Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the York-Adams Area, 8736-8741 [2021-02581]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8736
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
rulemaking, approving the District’s
20015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
Certification SIP revision for NNSR,
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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
Matter, Transportation, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021–02585 Filed 2–8–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0319; FRL–10017–
12–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Second Maintenance
Plan for the York-Adams 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 (PADEP), for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997
ozone NAAQS’’) in the York-Adams
Area. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 11, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0319 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
gordon.mike@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed 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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keila M. Paga´n-Incle, 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)
814–2926. Ms. Paga´n-Incle can also be
reached via electronic mail at paganincle.keila@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
10, 2020, the PADEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to
incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS through February
13, 2028 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.
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 York-Adams
Area as nonattainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
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
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).
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.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
8737
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2163
effective February 13, 2008), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and
maintenance plan) from PADEP for the
York-Adams Area. In accordance with
CAA 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 York-Adams
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
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,
PADEP submitted the York-Adams Area
second maintenance plan, following the
LMP guidance, and demonstrating that
the area will maintain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through February 13, 2028, i.e.,
through the entire 20-year maintenance
period.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
PADEP’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 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 York-Adams Area, PADEP 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 York-Adams 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,
PADEP 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 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (tons/day) FOR YORK-ADAMS AREA
County
Source category
Adams ...............................................................................................................................
Point .................
Nonpoint ...........
Onroad .............
Nonroad ............
Point .................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
York ...................................................................................................................................
3 See
80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
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
4 882
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VOC emissions
0.18
6.16
2.51
2.18
2.92
NOX emissions
0.54
1.23
4.85
1.28
33.14
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
8 For more information, see EPA’s October 24,
2007 notice proposing to redesignate the York (York
and Adams Counties) Area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (72 FR 60296).
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.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
8738
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—2014 TYPICAL SUMMER DAY VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (tons/day) FOR YORK-ADAMS AREA—Continued
County
Source category
Total ...........................................................................................................................
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 PADEP. 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
PADEP and proposes to conclude that
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
16:53 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
22.55
8.15
3.66
6.18
15.33
4.70
...........................
48.31
67.25
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
attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm 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(1) that such
11 This resource document is included in the
docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0319 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.
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX emissions
Nonpoint ...........
Onroad .............
Nonroad ............
the plan’s inventory is acceptable for the
purposes of a subsequent maintenance
under CAA section 175A(b).
PO 00000
VOC emissions
measures are not necessary to assure
maintenance).
For the purposes of demonstrating
continued maintenance with the 1997
ozone NAAQS, PADEP provided 3-year
DVs for the York-Adams Area from 2007
to 2018. This includes DVs 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 of this
document.12 In addition, EPA has
reviewed the most recent ambient air
quality monitoring data for ozone in the
York-Adams Area, as submitted by
Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA’s Air
Quality System (AQS). The most recent
DV (i.e. 2017–2019) at monitors located
in the York-Adams Area are also shown
in Table 2.13 There currently are four
operating monitoring sites in the YorkAdams Area, two in York County and
two in Adams County. Please note that
a third monitor in Adams County
(monitor 42–001–0002), was
discontinued on July 31, 2011. As can
be seen in Table 2 of this document,
DVs at all monitors located in the YorkAdams Area have been well below 85%
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071
ppm) since the 2012–2014 period. The
highest DV for the 2017–2019 period at
a monitor in the York-Adams Area is
0.064 ppm, which is well below 85% of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
12 See also Table II–2 of PADEP’s March 10, 2020
submittal, included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2020–0319.
13 This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2020–0319 and is also available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
8739
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—RECENT 1997 OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES (ppm) AT MONITORING SITES IN THE YORK-ADAMS AREA
County
AQS Site ID
Adams ...............
Adams ...............
Adams ...............
York ...................
York ...................
42–001–0001
42–001–0002
42–001–9991
42–133–0008
42–133–0011
....
....
....
....
....
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
............
0.078
............
0.083
............
............
0.077
............
0.080
............
............
0.073
............
0.077
............
............
b 0.071
............
0.074
d 0.073
............
............
............
0.071
0.072
............
............
............
0.073
0.076
............
............
............
0.072
0.074
............
............
c 0.067
0.069
0.070
............
............
0.065
0.066
0.068
............
............
0.067
0.066
0.070
a 0.066
............
0.066
0.066
0.070
0.067
............
0.066
0.065
0.067
0.064
............
0.062
0.063
0.061
a Monitor
42–001–0001 began operation on November 1, 2014, with 2017 being the first valid DV.
42–001–0002 was discontinued on July 31, 2011, with 2010 being the last valid DV.
c Monitor 42–001–9991 began operation in January 2011, with 2014 being the first valid DV.
d Monitor 42–133–0011 began operation on April 22, 2008, with 2010 being the first valid DV.
b Monitor
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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 for the area and add
the maximum DV increase (over one or
more consecutive years) that has been
observed in the area over the past
several years. A sum that does not
exceed the level of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS may be a good indicator of
expected continue attainment. As
shown in Table 2 in this document, the
largest increases in DVs from 2007 to
2019 was 0.04 ppm, which occurred
between the 2011–2013 (0.074 ppm) and
2012–2014 (0.070 ppm) DVs at the
monitor located in York County (AQS
ID 42–133–0011). Adding 0.004 ppm to
the highest DV for the 2017–2019 period
(0.064 ppm) results in 0.068 ppm, a sum
that is still below the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
The York-Adams Area has maintained
the 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 average DV for the
York-Adams Area is projected to be
0.058 ppm.15 Therefore, EPA proposes
to determine that future violations of the
14 As explained in EPA’s October 24, 2007 notice
proposing to redesignate the York-Adams Area as
attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR
60296), the 2004–2006 average DV for the YorkAdams Area was 0.081 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
16:53 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
1997 ozone NAAQS in the York-Adams
Area are unlikely.
C. Continues Air Quality Monitoring
and Verification of Continue 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,
PADEP commits to continue to operate
their air monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP
also commits to track the attainment
status of the York-Adams 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. PADEP also states that it
will also evaluate the periodic (i.e.,
every three years) emissions inventory
prepared under EPA’s Air Emission
Reporting Requirements (40 CFR part
51, subpart A). Based on these
evaluations, PADEP will consider
whether any further emission control
measures should be implemented for
the York-Adams Area. EPA has
analyzed the commitments in PADEP’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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
PADEP’s March 10, 2020 submittal
includes a contingency plan for the
York-Adams Area. In the event that the
fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at a monitor in the YorkAdams Area exceeds 84 ppb (equivalent
to 0.084 ppm) for two consecutive years,
but prior to an actual violation of the
NAAQS, PADEP 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, PADEP 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,
PADEP 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.
PADEP will use the following criteria
when considering additional emission
reduction measures to adopt to address
a violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
the York-Adams Area: (1) Air quality
analysis indicating the nature of the
violation, including the cause, location,
and source; (2) emission reduction
16 A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an
area’s 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
8740
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 PADEP would consider
pursuing for adoption in the YorkAdams Area include, but are not limited
to, those summarized in Table 3 of this
document. If additional emission
reductions are necessary, PADEP
commits to adopt additional emission
reduction measures to attain and
maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
TABLE 3—YORK-ADAMS 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 hearing 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.
TABLE 4—IMPLEMENT SCHEDULE FOR YORK-ADAMS AREA NON-REGULATORY CONTINGENCY MEASURES
Time after triggering event
Action
Within 2 months ...................
Within 3 months ...................
PADEP will identify stakeholders for potential non-regulatory measures for further development.
If funding is necessary, PADEP will identify potential sources of funding and the timeframe for when funds would
be available.
PADEP will work with the relevant planning commission(s) to identify potential land use planning strategies and
projects with quantifiable and timely emission benefits. PADEP 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, PADEP will enter into agreements with implementing organizations. PADEP
will also quantify projected emission benefits.
PADEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
PADEP will implement strategies and projects.
Within 6 months ...................
Within 9 months ...................
Within 12 months .................
Within 12–24 months ...........
TABLE 5—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR YORK-ADAMS AREA REGULATORY CONTINGENCY MEASURES
Time after triggering event
Action
Within 1 months ...................
Within 3 months ...................
PADEP 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.
PADEP will publish regulatory measure in the Pennsylvania Bulleting for comment as proposed rulemaking.
PADEP 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 rulemaking.
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.
PADEP 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 .................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Within
Within
Within
Within
16
17
18
19
months
months
months
months
.................
.................
.................
.................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 00020
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 59 subpart F—Control
of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use
Portable Fuel Containers.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
EPA proposes to find that the
contingency plan included in PADEP’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 York-Adams Area
to attainment.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD 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
conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
transportation 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 YorkAdams Area remains under the
obligation to meet the applicable
conformity requirements for the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA’s review of PADEP’s March 10,
2020 submittal indicates that YorkAdams Area second maintenance plan
meets the CAA section 175A and all
applicable CAA requirements. EPA is
proposing to approve the second
maintenance plan for the York-Adams
Area as a revision to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action.
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 it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866;
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8741
• 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
rulemaking, proposing approval of
Pennsylvania’s second maintenance
plan for the York-Adams 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021–02581 Filed 2–8–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8736-8741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02581]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0319; FRL-10017-12-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the York-Adams
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 (PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the
``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in the York-Adams Area. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 11, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0319 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 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: Keila M. Pag[aacute]n-Incle, 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-
2926. Ms. Pag[aacute]n-Incle can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 2020, the PADEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through February 13, 2028 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 York-Adams Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
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
[[Page 8737]]
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 January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2163 effective February 13, 2008), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for
the York-Adams Area. In accordance with CAA 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
York-Adams 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 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, PADEP
submitted the York-Adams Area second maintenance plan, following the
LMP guidance, and demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997
ozone NAAQS through February 13, 2028, 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
PADEP'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 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 York-Adams Area, PADEP
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 York-Adams 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, PADEP 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 October 24, 2007 notice
proposing to redesignate the York (York and Adams Counties) Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (72 FR 60296).
\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 VOC and NOX Emissions (tons/day) for York-Adams Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions
County Source category VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams.................................... Point............................ 0.18 0.54
Nonpoint......................... 6.16 1.23
Onroad........................... 2.51 4.85
Nonroad.......................... 2.18 1.28
York..................................... Point............................ 2.92 33.14
[[Page 8738]]
Nonpoint......................... 22.55 6.18
Onroad........................... 8.15 15.33
Nonroad.......................... 3.66 4.70
-----------------------------------
Total................................ ................................. 48.31 67.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PADEP. 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 PADEP and proposes to conclude that
the plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance under CAA section 175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm 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(1) 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-2020-0319 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, PADEP provided 3-year DVs for the York-Adams Area
from 2007 to 2018. This includes DVs 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 of this
document.\12\ In addition, EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient air
quality monitoring data for ozone in the York-Adams Area, as submitted
by Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The
most recent DV (i.e. 2017-2019) at monitors located in the York-Adams
Area are also shown in Table 2.\13\ There currently are four operating
monitoring sites in the York-Adams Area, two in York County and two in
Adams County. Please note that a third monitor in Adams County (monitor
42-001-0002), was discontinued on July 31, 2011. As can be seen in
Table 2 of this document, DVs at all monitors located in the York-Adams
Area have been well below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm)
since the 2012-2014 period. The highest DV for the 2017-2019 period at
a monitor in the York-Adams Area is 0.064 ppm, which is well below 85%
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See also Table II-2 of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal,
included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0319.
\13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0319 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
[[Page 8739]]
Table 2--Recent 1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppm) at Monitoring Sites in the York-Adams Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams......................... 42-001-0001...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... \a\ 0.066 0.067 0.064
Adams......................... 42-001-0002...... 0.078 0.077 0.073 \b\ 0.071 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Adams......................... 42-001-9991...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... \c\ 0.067 0.065 0.067 0.066 0.066 0.062
York.......................... 42-133-0008...... 0.083 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.071 0.073 0.072 0.069 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.065 0.063
York.......................... 42-133-0011...... ......... ......... ......... \d\ 0.073 0.072 0.076 0.074 0.070 0.068 0.070 0.070 0.067 0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Monitor 42-001-0001 began operation on November 1, 2014, with 2017 being the first valid DV.
\b\ Monitor 42-001-0002 was discontinued on July 31, 2011, with 2010 being the last valid DV.
\c\ Monitor 42-001-9991 began operation in January 2011, with 2014 being the first valid DV.
\d\ Monitor 42-133-0011 began operation on April 22, 2008, with 2010 being the first valid DV.
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 for the area and add the maximum DV
increase (over one or more consecutive years) that has been observed in
the area over the past several years. A sum that does not exceed the
level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS may be a good indicator of expected
continue attainment. As shown in Table 2 in this document, the largest
increases in DVs from 2007 to 2019 was 0.04 ppm, which occurred between
the 2011-2013 (0.074 ppm) and 2012-2014 (0.070 ppm) DVs at the monitor
located in York County (AQS ID 42-133-0011). Adding 0.004 ppm to the
highest DV for the 2017-2019 period (0.064 ppm) results in 0.068 ppm, a
sum that is still below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The York-Adams Area has maintained the 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 average
DV for the York-Adams Area is projected to be 0.058 ppm.\15\ Therefore,
EPA proposes to determine that future violations of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the York-Adams Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained in EPA's October 24, 2007 notice proposing to
redesignate the York-Adams Area as attainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (72 FR 60296), the 2004-2006 average DV for the York-Adams
Area was 0.081 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. Continues Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continue
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, PADEP commits to continue to operate their air
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP also
commits to track the attainment status of the York-Adams 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. PADEP
also states that it will also evaluate the periodic (i.e., every three
years) emissions inventory prepared under EPA's Air Emission Reporting
Requirements (40 CFR part 51, subpart A). Based on these evaluations,
PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures
should be implemented for the York-Adams Area. EPA has analyzed the
commitments in PADEP'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.
PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for
the York-Adams Area. In the event that the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at a monitor in the York-Adams Area exceeds 84 ppb
(equivalent to 0.084 ppm) for two consecutive years, but prior to an
actual violation of the NAAQS, PADEP 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, PADEP 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, PADEP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PADEP will use the following criteria when considering additional
emission reduction measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the York-Adams Area: (1) Air quality analysis indicating
the nature of the violation, including the cause, location, and source;
(2) emission reduction
[[Page 8740]]
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 PADEP would consider pursuing for adoption in the York-Adams
Area include, but are not limited to, those summarized in Table 3 of
this document. If additional emission reductions are necessary, PADEP
commits to adopt additional emission reduction measures to attain and
maintain the 1997 ozone 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 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 59 subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions from New
and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.
Table 3--York-Adams 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
hearing 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.
Table 4--Implement Schedule for York-Adams Area Non-Regulatory
Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time after triggering event Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 2 months.............. PADEP will identify stakeholders for
potential non-regulatory measures for
further development.
Within 3 months.............. If funding is necessary, PADEP will
identify potential sources of funding
and the timeframe for when funds would
be available.
Within 6 months.............. PADEP will work with the relevant
planning commission(s) to identify
potential land use planning strategies
and projects with quantifiable and
timely emission benefits. PADEP 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,
PADEP will enter into agreements with
implementing organizations. PADEP will
also quantify projected emission
benefits.
Within 12 months............. PADEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
Within 12-24 months.......... PADEP will implement strategies and
projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Implementation Schedule for York-Adams Area Regulatory
Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time after triggering event Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 1 months.............. PADEP 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.............. PADEP will publish regulatory measure in
the Pennsylvania Bulleting for comment
as proposed rulemaking.
Within 10 months............. PADEP 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 rulemaking.
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............. PADEP 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8741]]
EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in PADEP'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 York-Adams 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 the 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
transportation 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
York-Adams Area remains under the obligation to meet the applicable
conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
EPA's review of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal indicates that
York-Adams Area second maintenance plan meets the CAA section 175A and
all applicable CAA requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the second
maintenance plan for the York-Adams Area as a revision to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
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 it is not a significant regulatory
action 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 rulemaking, proposing approval of
Pennsylvania's second maintenance plan for the York-Adams 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-02581 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
