Je veux savoir à propos de…

24508

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
I. Background On February 9, 2021 86 FR 8729, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking NPRM. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of Pennsylvanias plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area through April 20, 2029, in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by PADEP on February 27, 2020.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis On March 19, 2009 74 FR 11674, effective April 20, 2009, EPA approved a redesignation request and maintenance plan from PADEP for the Clearfield/Indiana Area. In accordance with CAA section 175Ab, 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, and in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA,1 the D.C. Circuit held that this requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the Clearfield/Indiana Area, that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to revocation and that were designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA
has published longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five elements: 1
An attainment emissions inventory; 2
a maintenance demonstration; 3 a commitment for continued air quality monitoring; 4 a process for verification of continued attainment; and 5 a contingency plan.2 PADEPs February 27, 2020 submittal fulfills Pennsylvanias obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and addresses each of the five necessary elements.
As discussed in the February 9, 2021
NPRM, EPA allows the submittal of a limited maintenance plan LMP to meet the statutory requirement that the area will maintain for the statutory period.
Qualifying areas may meet the maintenance demonstration by showing that the areas design value 3 is well 1 882

F.3d 1138 D.C. Cir. 2018.
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment, Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 Calcagni Memo.
3 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 2 Procedures
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

below the NAAQS and that the historical stability of the areas air quality levels indicates that the area is unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated PADEPs February 27, 2020 submittal for consistency with all applicable EPA
guidance and CAA requirements. EPA
found that the submittal met CAA
section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed approval of the LMP for the Clearfield/Indiana Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. Other specific requirements of PADEPs February 27, 2020 submittal and the rationale for EPAs proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
III. EPAs Response to Comments Received EPA received one comment on the February 9, 2021 NPRM. This comment is in the docket for this rulemaking action. A summary of the comment and EPAs response are provided herein.
Comment: The commenter asserts that the LMP should not be approved because Pennsylvania identifies no actual contingency measures.
According to the commenter, a contingency measure is supposed to be a known measure that can be quickly implemented by a state in order to prevent the violation of the NAAQS.
The comment asserts that current contingency measures are defective because they allegedly will not be evaluated and determined until after an exceedance of the NAAQS has occurred.
The comment claims that EPA is aware Pennsylvania has a history of not meeting its CAA requirements on time, and that it can take Pennsylvania more than two years to implement a regulation, which would be too long to prevent a violation of the NAAQS.
Response: The commenter asserts that Pennsylvania identifies no actual contingency measures because the measures are not yet evaluated and determined and cannot be implemented before a violation of the NAAQS occurs. Because Pennsylvania identifies two regulatory and six nonregulatory contingency measures in general terms, EPA understands the comments use of the term evaluated and determined must mean something like the specific measures identified by PADEP have not been fully promulgated and are not in effect at this time. If EPAs understanding is correct, EPA agrees with this fact, but does not agree that this has any bearing on the approvability of the particular is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

contingency measures or of the overall LMP.
PADEP identifies six non-regulatory measures and two regulatory measures.
The two regulatory measures are additional controls on consumer products and portable fuel containers.
The six non-regulatory measures are:
Voluntary diesel engine chip reflash;
diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets; idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives; idling technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities;
accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment; additional promotion of alternative fuel for home heating and agriculture use. As stated in the Calcagni memo, EPAs long-standing interpretation is that contingency measures for maintenance of the NAAQS are not required to be fully adopted in order to be approved. The commenter refers to a recent court case vacating, among other things, the contingency measure provisions in EPAs rule for implementing the 2015
ozone NAAQS, Sierra Club v. EPA, No.
151465 D.C. Cir. January 29, 2021. It is possible that the commenter has conflated the contingency measure provisions at issue in that case, which pertained to attainment plans, and those at issue in this LMP, which pertain to maintenance plans. The contingency measure provisions for maintenance and attainment are found in two different sections of the CAA, with substantially different wording and requirements.
The attainment plan contingency measures provisions in CAA section 172c9 require that the attainment plan have specific measures that can take effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator if the area fails to make reasonable further progress or attain the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7502c9. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the contingency measure requirements for maintenance areas. Section 175Ad requires that the maintenance plan contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area. 42
U.S.C. 7505ad. Unlike section 172c9 there is no requirement under section 175A that the contingency measures be set forth with specificity or that they be able to take effect without further action by EPA or the State.
With this statutory background in mind, EPA does not agree that the plan should be disapproved due to PADEPs alleged inability to promulgate a
E:FRFM07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1