Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 8569 

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). 

2The 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. 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

Deborah Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02535 Filed 2–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0321; FRL–10016– 

97–Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards Second 

Maintenance Plan for the Tioga County 

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 Tioga County, 

Pennsylvania area (Tioga County Area). 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 10, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2020–0321 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.gov. 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 (e.g., 

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: 

Adam Yarina, Planning & 

Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 

The telephone number is (215) 814– 

2108. Mr. Yarina can also be reached via 

electronic mail at yarina.adam@epa.gov. 

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 Tioga County Area 

through July 6, 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. 

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 Tioga 

County Area as nonattainment for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, effective June 15, 

2004. The Tioga County Area consists 

solely of Tioga County in Pennsylvania. 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
8570 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015). 

4 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

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). 

6See ‘‘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. 

7The 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. 

8For more information, see EPA’s May 8, 2007 

notice proposing to redesignate the Tioga County 

Area to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 

FR 26046). 

9For more information, visit https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_

1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx. 

On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36892, 

effective the same day), EPA approved 

a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan from PADEP for the 

Tioga County Area. 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 Tioga County 

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. 

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 Tioga 

County Area, following EPA’s LMP 

guidance and demonstrating that the 

area will maintain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS through July 6, 2027, i.e., 

through the entire 20-year maintenance 

period. 

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 Tioga County Area, PADEP used 

2004 for the attainment year inventory, 

because 2004 was a reasonable year 

within the 2002–2004 3-year block and 

is one of the years in the 2003–2005 

three-year period when the area first 

attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.8 The 

Tioga County 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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 8571 

10The 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. 

11This resource document is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03– 

OAR–2020–0316 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. 

12See 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– 

2020–0316. 

13This data is also included in the docket for this 

rulemaking available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR– 

2020–0316 and is also available at https://

www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report. 

TABLE 1—2014 TYPICAL SUMMER DAY NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE TIOGA COUNTY AREA

[Tons/day] 

Source category NOX emissions VOC emissions 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.16 0.27 

Nonpoint ................................................................................................................................................... 1.72 3.43 

Onroad ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.41 1.23 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................................... 0.86 1.31 

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. 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 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 (i.e., below 

85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm), 

the section 175A demonstration 

requirement has been met, provided that 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) 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). 

For the purposes of demonstrating 

continued maintenance with the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, PADEP provided 3-year 

DVs at the monitor located in the Tioga 

County Area from 2007 to 2018. This 

includes DVs 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 2.12 In addition, EPA has 

reviewed the most recent ambient air 

quality monitoring data for ozone in the 

Tioga County 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 Tioga County Area are 

also shown in Table 2.13

TABLE 2—1997 OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES (PARTS PER MILLION [PPM]) FOR THE TIOGA COUNTY AREA

County AQS Site ID 2005– 

2007 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 

2009– 

2011 

2010– 

2012 

2011– 

2013 

2012– 

2014 

2013– 

2015 

2014– 

2016 

2015– 

2017 

2016– 

2018 

2017– 

2019 

Tioga ........................ 42–117–4000 ........................ .075 .073 .070 .070 .069 .071 .069 .065 .063 .063 .064 .064 .060 

The data in Table 2 show that the DVs 

for the Tioga County Area have been 

below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

(i.e., less than or equal to 0.071 ppm) 

since the 2007–2009 period. The DV for 

the 2017–2019 period at the monitor in 

the Tioga County Area is 0.060 ppm, 

which is well below 85% of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

States can also support the 

demonstration of continued 

maintenance by showing stable or 

improving air quality trends; several 

kinds of analyses can be performed by 

states wishing to make such a showing, 

according to EPA’s 2018 Resource 

Document. One approach is to take the 

most recent DV at a monitor located in 

the area and add the maximum DV 

increase over one or more consecutive 

years that has been observed in the area 

over the past several years. A sum of 

these two values that does not exceed 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
8572 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

14As explained in EPA’s May 8, 2007 notice 

proposing to redesignate the Tioga County Area as 

attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 

26046), the 2003–2005 DV for the Tioga County 

Area was 0.081 ppm. 

15See 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-qualitymodeling-technical-support-document-updated2023-projected-ozone-design. 

16A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an 

area’s 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS. 

the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS may 

be a good indicator of expected 

continued attainment. The data in Table 

2 of this document show that the largest 

DV increase at the monitor located in 

the Tioga County Area was 0.002 ppm, 

which occurred between the 2009–2011 

(0.069 ppm) and 2010–2012 (0.071 ppm) 

DVs. Adding 0.002 ppm to the DV for 

the 2017–2019 period (0.060 ppm) 

results in 0.062 ppm, a sum that is still 

below the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

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 2009.14

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 DV at the monitor 

located in the Tioga County Area is 

expected to be 0.0573 ppm.15 Therefore, 

EPA proposes to determine that future 

violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 

the Tioga County Area are unlikely. 

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 Tioga County 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 Tioga County 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 

Tioga County Area. In the event that the 

fourth highest eight-hour ozone 

concentrations at a monitor in the Tioga 

County Area exceeds 84 ppb (equivalent 

to 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. 

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 Tioga County 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 Tioga 

County Area include, but are not limited 

to, those summarized in Table 3. If 

additional emission reductions are 

necessary, PADEP commits to adopt 

additional emission reduction measures 

to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

TABLE 3—TIOGA COUNTY 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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 8573 

17These 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. 

18Pennsylvania’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. 

19Existing controls on portable fuel containers 

can be found under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F— 

Control of Evaporative Emissions From New and InUse Portable Fuel Containers. 

TABLE 3—TIOGA COUNTY AREA SECOND MAINTENANCE PLAN CONTINGENCY MEASURES—Continued 

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, 

which are summarized in Tables 4 and 

5, respectively. 

TABLE 4—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR TIOGA COUNTY 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. 

Within 3 months ................... If funding is necessary, PADEP will identify potential sources of funding and the timeframe for when funds would 

be available. 

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 TIOGA 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 rulemaking. 

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 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 five of 

the potential contingency measures 

included in the Commonwealth’s 

second maintenance plan are nonregulatory, 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 Tioga County 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). An 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
8574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Tioga County 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 Tioga County 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. 

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 Tioga County 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, Intergovernmentalrelations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organiccompounds. 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02558 Filed 2–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2020–0719; FRL–10019– 

44–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 

Regulations To Limit Premises-Wide 

Actual and Potential Emissions From 

Major Stationary Sources of Air 

Pollution 

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 State of 

Connecticut. This revision proposes to 

approve into the Connecticut SIP state 

regulations that apply restrictions on 

emissions of criteria pollutants for 

which EPA has established National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Separately, we are also proposing to 

approve Connecticut regulations that 

apply restrictions on emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The 

Connecticut regulations impose legally 

and practicably enforceable emissions 

limitations restricting eligible sources’ 

actual and potential emissions below 

major stationary source thresholds, if a 

source chooses to be covered by the 

regulations. Such restrictions would 

generally allow eligible sources to avoid 

having to comply with reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

that would otherwise apply to major 

stationary sources, title V operating 

permit requirements, or other 

requirements that apply only to major 

stationary sources. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 10, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2020–0719 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

bird.patrick@epa.gov. 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, the 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS