 54963]]
that the historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed
that the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future.
Specifically, EPA believes that if the most recent air quality design
value for the area is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, or
in this case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the state to have met
the section 175A requirement for a demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite period. Accordingly, on March 10,
2020, DEP submitted an LMP for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area,
following EPA's LMP guidance and demonstrating that the area will
maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through December 19, 2027, i.e., through
the entire 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
\6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
\7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
DEP's March 10, 2020 SIP submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set
forth in the 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which
identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with
EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone
formation. In the first maintenance plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Area, DEP used 2004 for the attainment year inventory, because 2004 was
one of the years in the 2004-2006 three-year period when the area first
attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\8\ The Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
continued to monitor attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2014.
Therefore, the emissions inventory from 2014 represents emissions
levels conducive to continued attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the
NAAQS. Thus, DEP is using 2014 as representing attainment level
emissions for its second maintenance plan. Pennsylvania used 2014
summer day emissions from EPA's 2014 version 7.0 modeling platform as
the basis for the 2014 inventory presented in Table 1.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more information, see EPA's September 25, 2007 notice
proposing to redesignate the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area to
attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 54390).
\9\ For more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.
Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC Emissions for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions
County Source category VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lackawanna.................................... Point........................... 0.71 0.46
Nonpoint........................ 2.89 9.33
Onroad.......................... 8.96 3.72
Nonroad......................... 1.14 1.51
Luzerne....................................... Point........................... 1.12 0.95
Nonpoint........................ 3.93 15.10
Onroad.......................... 15.62 6.15
Nonroad......................... 2.32 4.24
Monroe........................................ Point........................... 0.13 0.13
Nonpoint........................ 1.18 5.84
Onroad.......................... 9.63 4.06
Nonroad......................... 1.78 5.08
Wyoming....................................... Point........................... 1.56 0.49
Nonpoint........................ 2.64 7.21
Onroad.......................... 1.73 0.75
Nonroad......................... 0.52 1.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data shown in Table 1 is based on the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) version 2.\10\ The inventory addresses four
anthropogenic emission source categories: Stationary (point) sources,
stationary nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile
sources. Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential
to emit (PTE) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50
tpy of NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating
permit. Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported
to DEP. Examples of point sources include kraft mills, electrical
generating units (EGUs), and pharmaceutical factories. Nonpoint sources
include emissions from equipment, operations, and activities that are
numerous and in total have significant emissions. Examples include
emissions from commercial and consumer products, portable fuel
containers, home heating, repair and refinishing operations, and
crematories. The onroad emissions sector includes emissions from
engines used primarily to propel equipment on highways and other roads,
including passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel
trucks. The nonroad emissions sector includes emissions from engines
that are not primarily used to propel transportation equipment, such as
generators, forklifts, and marine pleasure craft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA reviewed the emissions inventory submitted by DEP and proposes
to conclude that the plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of
a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
B. Maintenance Demonstration
In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value, or
``DV'') at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is
[[Page 54964]]
attained if the DV is 0.084 or below. CAA section 175A requires a
demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the NAAQS
throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period. Consistent
with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in this document
as well as EPA's November 20, 2018 ``Resource Document for 1997 Ozone
NAAQS Areas: Supporting Information for States Developing Maintenance
Plans'' (2018 Resource Document),\11\ EPA believes that if the most
recent DV for the area is well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85%, or in
this case below 0.071 ppm), the section 175A demonstration requirement
has been met, provided that Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and any
Federal measures remain in place through the end of the second 10-year
maintenance period (absent a showing consistent with section 110(l)
that such measures are not necessary to assure maintenance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of demonstrating continued maintenance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS, DEP provided 3-year DVs at monitors located in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area from 2007 to 2018. This includes DVs at
monitors for 2005-2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011,
2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and
2016-2018, which are shown in Table 2.\12\ In addition, EPA has
reviewed the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data for ozone
in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area, as submitted by Pennsylvania and
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The most recent DVs (i.e.,
2017-2019) at monitors located in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area are
also shown in Table 2.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See also Table II-2 of DEP's March 10, 2020 submittal,
included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316.
\13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
[Parts per million [ppm]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County AQS site ID 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lackawanna....................... 42-069-0101 .074 .072 .071 .072 .071 .072 .070 .066 .065 .067 .067 .064 .059
Lackawanna \a\................... 42-069-2006 .075 .074 .071 .069 .066 .071 .069 ......... ......... ......... .064 .061 .060
Luzerne \b\...................... 42-079-1100 .067 .067 .066 .069 .065 .066 .064 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Luzerne.......................... 42-079-1101 .076 .075 .069 .065 .062 .066 .065 .063 .063 .064 .064 .064 .062
Monroe \c\....................... 42-089-0002 (\a\) .076 .069 .070 .066 .070 .064 .063 .063 .065 .067 .068 .065
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This monitor (AQS Site ID 42-069-2006) was relocated and shut down from March 2014 to July 2014. The relocation and resulting shutdown of the monitor caused incomplete data for 2014, which
is why there are no design values listed for 2012-2014, 2013-2015, and 2014-2016.
\b\ This monitor (AQS Site ID 42-079-1100) was discontinued on July 1, 2014. Therefore, there are no design values after 2011-2013.
\c\ The monitor located in Monroe County (AQS Site ID 42-089-002) began operation in April 2006, therefore, the first valid design value is for 2006-2008.
As can be seen in Table 2, DVs at all monitors located in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area have been well below 85% of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm) since the 2011-2013 period. The highest DV for
the 2017-2019 period at a monitor in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area is
0.065 ppm, which is well below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends.
According to EPA's 2018 Resource Document, several kinds of analyses
can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing. One approach
is to take the most recent DV at a monitor located in the area and add
the maximum design value increase (over one or more consecutive years)
that has been observed in the area over the past several years. For an
area with multiple monitors, the highest of the most recent DVs should
be used. A sum that does not exceed the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
may be a good indicator of expected continued attainment. As shown in
Table 2, the largest increase in DVs at a monitor located in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area was 0.005 ppm, which occurred between the
2009-2011 (0.066 ppm) and 2010-2012 (0.071 ppm) DVs at the monitor
located in Lackawanna County (AQS ID 42-069-2006). Adding 0.005 ppm to
the highest DV for the 2017-2019 period (0.065 ppm) results in 0.070
ppm, a sum that is still below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area has maintained air quality levels
well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area first attained the NAAQS
in 2006.\14\ Additional supporting information that the area is
expected to continue to maintain the standard can be found in
projections of future year DVs that EPA recently completed to assist
states with the development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023, show
that the highest DV at a monitor located in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Area is expected to be 0.0558 ppm.\15\ Therefore, EPA proposes to
determine that future violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained in EPA's September 25, 2007 notice proposing
to redesignate the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area as attainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 54390), the 2004-2006 DV for the Scranton-
Wilkes-Barre Area was 0.075 ppm.
\15\ See U.S. EPA, ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values'',
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 2018,
available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-updated-2023-projected-ozone-design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the March
10, 2020 submittal, DEP commits to continue to operate their air
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. DEP also commits
to track the attainment status of the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the review of air quality and emissions
data during the second maintenance period. This includes an annual
evaluation of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and stationary source
emissions data compared to the assumptions included in the LMP. DEP
also states that it will evaluate the periodic (i.e., every three
[[Page 54965]]
years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Air Emission Reporting
Requirements (40 CFR part 51, subpart A). Based on these evaluations,
DEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should
be implemented for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area. EPA has analyzed the
commitments in DEP's submittal and is proposing to determine that they
meet the requirements for continued air quality monitoring and
verification of continued attainment.
D. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must require that the state will implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175(A)(d) of the
CAA.
DEP's March 10, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area. In the event that the fourth highest eight-
hour ozone concentrations at a monitor in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Area exceeds 84 ppb (equivalent to 0.084 ppm) for two consecutive
years, but prior to an actual violation of the NAAQS, DEP will evaluate
whether additional local emission control measures should be
implemented that may prevent a violation of the NAAQS.\16\ After
analyzing the conditions causing the excessive ozone levels, evaluating
the effectiveness of potential corrective measures, and considering the
potential effects of federal, state, and local measures that have been
adopted but not yet implemented, DEP will begin the process of
implementing selected measures so that they can be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable following a violation of the NAAQS. In the
event of a violation, DEP commits to adopting additional emission
reduction measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with
the schedule included in the contingency plan as well as the CAA and
applicable Pennsylvania statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an area's 3-year
design value exceeds the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEP will use the following criteria when considering additional
emission reduction measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area: (1) Air quality analysis
indicating the nature of the violation, including the cause, location,
and source; (2) emission reduction potential, including extent to which
emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area; (3)
timeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the
area to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) costs,
equity, and cost-effectiveness. The measures DEP would consider
pursuing for adoption in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area include, but
are not limited to, those summarized in Table 3. If additional emission
reductions are necessary, DEP commits to adopt additional emission
reduction measures to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Table 3--Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area Second Maintenance Plan Contingency
Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regulatory Measures:
Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel
engines).
Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative
fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: \17\
Additional control on consumer products.\18\
Additional controls on portable fuel containers.\19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency plan includes schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory and regulatory contingency
measures, including schedules for adopting potential land use planning
strategies not listed in Table 3, which are summarized in Tables 4 and
5, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These regulatory measures were considered potential cost-
effective and timely control strategies by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) as well as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. The OTC
is a multi-state organization responsible for developing regional
solutions to ground-level ozone pollution in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic, including the development of model rules that member
states may adopt. OTC member states include: Connecticut, Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia. For more information on the OTC, visit
https://otcair.org/index.asp. To view the model rules developed by
the OTC, including those for consumer products and portable fuel
containers, visit https://otcair.org/document.asp?fview=modelrules.
\18\ Pennsylvania's existing controls on consumer products are
under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapters B and C (38 Pa.B. 5598).
This contingency measure includes the adoption of additional
controls on consumer products such as VOC limits for adhesive
removers.
\19\ Existing controls on portable fuel containers can be found
under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions
From New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.
Table 4--Implementation Schedule for Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area Non-
Regulatory Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time after triggering event Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 2 months................... DEP will identify stakeholders for
potential non-regulatory measures
for further development.
Within 3 months................... If funding is necessary, DEP will
identify potential sources of
funding and the timeframe for when
funds would be available.
[[Page 54966]]
Within 6 months................... DEP will work with the relevant
planning commission(s) to identify
potential land use planning
strategies and projects with
quantifiable and timely emission
benefits. DEP will also work with
the Pennsylvania Department of
Community and Economic Development
and other state agencies to assist
with these measures.
Within 9 months................... If state loans or grants are
required, DEP will enter into
agreements with implementing
organizations. DEP will also
quantify projected emission
benefits.
Within 12 months.................. DEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
Within 12-24 months............... DEP will implement strategies and
projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Implementation Schedule for Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
Regulatory Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time after triggering event Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 1 month.................... DEP will submit request to begin
regulatory development process.
Within 3 months................... Request will be reviewed by the Air
Quality Technical Advisory
Committee (AQTAC), Citizens
Advisory Council, and other
advisory committees as appropriate.
Within 6 months................... Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
meeting/action.
Within 8 months................... DEP will publish regulatory measure
in the Pennsylvania Bulletin for
comment as proposed rulemaking.
Within 10 months.................. DEP will hold a public hearing and
comment period on proposed
rulemaking.
Within 11 months.................. House and Senate Standing Committee
and Independent Regulatory Review
Commission (IRCC) comment on
proposed rule.
Within 13 months.................. AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council,
and other committees will review
responses to comment(s), if
applicable, and the draft final
rulemaking.
Within 16 months.................. EQB meeting/action.
Within 17 months.................. The IRCC will take action on final
rulemaking.
Within 18 months.................. Attorney General's review/action.
Within 19 months.................. DEP will publish the regulatory
measure as a final rulemaking in
the Pennsylvania Bulletin and
submit to EPA as a SIP revision.
The regulation will become
effective upon publication in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in DEP's
March 10, 2020 submittal satisfies the pertinent requirements of CAA
section 175A(d). EPA notes that while six of the potential contingency
measures included in the Commonwealth's second maintenance plan are
non-regulatory, their inclusion among other measures is overall SIP-
strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's proposal to
find the LMP is fully approvable. EPA also finds that the submittal
acknowledges Pennsylvania's continuing requirement to implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area to attainment.
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs, and projects. Specifically, for such
determination, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for
RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and transportation
projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements
specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to be approved,
they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114
and 93.115). The Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area remains under the
obligation to meet the applicable conformity requirements for the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA's review of DEP's March 10, 2020 submittal indicates that it
meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements of
CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance
plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.
[[Page 54967]]
IV. 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 approves 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
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 proposed rule, proposing approval of
Pennsylvania's second maintenance plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre
Area, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 17, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-18394 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
