Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

30544

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

Response 1: The cited statement from the proposal is factually accurate, and EPA does not agree with the commenter that it is unsupported by the air quality data, nor do we agree that the commenter has identified a valid basis for disapproval. As discussed in the February 8, 2021 NPRM, based on the rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, the 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained if the design value is 0.084 parts per million ppm or below see 86 FR 8571; 85% of this standard would be a design value of 0.071 ppm. The data therefore supports EPAs statement in the NPRM that the Tioga County Area has maintained air quality levels below the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area first attained the NAAQS in 2006, and maintained air quality levels at or below 85% of the NAAQS since 2009. It is worth noting that even if the commenters assertion were correct, the Area would have been below 85% of the standard since 2012
and the Areas LMP would still be approvable consistent with EPAs longstanding guidance.4
Comment 2: The commenter also asserts that one of EPAs methods for demonstrating continued future maintenance of the standard specifically, the method that adds the greatest recent design value increase to the current design valueis arbitrary and has no basis in scientific fact. The commenter goes on to assert that not only is the highest increase during a certain point in time in the past not indicative of potential future conditions, but EPA arbitrarily chooses a time period with seemingly no bounds . . .
EPAs use of this arbitrary formula to determine whether an area will not violate the NAAQS at some point in the future is based in science hope, not science fact and EPA should re-evaluate its use in approving the Tioga County Limited Maintenance Plan.
Response 2: As discussed in the February 8, 2021 NPRM, states may demonstrate continued maintenance of the NAAQS by showing stable or improving air quality trends in one or more ways see 86 FR 8571. The method that the commenter refers to was relied on by EPA as additional support that the Tioga County LMP
demonstrates continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Consistent 4 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:15 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

with EPAs long-standing guidance, the primary evidence EPA relied upon in determining that the Area would continue to maintain the standard throughout the ten years of the LMP was the clear downward trend of ozone levels in the Tioga County Area since 2006, including levels at or below 85%
of the NAAQS since 2009.5
Additionally, EPA notes the Tioga County Area is currently in attainment for the more-stringent 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS, which have design values of 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively; and future year design value projections from EPA show that the design value for the Tioga County Area is expected to be 0.0573 ppm see 86 FR 8572. The data cited in the comment, taken together with these other factors, strengthen EPAs considered judgement that the plan adequately demonstrates continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Comment 3: The second commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve the Tioga County Area LMP because it would do something that is not authorized under the rules. The commenter then advances various policy and legal theories that do not appear to be related to hypothetical future litigation in federal court regarding the legality of the Tioga LMP.
The comment makes assertions about what factors the court will consider in resolving this hypothetical action and speculates how the court will rule against EPA.
Response 3: EPA has no knowledge of any lawsuit involving the Tioga LMP in federal court and has not reason to believe any such litigation exists.
Because the comment is addressed to hypothetical litigation, also because EPAs authority to approve this plan is well-established in the NPRM, it is EPAs judgment it has no obligation to respond to commenters speculation as to the actions that EPA will need to take to address the ruling of a hypothetical lawsuit.
IV. Final Action EPA is approving PADEPs second maintenance plan for the Tioga County 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.
5 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices if 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 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
E:FRFM09JNR1.SGM

09JNR1