[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68826-68832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23781]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0320; FRL-10016-06-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: 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 Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon, Ohio-Pennsylvania area. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 30,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0320 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: Ramesh Mahadevan, 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-
2237. Mr. Mahadevan 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 Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon Area through November 19, 2027, in accordance with CAA
section 175A. The submittal is titled, ``State Implementation Plan
Revision: second maintenance plan for the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-
PA Interstate 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.'' The portion of
the Area located in Pennsylvania, which is the subject of this
rulemaking, will be referred to as ``the Pennsylvania portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area second maintenance plan'' throughout this
document.
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
[[Page 68827]]
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 Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area consists of Mercer
County in Pennsylvania and Trumbull, Mahoning and Columbiana Counties
in Ohio.
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 October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59213 effective November 19, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for
the Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area. In a
separate action (72 FR 32190, June 12, 2007), EPA approved the
redesignation request from the State of Ohio for Trumbull, Mahoning and
Columbiana Counties. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of
the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the
state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer needed to submit
second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However,
in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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 Pennsylvanian portion of the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon Area, following EPA's LMP guidance and demonstrating that
the area will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through November 19, 2027,
i.e., through the entire 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
\6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
\7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
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 oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone
formation. In the first maintenance plan for the Pennsylvania portion
of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area, PADEP used 2004 for the
attainment year inventory, because 2004 was one of
[[Page 68828]]
the years in the 2004-2006 three-year period when the area first
attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\8\ The entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
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 July 27, 2007 notice
proposing to redesignate the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area to
attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 41246).
\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 Entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions
County Source category VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer (PA)................................... Point........................... 1.93 1.34
Nonpoint........................ 1.70 16.74
Onroad.......................... 8.21 2.43
Nonroad......................... 1.53 2.76
Columbiana (OH)............................... Point........................... 0.39 0.62
Nonpoint........................ 3.18 5.95
Onroad.......................... 3.69 2.39
Nonroad......................... 1.00 2.28
Mahoning (OH)................................. Point........................... 2.35 1.00
Nonpoint........................ 3.16 10.35
Onroad.......................... 8.15 4.24
Nonroad......................... 2.10 2.61
Trumbull (OH)................................. Point........................... 2.41 2.05
Nonpoint........................ 2.49 7.68
Onroad.......................... 7.87 4.27
Nonroad......................... 2.04 2.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA reviewed the emissions inventory submitted by 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).
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-2020-0320 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
entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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
[[Page 68829]]
2.\12\ In addition, EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient air
quality monitoring data for ozone in the entire Youngtown-Warren-Sharon
Area, as submitted by Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS). The most recent DVs (i.e., 2017-2019) at monitors located
in the entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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-2020-0320.
\13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0320 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values in ppm for the Entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer(PA)................................................. 42-085-0100 0.083 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.073 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.068 0.069 0.068 0.069 0.067
Mercer(PA)................................................. 42-085-9991 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... * 0.066 0.063 0.065 0.066 0.065 0.063
Mahoning(OH)............................................... 39-099-0013 0.079 0.075 0.071 0.069 0.069 0.073 0.070 0.068 0.066 0.063 0.059 0.057 0.061
Trumbull(OH)............................................... 39-155-0009 0.079 0.076 0.075 0.072 0.071 0.073 0.069 0.067 ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Trumbull(OH)............................................... 39-155-0011 0.084 0.081 0.076 0.074 0.074 0.079 0.076 0.072 0.067 0.068 0.068 0.069 0.067
Trumbull(OH)............................................... 39-155-0013 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.066 0.066 0.064
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Mercer County monitor (42-085-9991) began operation on June 1, 2011. Its first valid design was for the 2012-2014 monitoring period.
As can be seen in Table 2, DVs at all monitors located in the
entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area have been well below 85% of the
1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm) since the 2013-2015 period. The
highest DV for the 2017-2019 period at a monitor in the entire
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area is 0.067 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 entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area was 0.006 ppm,
which occurred between the 2009-2011 (0.073 ppm) and 2010-2012 (0.079
ppm) DVs at the monitor located in Mercer PA (AQS ID 42-085-0100).
Adding 0.006 ppm to the highest DV for the 2017-2019 period (0.067 ppm)
results in 0.073 ppm, a sum that is still below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area has maintained air quality
levels 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 entire Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon Area is expected to be 0.0608 ppm.\15\ Therefore, EPA
determines that future violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the
Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained in EPA's July 27, 2007 notice proposing to
redesignate the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area as attainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 41246), the 2004-2006 DV for the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon Area was 0.083 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 its air
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP also
commits to track the attainment status of the Pennsylvania portion of
the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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 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 Pennsylvania
portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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.
EPA previously approved a second maintenance plan for the Ohio
portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area that included contingency
measures for the Ohio portion of the area. 84 FR
[[Page 68830]]
63806 (November 19, 2019). This proposed rulemaking action for the
Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area discusses the
November 19, 2019 final action as background. This proposed rulemaking
is not reopening nor does it solicit any additional comments on EPA's
November 19, 2019 final approval of the second maintenance plan for the
Ohio portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area.
Ohio identified a partial list of contingency measures to be
considered from ``a comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate
and effective at the time the selection is made. The selection of
measures will be based upon cost-effectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social considerations or other factors that
Ohio deems appropriate. Ohio will solicit input from all interested and
affected persons in the maintenance area prior to selecting appropriate
contingency measures.'' 84 FR 42885 (August 19, 2019). The non-
exhaustive list of potential contingency measures identified by Ohio,
and previously approved by EPA, is set forth in EPA's proposal for that
prior action. 84 FR 42885 (August 19, 2019).
PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for
the Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area. In the
event that the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at a
monitor anywhere in the entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area exceeds 84
ppb (equivalent to 0.084 ppm) for two consecutive years, but prior to
an actual violation of the NAAQS, PADEP, in cooperation with the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, will evaluate whether additional local
emission control measures should be implemented that may prevent a
violation of the NAAQS.\16\ After analyzing the conditions causing the
excessive ozone levels, evaluating the effectiveness of potential
corrective measures, and considering the potential effects of Federal,
state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet
implemented, PADEP will begin the process of implementing selected
measures so that they can be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable following a violation of the NAAQS. In the event of a
violation, PADEP commits to adopting additional emission reduction
measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the
schedule included in the contingency plan as well as the CAA and
applicable Pennsylvania statutory requirements. PADEP will use the
following criteria when considering additional emission reduction
measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the
entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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 Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon Area include, but are not limited to, those summarized in
Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an area's 3-year
design value exceeds the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PADEP commits to adopt and implement contingency measures for the
1997 ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania portion the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
Area, as identified in Table 3.
Table 3--Second Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures for the
Pennsylvania Portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regulatory Measures:
Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel
engines).
Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative
fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
Idling reduction technology for Class 2-yard locomotives.
Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: \17\
Additional control on consumer products.\18\
Additional controls on portable fuel containers.\19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency plan includes schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory and regulatory contingency
measures, including schedules for adopting potential land use planning
strategies not listed in Table 3, which are summarized in Tables 4 and
5, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These regulatory measures were considered potential cost-
effective and timely control strategies by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) as well as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. The OTC
is a multi-state organization responsible for developing regional
solutions to ground-level ozone pollution in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic, including the development of model rules that member
states may adopt. OTC member states include: Connecticut, Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia. For more information on the OTC, visit
https://otcair.org/index.asp. To view the model rules developed by
the OTC, including those for consumer products and portable fuel
containers, visit https://otcair.org/document.asp?fview=modelrules.
\18\ Pennsylvania's existing controls on consumer products are
under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapters B and C (38 Pa.B. 5598).
This contingency measure includes the adoption of additional
controls on consumer products such as VOC limits for adhesive
removers.
\19\ Existing controls on portable fuel containers can be found
under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions
from New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.
Table 4--Implementation Schedule for Non-Regulatory Contingency Measures
in the Pennsylvania Portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 68831]]
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 Regulatory Contingency Measures in
the Pennsylvania Portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 rule.
Within 10 months............. PADEP will hold a public hearing and
comment period on proposed rule.
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 rule.
Within 16 months............. EQB meeting/action.
Within 17 months............. The IRCC will take action on final rule.
Within 18 months............. Attorney General's review/action.
Within 19 months............. PADEP will publish the regulatory measure
as a final rule 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 entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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 entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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 Pennsylvania portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area
as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
[[Page 68832]]
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 Pennsylvania portion of
the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon 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: October 22, 2020
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-23781 Filed 10-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P