Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 30543 

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. 

■ 2. Section 9.2 is amended by revising 

paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 9.2 Effective date; applications 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Paragraph (f)(1) of this section 

shall not apply to an application or 

initial premium received after December 

11, 2021. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12017 Filed 6–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0321; FRL–10023– 

81–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: 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 Tioga County, 

Pennsylvania area (Tioga County 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 

9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0321. 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: 

Adam Yarina, 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) 

814–2108. Mr. Yarina can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

Yarina.Adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 8, 2021 (86 FR 8569), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the 

NPRM, EPA proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County 

Area through July 6, 2027, in 

accordance with CAA section 175A. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

PADEP on March 10, 2020. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36892, 

effective same day), EPA approved a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan from PADEP for the Tioga County 

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 Tioga County 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 March 10, 

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 8, 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 March 

10, 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 Tioga 

County Area as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP. 

Other specific requirements of 

PADEP’s March 10, 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 comments on the 

February 8, 2021 NPRM from two 

commenters. All comments received are 

in the docket for this rulemaking action. 

A summary of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided herein. 

The first commenter asserts that EPA 

cannot approve this plan because air 

quality levels were not at or below 85% 

of the NAAQS, and that one of EPA’s 

methods for demonstrating continued 

future maintenance of the NAAQS is 

flawed. 

Comment 1: The commenter asserts 

that EPA cannot approve this plan 

‘‘because the air quality has not been 

below 85% of the NAAQS for the time 

period EPA claims.’’ The commenter 

claims that the following statement in 

EPA’s proposed approval of the limited 

maintenance plan is incorrect: ‘‘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.’’ The commenter 

claims that this statement is refuted by 

EPA’s own data, which shows the air 

quality was at 0.071 for the years 2010– 

2012. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30544 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

4See ‘‘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. 5 Id. 

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 

EPA’s 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 commenter’s assertion 

were correct, the Area would have been 

below 85% of the standard since 2012 

and the Area’s LMP would still be 

approvable consistent with EPA’s longstanding guidance.4

Comment 2: The commenter also 

asserts that one of EPA’s methods for 

demonstrating continued future 

maintenance of the standard— 

specifically, the method that adds the 

greatest recent design value increase to 

the current design value—is ‘‘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 . . . 

EPA’s 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 

with EPA’s 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 EPA’s 

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 

EPA’s authority to approve this plan is 

well-established in the NPRM, it is 

EPA’s judgment it has no obligation to 

respond to commenter’s 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 PADEP’s 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. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s 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. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 30545 

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 9, 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 Tioga County 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 28, 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 the entry 

‘‘Second Maintenance Plan for the State 

College 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 

State College 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Tioga County Area .. 3/10/20 6/9/21, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

The Tioga County area consists 

solely of Tioga County. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–11925 Filed 6–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0596; FRL–10024– 

43–Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised 

RACT Permit for Roanoke Electric 

Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc. 

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 

Virginia. The revision consists of 

amendments to a federally enforceable 

state operating permit (FESOP) which 

was previously incorporated into the 

Virginia SIP in order to implement 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

emissions from Steel Dynamics, Inc. 

(hereafter ‘‘SDI,’’ formerly Roanoke 

Electric Steel). This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0596. 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: 

David Talley, 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) 

814–2117. Mr. Talley can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13254), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. In the 

NPRM, EPA proposed approval of 

Virginia’s submittal. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) on behalf of the 

Commonwealth on April 14, 2020. 

Prior to the establishment of 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS), EPA developed a 

program to allow these potential 

nonattainment areas to voluntarily 

adopt local emission control programs 

to avoid air quality violations and 

mandated nonattainment area controls. 

Areas with air quality meeting the 1979 

1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to 

participate. In order to participate, state 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1