Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the State College Area
| Published date | 14 October 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 65008 |
| Record Number | 2020-20967 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Environmental Protection Agency |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65008-65013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20967]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0317; FRL-10014-78-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the State
College 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 Centre County, Pennsylvania area (State
College Area). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 13,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0317 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: Serena Nichols, 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-
2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 2020, PADEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the State College Area through December 14,
2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A.
I. Background
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\1\ EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone
to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated
the State College Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The
State College Area consists solely of Centre County.
Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 14, 2007 (72 FR 63990, effective December 14, 2007),
EPA approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP
for the State College Area. In accordance with
[[Page 65009]]
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
State College 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 an LMP for the State College Area, following EPA's LMP
guidance and demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through December 14, 2027, i.e., through the entire 20-year
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
\6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
\7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
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 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which
identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with
EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day's emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation. In
the first maintenance plan for the State College Area, PADEP used 2004
for the attainment year inventory, because 2004 was one of the years in
the 2002-2004 three-year period and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the Clean Air Act requirements to
date.\8\ The State College 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 September 11, 2007 document
proposing to redesignate the State College Area to attainment for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 51747).
\9\ For more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.
Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC Emissions for the State
College Area in Tons/Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
Source category emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 0.07 3.44
Nonpoint........................................ 6.97 1.39
Onroad.......................................... 2.86 9.00
Nonroad......................................... 2.06 1.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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, 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
[[Page 65010]]
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 plan 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 requirements, any control measures already
in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place through the end of
the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a showing consistent with
section 110(l) that such measures are not necessary to assure
maintenance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0317 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 at monitors located in the
State College Area from 2007 to 2018. This includes DVs at monitors for
2005-2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-
2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018, which
are shown in Table 2 of this document.\12\ In addition, EPA has
reviewed the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data for ozone
in the State College Area, as submitted by Pennsylvania and recorded in
EPA's Air Quality System. The most recent DVs (i.e., 2017-2019) at
monitors located in the State College Area are also shown in Table
2.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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-2020-0317.
\13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0317 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values in Parts per Million for the State College Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017-
County AQS Site ID 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centre..................................... 42-027-0100................... .078 .075 .070 .070 .070 .073 .070 .067 .063 .063 .062 .062 0.061
Centre..................................... 42-027-9991*.................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .071 .068 .065 .065 .065 .064 0.062
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This monitor (AQS Site ID 42-027-9991) began operation in April 1, 2011, so 2013 is the first valid design value.
As can be seen in Table 2, DVs at all monitors located in the State
College 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 State College Area is 0.062 ppm, which is
well below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends.
According to EPA's 2018 Resource Document, several kinds of analyses
can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing. One approach
is to take the most recent DV at a monitor located in the area and add
the maximum design value increase (over one or more consecutive years)
that has been observed in the area over the past several years. For an
area with multiple monitors, the highest of the most recent DVs should
be used. A sum that does not exceed the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
may be a good indicator of expected continued attainment. As shown in
Table 2 of this document, the largest increase in DVs at a monitor
located in the State College Area was 0.003 ppm, which occurred between
the 2009-2011 (0.070 ppm) and 2010-2012 (0.073 ppm) DVs at monitoring
site 42-027-0100. Adding 0.003 ppm to the highest DV for the 2017-2019
period (0.062 ppm) results in 0.065 ppm, a sum that is still below the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
The State College Area has maintained air quality levels well below
the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the area first attained the NAAQS in
2006.\14\ Additional supporting information that the area is expected
to continue to maintain the standard can be found in projections of
future year DVs that EPA recently completed to assist states with the
development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023, show that the highest
DV at a monitor located in the State College Area is expected to be
0.0598 ppm.\15\ Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that future
violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the State College Area are
unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained in EPA's September 11, 2007 document proposing
to redesignate the State College Area as attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS (72 FR 51747), the 2004-2006 DV for the State College
Area was 0.076 ppm.
\15\ See U.S. EPA, ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values'',
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 2018,
available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-updated-2023-projected-ozone-design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the March
10, 2020 submittal, 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 State College 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 and stationary
[[Page 65011]]
source emissions data compared to the assumptions included in the LMP.
PADEP also states that it will evaluate the periodic (i.e., every three
years) emission inventories 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 State College 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 State College Area. In the event that the fourth highest eight-hour
ozone concentrations at a monitor in the State College Area exceeds
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 State College Area: (1) Air quality analysis
indicating the nature of the violation, including the cause, location,
and source; (2) emission reduction potential, including extent to which
emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area; (3)
timeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the
area to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) costs,
equity, and cost-effectiveness. The measures PADEP would consider
pursuing for adoption in the State College 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. The 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.
Table 3--State College Area Second Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regulatory Measures:
Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel
engines).
Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative
fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: \17\
Additional control on consumer products.\18\
Additional controls on portable fuel containers.\19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency plan includes schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory and regulatory contingency
measures, including schedules for adopting potential land use planning
strategies not listed in Table 3 of this document, which are summarized
in Tables 4 and 5 of this document, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Existing controls on portable fuel containers can be found
under 40 CFR part 39, subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions
From New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.
Table 4--Implementation Schedule for State College 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.
[[Page 65012]]
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 State College Area Regulatory
Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time after triggering event Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 1 month.......................... 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
Bulletin 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
rule.
Within 13 months........................ AQTAC, Citizens Advisory
Council, and other committees
will review responses to
comment(s), if applicable,
and the draft final
rulemaking.
Within 16 months........................ EQB meeting/action.
Within 17 months........................ The IRCC will take action on
final rulemaking.
Within 18 months........................ Attorney General's review/
action.
Within 19 months........................ 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 State College Area to attainment.
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs, and projects. Specifically, for such
determination, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for
RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and transportation
projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements
specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to be approved,
they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114
and 93.115). The State College 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 it
meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements of
CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance
plan for the State College Area as a revision
[[Page 65013]]
to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking, proposing approval of
Pennsylvania's second maintenance plan for the State College Area, does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 17, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-20967 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
