Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 29205 

1 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

2 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni 

Memo). 

3The 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. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

Documents mentioned as being 

available in this docket and all public 

comments, will be in our online docket 

at https://www.regulations.gov and can 

be viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. Additionally, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified of any 

posting or updates to the docket. 

Dated: May 20, 2021. 

Douglas A. Blakemore, 

Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11396 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0553; FRL–10023– 

65–Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Second Maintenance 

Plan for the Erie Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. The 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 Erie, 

Pennsylvania area (‘‘Erie Area’’). EPA is 

approving these revisions to the 

Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0553. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Serena Nichols, 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) 

814–2053. Ms. Nichols can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

Nichols.Serena@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 9, 2021 (86 FR 8722), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM). In the NPRM, EPA 

proposed approval of Pennsylvania’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in the Erie Area through 

November 8, 2027, 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 October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57207, 

effective November 8, 2007), EPA 

approved a redesignation request (and 

maintenance plan) from PADEP for the 

Erie Area. In accordance with CAA 

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, 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 Erie 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 PADEP’s February 

27, 2020 submittal fulfills 

Pennsylvania’s 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 area’s design value 3 is well 

below the NAAQS and that the 

historical stability of the area’s air 

quality levels indicates that the area is 

unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the 

future. EPA evaluated PADEP’s 

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 Erie Area as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP. Other specific 

requirements of PADEP’s February 27, 

2020 submittal and the rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action are explained in 

the NPRM and will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received 

EPA received four comments on the 

February 9, 2021 NPRM but only one 

that was adverse and relevant to this 

action. All comments are in the docket 

for this rule action. A summary of the 

relevant adverse comment and EPA’s 

response is 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 the plan’s 

current contingency measures are 

defective because they allegedly will not 

be evaluated and determined until after 

an exceedance of the NAAQS has 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
29206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

comment’s 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 EPA’s understanding is correct, 

EPA agrees with this fact, but does not 

agree that this has any bearing on the 

approvability of the particular 

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, EPA’s 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 

EPA’s rule for implementing the 2015 

ozone NAAQS, Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 

15–1465 (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 

172(c)(9) 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. 7502(c)(9). Section 

175A of the CAA sets forth the 

contingency measure requirements for 

maintenance areas. Section 175A(d) 

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. 7505a(d). Unlike Section 

172(c)(9), there is not 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 PADEP’s 

ability to promulgate a contingency 

measure in sufficient time to avert a 

violation of the NAAQS. As noted 

previously, CAA section 175A(d) 

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 plan’s 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 commenter’s 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 plan’s contingency 

measures—requiring that the plan 

contain such contingency provisions ‘‘as 

the Administrator deems necessary’’ to 

assure that any violations of the NAAQS 

will be ‘‘promptly’’ corrected. EPA’s 

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 the state’s plan, 

which provides specific lists of 

regulatory and non-regulatory measures 

that the state would consider after 

evaluating and assessing what it 

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 PADEP’s second 

maintenance plan for the Erie 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. 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 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 29207 

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 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. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) 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 August 2, 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 PADEP’s second maintenance 

plan for the Erie Area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

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: May 19, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Second Maintenance Plan for the Erie 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area’’ at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Second Maintenance Plan for the Erie 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Erie Area .......... 2/27/20 6/1/21, [insert Federal Register citation].The Erie area consists solely 

of Erie County. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–11401 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2019–0491; FRL–10023– 

58–Region 9] 

California: Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions; Final Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final authorization; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing corrections to 

the authorization of California’s 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The EPA approved 

revisions to California’s federally 

authorized hazardous waste program 

(specifically, updates to California’s 

Universal Waste program) by publishing 

proposed and final rules in the Federal 

Register on October 18, 2019, and 

January 14, 2020, respectively. On 

March 5, 2021, the Agency published 

and sought public comment on a 

Proposed Rule to correct information 

contained in the October 18, 2019, 

Federal Register proposal and the 

January 14, 2020 approval. No 

comments were received on the 

proposed revisions. This document 

finalizes those corrections. 

DATES: This final authorization is 

effective July 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2019–0491. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Amaro, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne St. (LND–1–1), San 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES