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


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.