Air Plan Approval; Maine and New Hampshire; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements, 30854-30860 [2021-12079]
Download as PDF
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30854
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
easterly and southerly along the
shoreline to latitude 38°17′01.54″ N,
longitude 076°37′52.24″ W; thence
westerly terminating at point of origin.
(5) Spectator area—(i) Northeast
spectator fleet area. The area is bounded
by a line commencing at position
latitude 38°16′59.10″ N, longitude
076°37′45.60″ W, thence northeasterly
to latitude 38°17′01.76″ N, longitude
076°37′43.71″ W, thence southeasterly
to latitude 38°16′59.23″ N, longitude
076°37′37.25″ W, thence southwesterly
to latitude 38°16′53.32″ N, longitude
076°37′40.85″ W, thence northwesterly
to latitude 38°16′55.48″ N, longitude
076°37′46.39″ W, thence northeasterly
to latitude 38°16′58.61″ N, longitude
076°37′44.29″ W, thence northwesterly
to point of origin.
(ii) Southeast spectator fleet area. The
area is bounded by a line commencing
at position latitude 38°16′47.20″ N,
longitude 076°37′54.80″ W, thence
southerly to latitude 38°16′43.30″ N,
longitude 076°37′55.20″ W, thence
easterly to latitude 38°16′43.20″ N,
longitude 076°37′47.80″ W, thence
northerly to latitude 38°16′44.80″ N,
longitude 076°37′48.20″ W, thence
northwesterly to point of origin.
(iii) South spectator fleet area. The
area is bounded by a line commencing
at position latitude 38°16′55.36″ N,
longitude 076°38′17.26″ W, thence
southeasterly to latitude 38°16′50.39″ N,
longitude 076°38′03.69″ W, thence
southerly to latitude 38°16′48.87″ N,
longitude 076°38′03.68″ W, thence
northwesterly to latitude 38°16′53.82″
N, longitude 076°38′17.28″ W, thence
northerly to point of origin.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section:
Buffer area is a neutral area that
surrounds the perimeter of the race area
within the regulated area described by
this section. The purpose of a buffer
area is to minimize potential collision
conflicts with marine event participants
or race boats and spectator vessels or
nearby transiting vessels. This area
provides separation between a race area
and specified spectator areas or other
vessels that are operating in the vicinity
of the regulated area established by the
special local regulations in this section.
Captain of the Port (COTP) MarylandNational Capital Region means the
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region or
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been authorized
by the COTP to act on his behalf.
Event Patrol Commander or Event
PATCOM means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region.
Milling area is an area described by a
line bound by coordinates provided in
latitude and longitude that outlines the
boundary of a milling area within the
regulated area defined by this section.
The area is used before a demonstration
start to warm up the boats engines.
Official patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region with a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer on board and
displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
Participant means a person or vessel
registered with the event sponsor as
participating in the Southern Maryland
Boat Club Leonardtown Regatta or
otherwise designated by the event
sponsor as having a function tied to the
event.
Race area is an area described by a
line bound by coordinates provided in
latitude and longitude that outlines the
boundary of a high-speed power boat
demonstration area within the regulated
area defined by this section.
Spectator means a person or vessel
not registered with the event sponsor as
participants or assigned as official
patrols and is present with the purpose
of observing the event.
Spectator area is an area described by
a line bound by coordinates provided in
latitude and longitude that outlines the
boundary of a spectator area within the
regulated area defined by this section.
(c) Special local regulations. (1) The
COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region or Event PATCOM may forbid
and control the movement of all vessels
and persons, including event
participants, in the regulated area.
When hailed or signaled by an official
patrol, a vessel or person in the
regulated area shall immediately
comply with the directions given by the
patrol. Failure to do so may result in the
Coast Guard expelling the person or
vessel from the area, issuing a citation
for failure to comply, or both. The COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or
Event PATCOM may terminate the
event, or a participant’s operations at
any time the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or Event PATCOM
believes it necessary to do so for the
protection of life or property.
(2) Except for participants and vessels
already at berth, a person or vessel
within the regulated area at the start of
enforcement of this section must
immediately depart the regulated area.
(3) A spectator must contact the Event
PATCOM to request permission to
either enter or pass through the
regulated area. The Event PATCOM, and
official patrol vessels enforcing this
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulated area, can be contacted on
marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1
MHz). If permission is granted, the
spectator must pass directly through the
regulated area as instructed by Event
PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated
area must operate at safe speed that
minimizes wake.
(4) Only participant vessels and
official patrol vessels are allowed to
enter the race area and milling area.
(5) Only participant vessels and
official patrol vessels are allowed to
enter and transit directly through the
buffer area, in order to arrive at or
depart from the race area.
(6) A person or vessel that desires to
transit, moor, or anchor within the
regulated area must obtain authorization
from the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or PATCOM. A person or
vessel seeking such permission can
contact the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region at telephone number
410–576–2693 or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band
Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz).
(7) The Coast Guard will publish a
notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District
Local Notice to Mariners and issue a
marine information broadcast on VHF–
FM marine band radio announcing
specific event date and times.
(d) Enforcement officials. The Coast
Guard may be assisted with marine
event patrol and enforcement of the
regulated area by other Federal, State,
and local agencies.
(e) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on July 31, 2021, and from 7 a.m. to 6
p.m. on August 1, 2021.
Dated: June 4, 2021.
David E. O’Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021–12168 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2021–0250; FRL–10024–
67–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Maine and New
Hampshire; 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Interstate Transport Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in
other states. The States of Maine and
New Hampshire each made submissions
to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to address these requirements for
the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submissions
for each state as meeting the
requirement that each SIP contain
adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 12, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2021–0250 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@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 (i.e.
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. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1684, email
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Maine Submission
III. New Hampshire Submission
IV. EPA Evaluation of the States’ Submittals
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated
a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015
ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of
both the primary and secondary
standards to 0.070 parts per million
(ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit, within 3 years
after promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable
requirements is found in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which
generally requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain
adverse air quality effects on other states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
There are four so-called ‘‘prongs’’
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i);
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs
1 and 2. Under prongs 1 and 2 of the
good neighbor provision, a SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting
air pollutants in amounts that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). EPA and states must give
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Although the level of the standard is specified in
the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also
described in parts per billion (ppb). For example,
0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb.
2 SIP revisions that are intended to meet the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the applicable elements under section
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30855
independent significance to prong 1 and
prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).3
We note that EPA has addressed the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to prior ozone NAAQS in
several regional regulatory actions,
including the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which addressed
interstate transport with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
standards,4 the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most
recently, the Revised CSAPR Update for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6
Through the development and
implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the
good neighbor provision,7 EPA, working
in partnership with states, developed
the following four-step interstate
transport framework to address the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1)
Identify downwind air quality
problems; (2) identify upwind states
that impact those downwind air quality
problems sufficiently such that they are
considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore
warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions
necessary (if any), considering airquality and cost factors, to prevent
linked upwind states identified in step
2 from contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
EPA has released several documents
containing information relevant to
evaluating interstate transport with
3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
911 (2008).
4 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
5 Wisconsin v. EPA remanded the CSAPR Update
to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next
applicable attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with the NAAQS,
as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
6 The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQs (86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021)) was signed by the EPA
Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded
to the remand of the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504
October 26, 2016)) and the vacatur of a separate
rule, the CSAPR Close-Out (83 FR 65878 (December
21, 2018)) by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA,
938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781
F. App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
7 In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other
regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27,
1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
30856
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First,
on January 6, 2017, EPA published a
notice of data availability (NODA) with
preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design
values (DVs) for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform, on which we requested
public comment.8 In the NODA, EPA
used the year 2023 as the analytic year
for this preliminary modeling because
that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.9 On October 27, 2017, we
released a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response
to comments on the NODA, and noted
that the modeling may be useful for
states developing SIPs to address good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.10 On March 27, 2018, we
issued a memorandum (March 2018
memorandum) noting that the same
2023 modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum could also be useful for
identifying potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the
four-step interstate transport framework.
The March 2018 memorandum also
included the then newly available
contribution modeling results to assist
states in evaluating their impact on
potential downwind air quality
problems for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
under step 2 of the interstate transport
framework. EPA subsequently issued
two more memoranda in August and
October 2018, providing additional
information to states developing good
neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015
ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively,
potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply in step 2
of the framework, and considerations for
identifying downwind areas that may
have problems maintaining the standard
at step 1 of the framework.11
8 See Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
9 82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017).
10 See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the
docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
11 See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for
Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August
2018 memorandum’’), and Considerations for
Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised
CSAPR Update, EPA released and
accepted public comment on updated
2023 modeling that used a 2016
emissions platform developed under
EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
(MJO)/state collaborative project as the
primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.12 On March
15, 2021, EPA signed the final Revised
CSAPR Update using the same modeling
released at proposal.13 Although Maine
and New Hampshire relied on the
modeling included in the March 2018
memo to develop their SIP submissions
as EPA had suggested, EPA now
proposes to primarily rely on the
updated and newly available 2016 base
year modeling in evaluating these
submissions. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most
current and technically appropriate
information as the primary basis for this
proposed rulemaking. EPA’s
independent analysis, which also
evaluated historical monitoring data,
recent DVs, and emissions trends, found
that such information provides
additional support and further
substantiates the results of the 2016 base
year modeling as the basis for this
proposed rulemaking. Section III of this
notice and the Air Quality Modeling
technical support document (TSD)
included in the docket for this proposal
contain additional detail on this
modeling.14
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and
the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used a
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS
to determine whether a given upwind
state was ‘‘linked’’ at step 2 of the
interstate transport framework and
would, therefore, contribute to
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions
for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, October 19, 2018, available in the docket
for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/meme-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs.
12 See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the
docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public review in the docket
for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2020–0272).
13 See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30,
2021).
14 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update,’’ 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021),
available in the docket for this action. This TSD was
originally developed to support EPA’s action in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding
good neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. While developed in this separate context,
the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be
evaluated with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
and used in support of this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites identified in step 1. If
a state’s impact did not equal or exceed
the one percent threshold, the upwind
state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a downwind
air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a state’s
impact equaled or exceeded the one
percent threshold, the state’s emissions
were further evaluated in step 3,
considering both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions might be deemed
‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must be
eliminated under the good neighbor
provision. EPA is proposing to rely on
the one percent threshold for the
purpose of evaluating Maine and New
Hampshire’s contributions to
nonattainment or maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions
address the issue of the relevant analytic
year for the purposes of evaluating
ozone transport air-quality problems.
On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA,
remanding the CSAPR Update to the
extent that it failed to require upwind
states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with
the NAAQS, as established under CAA
section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313.
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA
that cited the Wisconsin decision in
holding that EPA must assess the impact
of interstate transport on air quality at
the next downwind attainment date,
including Marginal area attainment
dates, in evaluating the basis for EPA’s
denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185,
1203–04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court
noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and,
therefore, ‘‘EPA must find a violation [of
section 126] if an upwind source will
significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment at the next downwind
attainment deadline. Therefore, the
agency must evaluate downwind air
quality at that deadline, not at some
later date.’’ Id. at 1204 (emphasis
added). EPA interprets the court’s
holding in Maryland as requiring the
Agency, under the good neighbor
provision, to assess downwind air
quality by the next applicable
attainment date, including a Marginal
area attainment date under CAA section
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
181 for ozone nonattainment.15 The
Marginal area attainment date for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.16
Historically, EPA has considered the
full ozone season prior to the attainment
as supplying an appropriate analytic
year for assessing good neighbor
obligations. While this would be 2020
for an August 2021 attainment date
(which falls within the 2021 ozone
season running from May 1 to
September 30), in this circumstance,
when the 2020 ozone season is wholly
in the past, it is appropriate to focus on
2021 to address good neighbor
obligations to the extent possible by the
2021 attainment date. EPA does not
believe it would be appropriate to select
an analytical year that is wholly in the
past, because the agency interprets the
good neighbor provision as forward
looking. See 86 FR 23054 at 23074; see
also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322.
Consequently, in this proposal EPA will
use the analytical year of 2021 to
evaluate Maine and New Hampshire’s
good neighbor obligations with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Maine Submission
On February 6, 2020, Maine
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
Maine relied on the results of EPA’s
modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
contained in the March 2018
memorandum to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in Maine in the
year 2023. These results indicate
Maine’s greatest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor would be 0.01
ppb in Suffolk County, New York
(monitoring site 361030002). Maine
compared this value to a screening
threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Because Maine’s impacts to receptors in
downwind states are projected to be less
15 We note that the court in Maryland did not
have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which
EPA may determine that an upwind linkage to a
downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and
2 of the interstate transport framework by a
particular attainment date, but for reasons of
impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency is
unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by
that date. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C.
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient
showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good
neighbor provision. Such circumstances are not at
issue in the present proposal.
16 CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303;
Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 83
FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
than 0.70 ppb in 2023, Maine concluded
that emissions from sources within the
state will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
III. New Hampshire Submission
On September 5, 2018, New
Hampshire submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. This ‘‘good neighbor SIP’’ was
included as an enclosure in the state’s
infrastructure SIP for the same NAAQS.
New Hampshire relied on the results
of EPA’s modeling for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS contained in the March 2018
memorandum to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in New
Hampshire in the year 2023. These
results indicate New Hampshire’s
greatest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor would be 0.06
ppb in Queens County, New York
(monitoring site 360810124). New
Hampshire compared this value to a
screening threshold of 0.70 ppb,
representing one percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Because New
Hampshire’s impacts to receptors in
downwind states are projected to be less
than 0.70 ppb in 2023,17 New
Hampshire concluded that emissions
from sources within the state will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
New Hampshire’s September 2018
good neighbor SIP submission also lists
New Hampshire’s regulations for
controlling emissions of ozone
precursors as well as its regional
emissions-control strategies. These
include Env-A 619, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD), and
Env-A 618, Nonattainment New Source
Review (NNSR) (82 FR 24057; May 25,
2017); and Env-A 2300, Mitigation of
Regional Haze (77 FR 50602; August 22,
2012).
IV. EPA Evaluation of the States’
Submittals
Maine and New Hampshire’s SIP
submissions both rely on analysis of the
17 New Hampshire incorrectly stated in its
September 2018 good neighbor SIP submission that
the state’s highest projected contribution for 2023
to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor is 6 ppb; the modeled value should be 0.06
ppb as correctly shown in Table 1 of the
submission. New Hampshire also incorrectly stated
in their submission that 7 ppb, rather than 0.70 ppb,
is 1% of the NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30857
year 2023 to show that each state does
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. However, given the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland,
analysis of that year is no longer
sufficient where the next attainment
date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is in
2021.18 Nonetheless, the analysis EPA
conducted for the 2021 analytical year
corroborates the conclusion reached in
each state’s submission.
As stated in Section I of this notice,
in consideration of the holdings in
Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA’s
analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant
attainment year for evaluating a State’s
good neighbor obligations with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS using the
four-step interstate transport framework.
In step 1, we identify locations where
the Agency expects there to be
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the 2021 analytic future year. Where
EPA’s analysis shows that an area or site
does not fall under the definition of a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in 2021, that site is excluded from
further analysis under EPA’s four step
interstate transport framework.19 For
areas that are identified as a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in 2021, we proceed to the next step of
our four-step framework by identifying
the upwind state’s contribution to those
receptors.
EPA’s approach to identifying ozone
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent
with the approach used in previous
transport rulemakings. EPA’s approach
gives independent consideration to both
the ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
18 We recognize that Maine, New Hampshire, and
other states may have been influenced by EPA’s
2018 guidance memos (issued prior to the
Wisconsin and Maryland decisions) in making good
neighbor submissions that relied on EPA’s
modeling of 2023. When there are intervening
changes in relevant law or legal interpretation of
CAA requirements, states are generally free to
withdraw, supplement, and/or re-submit their SIP
submissions with new analysis (in compliance with
CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While
neither Maine nor New Hampshire has done this,
as explained in this section, the independent
analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion
confirms that the states’ submissions in this
instance are ultimately approvable.
19 While EPA has focused its analysis in this
notice on the year 2021, modeling data in the record
for years 2023 and 2028 confirm that no new
linkages to downwind receptors are projected for
these states in later years. This is not surprising as
it is consistent with an overall, long-term
downward trend in emissions from these states.
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
30858
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D.C. Circuit’s direction in North
Carolina.20
For the purpose of this proposal, EPA
identifies nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites that are projected
to have average design values that
exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the
most recent monitored design values.
This approach is consistent with prior
transport rulemakings, such as CSAPR
Update, where EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those areas
that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that EPA projects
will be in nonattainment in the future
analytic year.21
In addition, in this proposal, EPA
identifies a receptor to be a
‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes of
defining interference with maintenance,
consistent with the method used in the
CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit
in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir.
2015).22 Specifically, monitoring sites
with a projected maximum design value
in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are
considered maintenance receptors.
EPA’s method of defining these
receptors takes into account both
measured data and reasonable
projections based on modeling analysis.
Recognizing that nonattainment
receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses
the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to refer to
receptors that are not also
nonattainment receptors. Consistent
with the methodology described above,
monitoring sites with a projected
maximum design value that exceeds the
NAAQS, but with a projected average
design value that is below the NAAQS,
are identified as maintenance-only
receptors. In addition, those sites that
are currently measuring ozone
concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS, but are projected to
be nonattainment based on the average
design value and that, by definition, are
projected to have a maximum design
value above the standard are also
identified as maintenance-only
receptors.
20 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that EPA must
give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
21 See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 86 FR
23054 (April 30, 2021). This same concept, relying
on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in
CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 14, 2005). See also
North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913–914 (affirming as
reasonable EPA’s approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
22 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR
Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this
approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and
See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
To evaluate future air quality in steps
1 and 2 of the interstate transport
framework, EPA is using the 2016 and
2023 base case emissions developed
under EPA/MJO/state collaborative
emissions modeling platform project as
the primary source for base year and
2023 future year emissions data for this
proposal.23 Because this platform does
not include emissions for 2021, EPA
developed an interpolation technique
based on modeling for 2023 and
measured ozone data to determine
ozone concentrations for 2021. To
estimate average and maximum design
values for 2021, EPA first performed air
quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with
the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values
in 2021. Details on the modeling,
including the interpolation
methodology, can be found in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD, found in the
docket of this proposal.
To quantify the contribution of
emissions from specific upwind states
on 2021 8-hour design values for the
identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, EPA first
performed nationwide, state-level ozone
source apportionment modeling for
2023. The source apportionment
modeling provided contributions to
ozone from precursor emissions of
anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in each state, individually. The modeled
contributions were then applied in a
relative sense to the 2021 average design
value to estimate the contributions in
2021 from each state to each receptor.
Details on the source apportionment
modeling and the methods for
determining contributions in 2021 are in
the Air Quality Modeling TSD in the
docket.
The 2021 design values and
contributions were examined to
determine if Maine and New
Hampshire, considered separately,
contribute at or above the threshold of
one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(0.70 ppb) to any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor.
The data 24 indicate that the highest
contribution in 2021 from Maine to a
23 See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results
of this modeling are included in a spreadsheet in
the docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public access in the docket for
the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–
0272).
24 The data are given in the ‘‘Air Quality
Modeling Technical Support Document for the
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update’’ and
‘‘Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised
CSAPR Update.xlsx,’’ which are included in the
docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor is 0.01 ppb to a
maintenance receptor in Fairfield
County, Connecticut (monitoring site
90013007), and, from New Hampshire,
is 0.10 ppb to the same downwind
receptor. The data also show modeled
ozone contributions from Maine and
New Hampshire to the design values of
a larger set of monitoring sites
(independent of attainment status) and
indicate that the highest projected
contribution in 2021 from Maine to any
of these sites is 0.12 ppb to monitors in
Putnam and Westchester Counties in
New York (monitoring sites 360790005
and 361192004; #307 and #314 on the
Design Values and Contributions
spreadsheet), and, from New
Hampshire, is 1.46 ppb to the monitor
in Knox County, Maine (monitoring site
230130004; #226 on the Design Values
and Contributions spreadsheet). While
New Hampshire’s modeled contribution
to the Knox County monitor exceeds
one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
EPA’s analysis at step 1 does not
identify the Knox County monitor as a
downwind area that may have problems
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The Knox County monitor’s projected
design value in 2021 is 57.4 ppb.
EPA also analyzed emissions trends
for ozone precursors in Maine and New
Hampshire to support the findings from
the air quality analysis. In evaluating
emissions trends, we first reviewed the
information submitted by each state and
then reviewed additional information
available to the Agency. We focused on
state-wide emissions of nitrogen oxides
and volatile organic compounds.25 26
Emissions from mobile sources, electric
generating units (‘‘EGUs’’), industrial
facilities, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major
anthropogenic sources of ozone
precursors. This evaluation looks at
both past emissions trends, as well as
projected trends.
As shown in Table 1, for Maine,
between 2016 and 2023, annual total
NOX and VOC emissions are projected
to decline by 38 percent and 20 percent,
respectively. For New Hampshire,
between 2016 and 2023, annual total
NOX and VOC emissions are projected
to decline by 36 percent and 15 percent,
respectively. The projected reductions
are a result of the implementation of
existing control programs that will
continue to decrease NOX and VOC
emissions in Maine and New
25 This is because ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly into the air but is formed by
chemical reactions between ozone precursors,
chiefly NOX and non-methane VOCs, in the
presence of sunlight.
26 81 FR 74504, 74513–14.
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
30859
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Hampshire, as indicated by EPA’s most
recent 2021 and 2023 projected
emissions.
As shown in Table 2, onroad and
nonroad mobile source emissions
collectively comprise a large portion of
each state’s total anthropogenic NOX
and VOC. For example, in 2019, NOX
emissions from mobile sources in Maine
comprised 52 percent of total NOX
emissions and 48 percent of total VOC
emissions. In New Hampshire for that
same year, NOX emissions from mobile
sources comprised 54 percent of total
NOX emissions and 45 percent of total
VOC emissions.
The large decrease in NOX emissions
between 2016 emissions and projected
2023 emissions in each state is
primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from onroad and nonroad
mobile sources. EPA projects that both
VOC and NOX emissions will continue
declining out to 2023 as newer vehicles
and engines that are subject to the most
recent, stringent mobile source
standards replace older vehicles and
engines.27
In summary, there is no evidence to
suggest that the overall emissions trend
demonstrated in Table 1 in either state
will suddenly reverse or spike in 2021
compared to historical emissions levels
or those projected for 2023. Further,
there is no evidence that the projected
ozone precursor emissions trends out to
2023 and beyond would not continue to
show a decline in emissions. In
addition, EPA’s normal practice is to
include in our modeling only changes in
NOX or VOC emissions that result from
final regulatory actions. Any potential
changes in NOX or VOC emissions that
may result from possible future or
proposed regulatory actions are
speculative.
This downward trend in emissions in
Maine and New Hampshire adds
support to the air quality analyses
presented above for each state, and
indicates that the contributions from
emissions from sources in Maine and
New Hampshire to ozone receptors in
downwind states will continue to
decline and, for each state, remain
below one percent of the NAAQS.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Tons per year] 28
2011
ME NOx .................
ME VOC ................
NH NOx .................
NH VOC ................
59,773
64,079
36,554
45,859
2012
57,292
61,860
37,065
44,159
2013
2014
54,812
59,641
37,577
42,459
52,332
57,422
38,086
40,731
2015
51,871
54,686
35,025
38,275
2016
49,148
49,630
30,775
34,234
2017
49,889
48,284
28,530
33,026
2018
48,440
47,024
27,408
31,928
2019
46,542
45,665
25,680
31,193
Projected
2021
Projected
2023
33,996
41,197
21,822
29,640
30,536
39,562
19,579
28,872
TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD VEHICLES IN MAINE AND NEW
HAMPSHIRE
[Tons per year]
2011
ME .........................
NOx ........................
ME VOC ................
NH NOx .................
NH VOC ................
41,601
40,376
26,038
25,314
2012
38,861
38,091
24,979
24,184
2013
36,122
35,805
23,921
23,054
33,382
33,519
22,862
21,924
2015
31,465
30,884
20,835
20,027
2016
27,286
25,929
17,619
16,544
2017
26,570
24,683
16,408
15,895
2018
25,714
23,423
15,022
14,796
2019
24,005
22,064
13,970
14,062
Projected
2021
17,841
18,037
10,776
11,947
Projected
2023
16,214
16,499
9,878
11,277
As discussed in Sections II and III,
Maine and New Hampshire have each
concluded that emissions from sources
in their individual state will not
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state. Each state
submission reached this conclusion by
relying on information for the analytic
year 2023. As discussed above, the
Wisconsin and Maryland decisions of
the D.C. Circuit have made clear that the
good neighbor analysis for the 2015
ozone NAAQS must focus on the next
attainment date, and that date is the
Marginal area attainment date in 2021.
Therefore, EPA conducted additional
analysis to determine whether each
state’s conclusions would remain valid
in 2021 rather than 2023. EPA’s
evaluation of measured and monitored
data, including interpolating values to
generate a reasonable expectation of air
quality and contribution values in 2021,
as discussed in Section IV, is consistent
with conclusions made by Maine and
New Hampshire that, with each state
considered separately, emissions from
sources in each state will not contribute
to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. Because our analysis
corroborates each state’s conclusion that
emissions from within its state do not
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in another state, we propose to
approve the Maine and New Hampshire
submissions as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is soliciting public comments on
this notice. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
27 Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel
Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR 8428,
February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Clean
Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29,
2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098,
May 6, 2008); Marine Spark-Ignition and Small
Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR 59034, October
8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR
22895, April 30, 2010); and Aircraft and Aircraft
Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342, June 18,
2012).
28 The annual emissions data for the years 2011
through 2019 were obtained from EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. Note that emissions from
miscellaneous sources are not included in the state
totals. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based
on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See
‘‘2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State
Tier1 Emissions’’ and the Emissions Modeling TSD
in the docket for this action.
Thus, EPA’s air quality and emissions
analyses indicate that emissions from
Maine or from New Hampshire, with
each state considered individually, will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state in 2021.
V. Proposed Action
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2014
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
30860
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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);
• 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 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
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: June 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
[FR Doc. 2021–12079 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
use of commercial satellite services in
what are currently non-Federal satellite
bands and enable more robust federal
use of the 399.9–400.05 MHz band.
Comments are due on or before
July 12, 2021; reply comments are due
on or before August 9, 2021.
DATES:
You may submit comments,
identified by ET Docket No. 13–115, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 87, and 90
[ET Docket No. 13–115; RM 11341; FCC 21–
44; FR ID 27947]
Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal
Space Launch Operations
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) takes steps towards
establishing a spectrum allocation and
licensing framework that will provide
regulatory certainty and improved
efficiency and that will promote
innovation and investment in the
United States commercial space launch
industry. In the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
seeks comment on the definition of
space launch operations, the potential
allocation of spectrum for the
commercial space launch industry,
including the 420–430 MHz, 2025–2110
MHz, and 5650–5925 MHz bands. In
addition, the Commission seeks
comment on establishing service rules,
including licensing and technical rules
and coordination procedures, for the use
of spectrum for commercial space
launch operations. Finally, the
Commission seeks to refresh the record
on potential ways to facilitate Federal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering
and Technology, at (202) 418–0636 or
Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov; Peter
Trachtenberg, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at
Peter.Trachtenberg@fcc.gov or 202–418–
7369; or Kimberly Baum, International
Bureau, at Kimberly.Baum@fcc.gov or
202–418–2752. For information
regarding the PRA information
collection requirements contained in
this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office
of Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918
or Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), ET
Docket No. 13–115, FCC 21–44, adopted
and released on April 22, 2020. This
document is available by downloading
the text from the Commission’s website
at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccseeks-make-spectrum-availablecommercial-space-launches-0. When
the FCC Headquarters reopens to the
public, the full text of this document
also will be available for public
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format) by sending an email to FCC504@
fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30854-30860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12079]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0250; FRL-10024-67-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Maine and New Hampshire; 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Interstate Transport Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30855]]
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The
States of Maine and New Hampshire each made submissions to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for
the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submissions for each state as meeting the
requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 12, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2021-0250 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. 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 (i.e. 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Maine Submission
III. New Hampshire Submission
IV. EPA Evaluation of the States' Submittals
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these
applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2. Under prongs 1 and 2 of the
good neighbor provision, a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in amounts that
will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). EPA and states must give independent significance to
prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air quality problems under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
\2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that EPA has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\4\ the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most recently, the Revised
CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\5\ Wisconsin v. EPA remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it
failed to require upwind states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable attainment date by which
downwind states must come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d
303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
\6\ The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQs (86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021)) was signed by the
EPA Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded to the remand of
the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504 October 26, 2016)) and the vacatur of
a separate rule, the CSAPR Close-Out (83 FR 65878 (December 21,
2018)) by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C.
Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the development and implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\7\ EPA,
working in partnership with states, developed the following four-step
interstate transport framework to address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify downwind air
quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind
air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered
``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), considering air-
quality and cost factors, to prevent linked upwind states identified in
step 2 from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air
quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures
needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the NOX
SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has released several documents containing information relevant
to evaluating interstate transport with
[[Page 30856]]
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, EPA
published a notice of data availability (NODA) with preliminary
interstate ozone transport modeling with projected ozone design values
(DVs) for 2023 using a 2011 base year platform, on which we requested
public comment.\8\ In the NODA, EPA used the year 2023 as the analytic
year for this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the
expected attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ On October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum
(2017 memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response to comments on the NODA, and
noted that the modeling may be useful for states developing SIPs to
address good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On
March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (March 2018 memorandum) noting
that the same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017 memorandum could
also be useful for identifying potential downwind air quality problems
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step
interstate transport framework. The March 2018 memorandum also included
the then newly available contribution modeling results to assist states
in evaluating their impact on potential downwind air quality problems
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS under step 2 of the interstate transport
framework. EPA subsequently issued two more memoranda in August and
October 2018, providing additional information to states developing
good neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate
to apply in step 2 of the framework, and considerations for identifying
downwind areas that may have problems maintaining the standard at step
1 of the framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
\9\ 82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017).
\10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018,
available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/meme-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Revised CSAPR Update, EPA released and accepted public comment on
updated 2023 modeling that used a 2016 emissions platform developed
under EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state collaborative
project as the primary source for the base year and future year
emissions data.\12\ On March 15, 2021, EPA signed the final Revised
CSAPR Update using the same modeling released at proposal.\13\ Although
Maine and New Hampshire relied on the modeling included in the March
2018 memo to develop their SIP submissions as EPA had suggested, EPA
now proposes to primarily rely on the updated and newly available 2016
base year modeling in evaluating these submissions. By using the
updated modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. EPA's independent analysis, which also evaluated historical
monitoring data, recent DVs, and emissions trends, found that such
information provides additional support and further substantiates the
results of the 2016 base year modeling as the basis for this proposed
rulemaking. Section III of this notice and the Air Quality Modeling
technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
proposal contain additional detail on this modeling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this modeling are
included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this action. The
underlying modeling files are available for public review in the
docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272).
\13\ See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30, 2021).
\14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' 86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021), available in the docket for this action. This TSD
was originally developed to support EPA's action in the Revised
CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding good neighbor obligations
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. While developed in this separate
context, the data and modeling outputs, including interpolated
design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS and used in support of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used
a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given
upwind state was ``linked'' at step 2 of the interstate transport
framework and would, therefore, contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance sites identified in step 1. If a state's impact did not
equal or exceed the one percent threshold, the upwind state was not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states.
However, if a state's impact equaled or exceeded the one percent
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 3,
considering both air quality and cost considerations, to determine
what, if any, emissions might be deemed ``significant'' and, thus, must
be eliminated under the good neighbor provision. EPA is proposing to
rely on the one percent threshold for the purpose of evaluating Maine
and New Hampshire's contributions to nonattainment or maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions address the issue of the
relevant analytic year for the purposes of evaluating ozone transport
air-quality problems. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a
decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the CSAPR Update to the extent
that it failed to require upwind states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with the NAAQS, as established under
CAA section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313.
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Maryland v.
EPA that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must assess
the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind
attainment date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The
court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the Good Neighbor
Provision,'' and, therefore, ``EPA must find a violation [of section
126] if an upwind source will significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment at the next downwind attainment deadline. Therefore, the
agency must evaluate downwind air quality at that deadline, not at some
later date.'' Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). EPA interprets the court's
holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency, under the good neighbor
provision, to assess downwind air quality by the next applicable
attainment date, including a Marginal area attainment date under CAA
section
[[Page 30857]]
181 for ozone nonattainment.\15\ The Marginal area attainment date for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.\16\ Historically, EPA has
considered the full ozone season prior to the attainment as supplying
an appropriate analytic year for assessing good neighbor obligations.
While this would be 2020 for an August 2021 attainment date (which
falls within the 2021 ozone season running from May 1 to September 30),
in this circumstance, when the 2020 ozone season is wholly in the past,
it is appropriate to focus on 2021 to address good neighbor obligations
to the extent possible by the 2021 attainment date. EPA does not
believe it would be appropriate to select an analytical year that is
wholly in the past, because the agency interprets the good neighbor
provision as forward looking. See 86 FR 23054 at 23074; see also
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. Consequently, in this proposal EPA will use
the analytical year of 2021 to evaluate Maine and New Hampshire's good
neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport framework by a particular attainment date,
but for reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency
is unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by that date. See
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that
upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good neighbor
provision. Such circumstances are not at issue in the present
proposal.
\16\ CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; Additional Air Quality
Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Maine Submission
On February 6, 2020, Maine submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Maine relied on the results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS contained in the March 2018 memorandum to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in Maine in the year 2023. These results
indicate Maine's greatest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor would be 0.01 ppb in Suffolk
County, New York (monitoring site 361030002). Maine compared this value
to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Because Maine's impacts to receptors in downwind
states are projected to be less than 0.70 ppb in 2023, Maine concluded
that emissions from sources within the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
III. New Hampshire Submission
On September 5, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This ``good neighbor SIP'' was
included as an enclosure in the state's infrastructure SIP for the same
NAAQS.
New Hampshire relied on the results of EPA's modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS contained in the March 2018 memorandum to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in New Hampshire in the year 2023. These results
indicate New Hampshire's greatest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor would be 0.06 ppb in Queens
County, New York (monitoring site 360810124). New Hampshire compared
this value to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Because New Hampshire's impacts to
receptors in downwind states are projected to be less than 0.70 ppb in
2023,\17\ New Hampshire concluded that emissions from sources within
the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ New Hampshire incorrectly stated in its September 2018 good
neighbor SIP submission that the state's highest projected
contribution for 2023 to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor is 6 ppb; the modeled value should be 0.06 ppb as correctly
shown in Table 1 of the submission. New Hampshire also incorrectly
stated in their submission that 7 ppb, rather than 0.70 ppb, is 1%
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's September 2018 good neighbor SIP submission also
lists New Hampshire's regulations for controlling emissions of ozone
precursors as well as its regional emissions-control strategies. These
include Env-A 619, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and
Env-A 618, Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) (82 FR 24057; May 25,
2017); and Env-A 2300, Mitigation of Regional Haze (77 FR 50602; August
22, 2012).
IV. EPA Evaluation of the States' Submittals
Maine and New Hampshire's SIP submissions both rely on analysis of
the year 2023 to show that each state does not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. However, given the holdings in Wisconsin and
Maryland, analysis of that year is no longer sufficient where the next
attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is in 2021.\18\ Nonetheless,
the analysis EPA conducted for the 2021 analytical year corroborates
the conclusion reached in each state's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We recognize that Maine, New Hampshire, and other states
may have been influenced by EPA's 2018 guidance memos (issued prior
to the Wisconsin and Maryland decisions) in making good neighbor
submissions that relied on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are
intervening changes in relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA
requirements, states are generally free to withdraw, supplement,
and/or re-submit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While neither
Maine nor New Hampshire has done this, as explained in this section,
the independent analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion
confirms that the states' submissions in this instance are
ultimately approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Section I of this notice, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA's analysis relies on 2021 as
the relevant attainment year for evaluating a State's good neighbor
obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS using the four-step
interstate transport framework. In step 1, we identify locations where
the Agency expects there to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic future year. Where
EPA's analysis shows that an area or site does not fall under the
definition of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021, that
site is excluded from further analysis under EPA's four step interstate
transport framework.\19\ For areas that are identified as a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021, we proceed to the next
step of our four-step framework by identifying the upwind state's
contribution to those receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ While EPA has focused its analysis in this notice on the
year 2021, modeling data in the record for years 2023 and 2028
confirm that no new linkages to downwind receptors are projected for
these states in later years. This is not surprising as it is
consistent with an overall, long-term downward trend in emissions
from these states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent with the approach used in
previous transport rulemakings. EPA's approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
[[Page 30858]]
D.C. Circuit's direction in North Carolina.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 531 F.3d at 910-911 (holding that EPA must give
``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of this proposal, EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to have average
design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design values. This
approach is consistent with prior transport rulemakings, such as CSAPR
Update, where EPA defined nonattainment receptors as those areas that
both currently monitor nonattainment and that EPA projects will be in
nonattainment in the future analytic year.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised CSAPR Update
also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR
25241 (January 14, 2005). See also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-
914 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in this proposal, EPA identifies a receptor to be a
``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining interference with
maintenance, consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\22\ Specifically, monitoring sites with a
projected maximum design value in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are
considered maintenance receptors. EPA's method of defining these
receptors takes into account both measured data and reasonable
projections based on modeling analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016) and See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified
as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are
currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS, but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
To evaluate future air quality in steps 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport framework, EPA is using the 2016 and 2023 base case emissions
developed under EPA/MJO/state collaborative emissions modeling platform
project as the primary source for base year and 2023 future year
emissions data for this proposal.\23\ Because this platform does not
include emissions for 2021, EPA developed an interpolation technique
based on modeling for 2023 and measured ozone data to determine ozone
concentrations for 2021. To estimate average and maximum design values
for 2021, EPA first performed air quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
obtain design values in 2023. The 2023 design values were then coupled
with the corresponding 2016 measured design values to estimate design
values in 2021. Details on the modeling, including the interpolation
methodology, can be found in the Air Quality Modeling TSD, found in the
docket of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
action. The underlying modeling files are available for public
access in the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0272).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind
states on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors, EPA first performed
nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023.
The source apportionment modeling provided contributions to ozone from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in each state, individually. The
modeled contributions were then applied in a relative sense to the 2021
average design value to estimate the contributions in 2021 from each
state to each receptor. Details on the source apportionment modeling
and the methods for determining contributions in 2021 are in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD in the docket.
The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if Maine and New Hampshire, considered separately, contribute at or
above the threshold of one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb)
to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor. The data \24\
indicate that the highest contribution in 2021 from Maine to a downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor is 0.01 ppb to a maintenance
receptor in Fairfield County, Connecticut (monitoring site 90013007),
and, from New Hampshire, is 0.10 ppb to the same downwind receptor. The
data also show modeled ozone contributions from Maine and New Hampshire
to the design values of a larger set of monitoring sites (independent
of attainment status) and indicate that the highest projected
contribution in 2021 from Maine to any of these sites is 0.12 ppb to
monitors in Putnam and Westchester Counties in New York (monitoring
sites 360790005 and 361192004; #307 and #314 on the Design Values and
Contributions spreadsheet), and, from New Hampshire, is 1.46 ppb to the
monitor in Knox County, Maine (monitoring site 230130004; #226 on the
Design Values and Contributions spreadsheet). While New Hampshire's
modeled contribution to the Knox County monitor exceeds one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, EPA's analysis at step 1 does not identify the
Knox County monitor as a downwind area that may have problems
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Knox County monitor's projected
design value in 2021 is 57.4 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The data are given in the ``Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update'' and ``Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR
Update.xlsx,'' which are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed emissions trends for ozone precursors in Maine
and New Hampshire to support the findings from the air quality
analysis. In evaluating emissions trends, we first reviewed the
information submitted by each state and then reviewed additional
information available to the Agency. We focused on state-wide emissions
of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.25 26
Emissions from mobile sources, electric generating units (``EGUs''),
industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some
of the major anthropogenic sources of ozone precursors. This evaluation
looks at both past emissions trends, as well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ This is because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly
into the air but is formed by chemical reactions between ozone
precursors, chiefly NOX and non-methane VOCs, in the
presence of sunlight.
\26\ 81 FR 74504, 74513-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, for Maine, between 2016 and 2023, annual total
NOX and VOC emissions are projected to decline by 38 percent
and 20 percent, respectively. For New Hampshire, between 2016 and 2023,
annual total NOX and VOC emissions are projected to decline
by 36 percent and 15 percent, respectively. The projected reductions
are a result of the implementation of existing control programs that
will continue to decrease NOX and VOC emissions in Maine and
New
[[Page 30859]]
Hampshire, as indicated by EPA's most recent 2021 and 2023 projected
emissions.
As shown in Table 2, onroad and nonroad mobile source emissions
collectively comprise a large portion of each state's total
anthropogenic NOX and VOC. For example, in 2019,
NOX emissions from mobile sources in Maine comprised 52
percent of total NOX emissions and 48 percent of total VOC
emissions. In New Hampshire for that same year, NOX
emissions from mobile sources comprised 54 percent of total
NOX emissions and 45 percent of total VOC emissions.
The large decrease in NOX emissions between 2016
emissions and projected 2023 emissions in each state is primarily
driven by reductions in emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile
sources. EPA projects that both VOC and NOX emissions will
continue declining out to 2023 as newer vehicles and engines that are
subject to the most recent, stringent mobile source standards replace
older vehicles and engines.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR
23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR
8428, February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002,
January 18, 2001); Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June
29, 2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008);
Marine Spark-Ignition and Small Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR
59034, October 8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at
or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR 22895, April 30, 2010);
and Aircraft and Aircraft Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342,
June 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that the overall
emissions trend demonstrated in Table 1 in either state will suddenly
reverse or spike in 2021 compared to historical emissions levels or
those projected for 2023. Further, there is no evidence that the
projected ozone precursor emissions trends out to 2023 and beyond would
not continue to show a decline in emissions. In addition, EPA's normal
practice is to include in our modeling only changes in NOX
or VOC emissions that result from final regulatory actions. Any
potential changes in NOX or VOC emissions that may result
from possible future or proposed regulatory actions are speculative.
This downward trend in emissions in Maine and New Hampshire adds
support to the air quality analyses presented above for each state, and
indicates that the contributions from emissions from sources in Maine
and New Hampshire to ozone receptors in downwind states will continue
to decline and, for each state, remain below one percent of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019
were obtained from EPA's National Emissions Inventory website:
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Note that emissions from miscellaneous
sources are not included in the state totals. The emissions for 2021
and 2023 are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See
``2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State Tier1 Emissions'' and
the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this action.
Table 1--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Sources in Maine and New Hampshire
[Tons per year] \28\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 2021 Projected 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME NOx....................................................... 59,773 57,292 54,812 52,332 51,871 49,148 49,889 48,440 46,542 33,996 30,536
ME VOC....................................................... 64,079 61,860 59,641 57,422 54,686 49,630 48,284 47,024 45,665 41,197 39,562
NH NOx....................................................... 36,554 37,065 37,577 38,086 35,025 30,775 28,530 27,408 25,680 21,822 19,579
NH VOC....................................................... 45,859 44,159 42,459 40,731 38,275 34,234 33,026 31,928 31,193 29,640 28,872
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Onroad and Nonroad Vehicles in Maine and New Hampshire
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 2021 Projected 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME........................................................... 41,601 38,861 36,122 33,382 31,465 27,286 26,570 25,714 24,005 17,841 16,214
NOx..........................................................
ME VOC....................................................... 40,376 38,091 35,805 33,519 30,884 25,929 24,683 23,423 22,064 18,037 16,499
NH NOx....................................................... 26,038 24,979 23,921 22,862 20,835 17,619 16,408 15,022 13,970 10,776 9,878
NH VOC....................................................... 25,314 24,184 23,054 21,924 20,027 16,544 15,895 14,796 14,062 11,947 11,277
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA's air quality and emissions analyses indicate that
emissions from Maine or from New Hampshire, with each state considered
individually, will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state
in 2021.
V. Proposed Action
As discussed in Sections II and III, Maine and New Hampshire have
each concluded that emissions from sources in their individual state
will not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Each state submission reached
this conclusion by relying on information for the analytic year 2023.
As discussed above, the Wisconsin and Maryland decisions of the D.C.
Circuit have made clear that the good neighbor analysis for the 2015
ozone NAAQS must focus on the next attainment date, and that date is
the Marginal area attainment date in 2021. Therefore, EPA conducted
additional analysis to determine whether each state's conclusions would
remain valid in 2021 rather than 2023. EPA's evaluation of measured and
monitored data, including interpolating values to generate a reasonable
expectation of air quality and contribution values in 2021, as
discussed in Section IV, is consistent with conclusions made by Maine
and New Hampshire that, with each state considered separately,
emissions from sources in each state will not contribute to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. Because our analysis corroborates each state's
conclusion that emissions from within its state do not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
another state, we propose to approve the Maine and New Hampshire
submissions as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is soliciting public comments on this notice. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the
[[Page 30860]]
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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);
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 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: June 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-12079 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P