Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations contingency measure in sufficient time to avert a violation of the NAAQS. As noted previously, CAA section 175Ad mandates that a maintenance plan must contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area emphasis added. The statute therefore does not include any requirement that a maintenance plans contingency measures prevent a violation of the NAAQS, but rather only that those selected measures be available to address a violation of the NAAQS after it already occurs. Pennsylvania also elected to adopt a warning level response, which states that PADEP will consider adopting contingency measures if, for two consecutive years, the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at any monitor in the area are above 84 parts per billion ppb.
But this warning level response is not required under the CAA, and therefore we do not agree with the commenter that the plan should be disapproved based on the commenters concern over the timeliness of the warning level response implementation.
Moreover, as a general matter, we do not agree that the schedules for implementation of contingency provisions in the LMP are insufficient.
As noted, the CAA provides some degree of flexibility in assessing a maintenance plans contingency measuresrequiring that the plan contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that any violations of the NAAQS
will be promptly corrected. EPAs longstanding guidance for redesignations, the Calcagni Memo, also does not provide precise parameters for what strictly constitutes prompt implementation of contingency measures, noting that, for purposes of CAA section 175A, a state is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state in order for the maintenance plan to be approved. Calcagni memo at 12.
However, the guidance does state that the plan should ensure that the measures are adopted expediently once they are triggered, and should provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the state. Id. We think Pennsylvanias plan, which provides specific lists of regulatory and non-regulatory measures that Pennsylvania would consider after evaluating and assessing what it
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

believed to be the cause of increased ozone concentrations, and the specific timeframes it would use to expediently implement the various measures, meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
IV. Final Action EPA is approving PADEPs second maintenance plan for the Clearfield/
Indiana Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.;
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.;
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Pub. L. 1044;
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 12d 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
PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

24509

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898
59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 8042.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307b1 of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 6, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, approving PADEPs second maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307b2.
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.

E:FRFM07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1