[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 
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.

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 
pagan-incle.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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


