Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area, 28496-28499 [2021-11166]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28496
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 101 / Thursday, May 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: May 20, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as
follows:
Subpart SS—Texas
2. In § 52.2270(c), amend the table
titled ‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP’’ by revising the entries
for ‘‘Section 114.622’’ and ‘‘Section
114.629’’ to read as follows:
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.2270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP
State citation
State
approval/
submittal date
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
Chapter 114 (Reg 4)—Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles
*
*
*
*
*
Subchapter K—Mobile Source Incentive Programs
Section 114.622 ..............................
Incentive Program Requirements ..
6/10/2020
*
*
Section 114.629 ..............................
*
*
Affected Counties and Implementation Schedule.
6/10/2020
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–11182 Filed 5–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0320; FRL–10023–
70–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Second Maintenance
Plan for the Youngstown-WarrenSharon Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving 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’’) for the Youngstown-
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 May 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
*
5/27/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
5/27/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
Warren-Sharon Area (Youngstown Area)
of Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
June 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0320. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section for
additional availability information.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
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:
I. Background
On October 30, 2020 (85 FR 68826),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which
was later reopened to public comment
on March 1, 2021 (86 FR 11915). In the
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of
Pennsylvania’s plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown
Area through November 19, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A. The
formal SIP revision was submitted by
PADEP on March 10, 2020.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
On October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59213,
effective November 19, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and
maintenance plan) from PADEP for the
Youngstown Area. Per 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
E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM
27MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 101 / Thursday, May 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
standard for an additional 10 years, and
in South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA,1 the D.C. Circuit held
that this requirement cannot be waived
for areas, like the Youngstown Area,
that had been redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
prior to revocation and that were
designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. 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.2 PADEP’s March 10,
2020 SIP submittal fulfills
Pennsylvania’s obligation to submit a
second maintenance plan and addresses
each of the five necessary elements.
As discussed in the October 30, 2020,
NPRM, consistent with longstanding
EPA’s guidance,3 areas that meet certain
criteria may be eligible to submit a
limited maintenance plan (LMP) to
satisfy one of the requirements of CAA
section 175A. Specifically, states may
meet CAA section 175A’s requirements
to ‘‘provide for maintenance’’ by
demonstrating that an area’s design
values 4 are well below the NAAQS and
that it has had historical stability
attaining the NAAQS. EPA evaluated
Pennsylvania’s March 10, 2020
submittal for consistency with all
applicable EPA guidance and CAA
requirements. EPA found that the
submittal met CAA section 175A and all
CAA requirements, and proposed
approval of the LMP for the
Youngstown Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of this
action makes certain commitments
1 882
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 (Calcagni
Memo).
3 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.
4 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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
2 ‘‘Procedures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 May 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
related to the maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS federally enforceable as
part of the Pennsylvania SIP. Other
specific requirements of PADEP’s March
10, 2020 submittal and the rationale for
EPA’s proposed action are explained in
the NPRM and will not be restated here.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
Received
EPA received two comments on the
October 30, 2020 NPRM, which were
not related to air quality issues, and one
relevant comment on the March 1, 2021
reopened NPRM. All comments
received are in the docket for this
rulemaking action.
Comment
The commenter asserts that the LMP
should not be approved because
‘‘Pennsylvania identifies no actual
contingency measures.’’ According to
the commenter, a ‘‘contingency measure
is supposed to be a known measure that
can be quickly implemented by a state
in order to prevent the violation of the
NAAQS.’’ The comment asserts that
current contingency measures are
defective because they allegedly will not
be evaluated and determined until after
an exceedance of the NAAQS has
occurred, and that a ‘‘contingency
measure must be clearly identified and
not an abstract promise of determining,
at a later date, whether measures are
needed and what measures would be
proposed.’’
The comment claims that EPA is
aware Pennsylvania has a history of not
meeting its CAA requirements on time,
and that it can take Pennsylvania more
than two years to implement a
regulation, which would be too long to
prevent a violation of the NAAQS.
Further, the commenter asserts that the
EPA should disapprove ‘‘a state’s
contingency plan that merely promises
to later review conditions, determine
whether measures are necessary and
what they should be, and then
implement them.’’
Response
The commenter asserts that
Pennsylvania identifies no actual
contingency measures because the
measures are not yet ‘‘evaluated’’ and
‘‘determined’’ and cannot be
implemented before a violation of the
NAAQS occurs. Because Pennsylvania
identifies two regulatory and six nonregulatory contingency measures in
general terms, EPA understands the
comment’s use of the term ‘‘evaluated’’
and ‘‘determined’’ must mean
something like the specific measures
identified by PADEP have not been fully
promulgated and are not in effect at this
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28497
time. If EPA’s understanding is correct,
EPA agrees with this fact, but does not
agree that this has any bearing on the
approvability of the contingency
measures or of the overall LMP.
PADEP identifies six non-regulatory
measures and two regulatory measures.
The two regulatory measures are
‘‘additional controls’’ on consumer
products and portable fuel containers.
The six non-regulatory measures are:
Voluntary diesel engine ‘‘chip reflash;’’
diesel retrofit for public or private local
onroad or offroad fleets; idling
reduction technology for Class 2 yard
locomotives; idling technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses,
and other freight-handling facilities;
accelerated turnover of lawn and garden
equipment; additional promotion of
alternative fuel for home heating and
agriculture use. As stated in the
Calcagni memo, EPA’s long-standing
interpretation is that contingency
measures for maintenance of the
NAAQS are not required to be fully
adopted in order to be approved. The
commenter refers to a recent court case
vacating, among other things, the
contingency measure provisions in
EPA’s rule for implementing the 2015
ozone NAAQS, Sierra Club v. EPA, No.
15–1465 (D.C. Cir. January 29, 2021). It
is possible that the commenter has
conflated the contingency measure
provisions at issue in that case, which
pertained to attainment plans, and those
at issue in this LMP, which pertain to
maintenance plans. The contingency
measure provisions for maintenance and
attainment are found in two different
sections of the CAA, with substantially
different wording and requirements.
The attainment plan contingency
measures provisions in CAA Section
172(c)(9) require that the attainment
plan have ‘‘specific measures’’ that can
‘‘take effect in any such case without
further action by the State or the
Administrator’’ if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress or attain the
NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). Section
175A of the CAA sets forth the
contingency measure requirements for
maintenance areas. Section 175A(d)
requires that the maintenance plan
contain ‘‘such contingency provisions as
the Administrator deems necessary to
assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard
which occurs after the redesignation of
the area as an attainment area.’’ 42
U.S.C. 7505a(d). Unlike Section
172(c)(9) there is no requirement under
section 175A that the contingency
measures be set forth with specificity or
that they be able to take effect without
further action by EPA or the State.
E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM
27MYR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
28498
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 101 / Thursday, May 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
With this statutory background in
mind, EPA does not agree that the plan
should be disapproved due to PADEP’s
ability to promulgate a contingency
measure in sufficient time to avert a
violation of the NAAQS. As noted
previously, CAA section 175A(d)
mandates that a maintenance plan must
contain ‘‘such contingency provisions as
the Administrator deems necessary to
assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard
which occurs after the redesignation of
the area as an attainment area.’’
(emphasis added). The statute therefore
does not include any requirement that a
maintenance plan’s contingency
measures prevent a violation of the
NAAQS, but rather only that those
selected measures be available to
address a violation of the NAAQS after
it already occurs. Pennsylvania also
elected to adopt a ‘‘warning level
response,’’ which states that PADEP will
consider adopting contingency
measures if, for two consecutive years,
the fourth highest eight-hour ozone
concentrations at any monitor in the
area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb).
But this warning level response is not
required under the CAA, and therefore
we do not agree with the commenter
that the plan should be disapproved
based on the commenter’s concern over
the timeliness of the warning level
response implementation.
Moreover, as a general matter, we do
not agree that the schedules for
implementation of contingency
provisions in the LMP are insufficient.
As noted, the CAA provides some
degree of flexibility in assessing a
maintenance plan’s contingency
measures—requiring that the plan
contain such contingency provisions ‘‘as
the Administrator deems necessary’’ to
assure that any violations of the NAAQS
will be ‘‘promptly’’ corrected. EPA’s
longstanding guidance for
redesignations, the Calcagni Memo, also
does not provide precise parameters for
what strictly constitutes ‘‘prompt’’
implementation of contingency
measures, noting that, for purposes of
CAA section 175A, ‘‘a state is not
required to have fully adopted
contingency measures that will take
effect without further action by the state
in order for the maintenance plan to be
approved.’’ Calcagni memo at 12.
However, the guidance does state that
the plan should ensure that the
measures are adopted ‘‘expediently’’
once they are triggered, and should
provide ‘‘a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation, and a
specific time limit for action by the
state.’’ Id. We think the State’s plan,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 May 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
which provides specific lists of
regulatory and non-regulatory measures
(not a ‘‘promise’’ to determine measures
at a later date) that the state would
consider after evaluating and assessing
what it believed to be the cause of
increased ozone concentrations, and the
specific timeframes it would use to
expediently implement the various
measures, meets the requirements of
CAA section 175A.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the 1997 ozone
NAAQS limited maintenance plan for
the Youngstown Area as a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
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 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);
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by July 26, 2021. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action pertaining to
Pennsylvania’s limited maintenance
plan for the Youngstown Area may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52May
27, 2021June 28, 2021July 26, 2021
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM
27MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 101 / Thursday, May 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Dated: May 19, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(e)(1) is amended by adding the entry
■
Applicable geographic
area
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
*
*
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the YoungstownWarren-Sharon Area.
*
*
*
*
*
Youngstown-WarrenSharon Area.
*
[FR Doc. 2021–11166 Filed 5–26–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
[GSAR Case 2020–G525; Docket No. 2021–
0012; Sequence No. 1]
RIN 3090–AK26
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation; Personal
Identity Verification Requirements
Clarification
Office of Acquisition Policy,
General Services Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The General Services
Administration (GSA) is amending the
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to
clarify the requirements for Personal
Identity Verification (PIV). This direct
final rule revises a GSAR clause to
provide a more specific reference to the
location of the GSA credentialing
handbook. GSA is also moving language
addressing internal operating
procedures around option exercise from
the GSAR to the non-regulatory General
Services Administration Acquisition
Manual (GSAM).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
on July 26, 2021 without further notice
unless adverse comments are received.
Interested parties should submit written
comments to the Regulatory Secretariat
as noted below on or before June 28,
2021 to be considered in the formation
of the final rule. If GSA receives adverse
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 May 26, 2021
Jkt 253001
State
submittal
date
*
3/10/20
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
§ 52.2020
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
EPA approval date
Additional explanation
*
5/27/21, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
The
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
area consists of Youngstown borough in Westmoreland County,
Warren County, and Sharon, a
city in Mercer County.
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to GSAR Case 2020–G525 to:
Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching for ‘‘GSAR Case 2020–G525’’.
Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that
corresponds with GSAR Case 2020–
G525. Follow the instructions provided
at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ screen. Please
include your name, company name (if
any), and ‘‘GSAR Case 2020–G525’’ on
your attached document. If your
comment cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, call or
email the points of contact in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document for alternate instructions.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite GSAR Case 2020–G525, in
all correspondence related to this case.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided. To confirm
receipt of your comment(s), please
check https://www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Vernita Misidor, Procurement Analyst,
at 202–357–9681 or email at gsarpolicy@
gsa.gov, for clarification of content. For
information pertaining to status or
publication schedules, contact the
Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755.
Please cite GSAR Case 2020–G525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
for ‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second
Maintenance Plan for the YoungstownWarren-Sharon Area’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
*
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
28499
Sfmt 4700
I. Background
Following internal procurement
management reviews, GSA identified
the need to improve certain
credentialing administration processes
for contractors. GSA is amending the
GSAR to clarify the personal identity
verification requirements in GSAR
Clause 552.204–9. The clause currently
references a very broad credentialing
website, which does not clearly identify
the requirements for contractors to
follow.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 40 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 121 authorizes GSA to
issue regulations, including the GSAR,
to control the relationship between GSA
and contractors.
III. Discussion of the Rule
GSA is amending the GSAR to
specifically reference the Office of
Mission Assurance CIO P 2181.1 GSA
HSPD–12 Personal Identity Verification
and Credentialing Handbook rather than
just the general website for
credentialing. The change to reference
the Handbook will allow for contractor
personnel to easily find the information
needed related to PIV cards and will
eliminate issues that could arise in the
event that the website link becomes
broken. GSA is also moving text dealing
with the exercise of options from the
GSAR to the non-regulatory GSAM. This
move is being made because the
language only addresses responsibilities
of Contracting Officers in preparing
documentation. As such, it is not
regulatory material.
E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM
27MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 101 (Thursday, May 27, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28496-28499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11166]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0320; FRL-10023-70-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 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'') for
the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area (Youngstown Area) of Pennsylvania.
EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0320. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
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:
I. Background
On October 30, 2020 (85 FR 68826), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which
was later reopened to public comment on March 1, 2021 (86 FR 11915). In
the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown Area through November 19, 2027,
in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was
submitted by PADEP on March 10, 2020.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
On October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59213, effective November 19, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for
the Youngstown Area. Per 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
[[Page 28497]]
standard for an additional 10 years, and in South Coast Air Quality
Management District v. EPA,\1\ the D.C. Circuit held that this
requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the Youngstown Area, that
had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to
revocation and that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. 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.\2\ PADEP's March 10, 2020 SIP submittal fulfills
Pennsylvania's obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and
addresses each of the five necessary elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
\2\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the October 30, 2020, NPRM, consistent with
longstanding EPA's guidance,\3\ areas that meet certain criteria may be
eligible to submit a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to satisfy one of
the requirements of CAA section 175A. Specifically, states may meet CAA
section 175A's requirements to ``provide for maintenance'' by
demonstrating that an area's design values \4\ are well below the NAAQS
and that it has had historical stability attaining the NAAQS. EPA
evaluated Pennsylvania's March 10, 2020 submittal for consistency with
all applicable EPA guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the
submittal met CAA section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed
approval of the LMP for the Youngstown Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of this action makes certain commitments
related to the maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS federally
enforceable as part of the Pennsylvania SIP. Other specific
requirements of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be
restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Response to Comments Received
EPA received two comments on the October 30, 2020 NPRM, which were
not related to air quality issues, and one relevant comment on the
March 1, 2021 reopened NPRM. All comments received are in the docket
for this rulemaking action.
Comment
The commenter asserts that the LMP should not be approved because
``Pennsylvania identifies no actual contingency measures.'' According
to the commenter, a ``contingency measure is supposed to be a known
measure that can be quickly implemented by a state in order to prevent
the violation of the NAAQS.'' The comment asserts that current
contingency measures are defective because they allegedly will not be
evaluated and determined until after an exceedance of the NAAQS has
occurred, and that a ``contingency measure must be clearly identified
and not an abstract promise of determining, at a later date, whether
measures are needed and what measures would be proposed.''
The comment claims that EPA is aware Pennsylvania has a history of
not meeting its CAA requirements on time, and that it can take
Pennsylvania more than two years to implement a regulation, which would
be too long to prevent a violation of the NAAQS. Further, the commenter
asserts that the EPA should disapprove ``a state's contingency plan
that merely promises to later review conditions, determine whether
measures are necessary and what they should be, and then implement
them.''
Response
The commenter asserts that Pennsylvania identifies no actual
contingency measures because the measures are not yet ``evaluated'' and
``determined'' and cannot be implemented before a violation of the
NAAQS occurs. Because Pennsylvania identifies two regulatory and six
non-regulatory contingency measures in general terms, EPA understands
the comment's use of the term ``evaluated'' and ``determined'' must
mean something like the specific measures identified by PADEP have not
been fully promulgated and are not in effect at this time. If EPA's
understanding is correct, EPA agrees with this fact, but does not agree
that this has any bearing on the approvability of the contingency
measures or of the overall LMP.
PADEP identifies six non-regulatory measures and two regulatory
measures. The two regulatory measures are ``additional controls'' on
consumer products and portable fuel containers. The six non-regulatory
measures are: Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash;'' diesel retrofit
for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets; idling reduction
technology for Class 2 yard locomotives; idling technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and other freight-handling
facilities; accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment;
additional promotion of alternative fuel for home heating and
agriculture use. As stated in the Calcagni memo, EPA's long-standing
interpretation is that contingency measures for maintenance of the
NAAQS are not required to be fully adopted in order to be approved. The
commenter refers to a recent court case vacating, among other things,
the contingency measure provisions in EPA's rule for implementing the
2015 ozone NAAQS, Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 15-1465 (D.C. Cir. January
29, 2021). It is possible that the commenter has conflated the
contingency measure provisions at issue in that case, which pertained
to attainment plans, and those at issue in this LMP, which pertain to
maintenance plans. The contingency measure provisions for maintenance
and attainment are found in two different sections of the CAA, with
substantially different wording and requirements. The attainment plan
contingency measures provisions in CAA Section 172(c)(9) require that
the attainment plan have ``specific measures'' that can ``take effect
in any such case without further action by the State or the
Administrator'' if the area fails to make reasonable further progress
or attain the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). Section 175A of the CAA sets
forth the contingency measure requirements for maintenance areas.
Section 175A(d) requires that the maintenance plan contain ``such
contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure
that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard
which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment
area.'' 42 U.S.C. 7505a(d). Unlike Section 172(c)(9) there is no
requirement under section 175A that the contingency measures be set
forth with specificity or that they be able to take effect without
further action by EPA or the State.
[[Page 28498]]
With this statutory background in mind, EPA does not agree that the
plan should be disapproved due to PADEP's ability to promulgate a
contingency measure in sufficient time to avert a violation of the
NAAQS. As noted previously, CAA section 175A(d) mandates that a
maintenance plan must contain ``such contingency provisions as the
Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' (emphasis added).
The statute therefore does not include any requirement that a
maintenance plan's contingency measures prevent a violation of the
NAAQS, but rather only that those selected measures be available to
address a violation of the NAAQS after it already occurs. Pennsylvania
also elected to adopt a ``warning level response,'' which states that
PADEP will consider adopting contingency measures if, for two
consecutive years, the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations
at any monitor in the area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). But
this warning level response is not required under the CAA, and
therefore we do not agree with the commenter that the plan should be
disapproved based on the commenter's concern over the timeliness of the
warning level response implementation.
Moreover, as a general matter, we do not agree that the schedules
for implementation of contingency provisions in the LMP are
insufficient. As noted, the CAA provides some degree of flexibility in
assessing a maintenance plan's contingency measures--requiring that the
plan contain such contingency provisions ``as the Administrator deems
necessary'' to assure that any violations of the NAAQS will be
``promptly'' corrected. EPA's longstanding guidance for redesignations,
the Calcagni Memo, also does not provide precise parameters for what
strictly constitutes ``prompt'' implementation of contingency measures,
noting that, for purposes of CAA section 175A, ``a state is not
required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take
effect without further action by the state in order for the maintenance
plan to be approved.'' Calcagni memo at 12. However, the guidance does
state that the plan should ensure that the measures are adopted
``expediently'' once they are triggered, and should provide ``a
schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific
time limit for action by the state.'' Id. We think the State's plan,
which provides specific lists of regulatory and non-regulatory measures
(not a ``promise'' to determine measures at a later date) that the
state would consider after evaluating and assessing what it believed to
be the cause of increased ozone concentrations, and the specific
timeframes it would use to expediently implement the various measures,
meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the 1997 ozone NAAQS limited maintenance plan for
the Youngstown Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
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 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);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 26, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Pennsylvania's limited maintenance
plan for the Youngstown Area may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52May 27, 2021June 28, 2021July 26,
2021
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
[[Page 28499]]
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 19, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
the entry for ``1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Second Maintenance Plan for the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable submittal EPA approval date Additional
revision geographic area date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Youngstown-Warren- 3/10/20 5/27/21, [insert The Youngstown-
Ambient Air Quality Standard Sharon Area. Federal Register Warren-Sharon area
Second Maintenance Plan for the citation]. consists of
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area. Youngstown borough
in Westmoreland
County, Warren
County, and Sharon,
a city in Mercer
County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-11166 Filed 5-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
