Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 37942-37948 [2021-15097]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37942
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The Proposal
The FAA proposes an amendment to
14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E
surface airspace for East Hampton
Airport, East Hampton, NY, providing
the controlled airspace required to
support aircraft landing and departing
in IFR conditions at this airport. In
addition, this action would amend Class
D airspace by decreasing the radius to
4.2 miles (from 4.8) and the ceiling to
2,000 feet MSL (from 2,500) and
replacing the outdated term Airport/
Facility Directory with the term Chart
Supplement in the airport description.
Class D and E airspace designations
are published in Paragraphs 5000 and
6002, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the
Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
40 CFR Part 52
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations, and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:
■
Paragraph 5000
Class D Airspace.
*
*
*
AEA NY D
*
*
East Hampton, NY [Amended]
East Hampton Airport, NY
(Lat. 40°57′34″ N, long. 72°15′06″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface up to and including 2,000 feet MSL
within a 4.2-mile radius of East Hampton
Airport. This Class D airspace area is
effective during specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the
Chart Supplement.
Paragraph 6002
Class E Surface Airspace.
*
*
*
*
AEA NY0522 E2
*
East Hampton, NY [New]
East Hampton Airport, NY
(Lat. 40°57′34″ N, long. 72°15′06″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface within a 4.2-mile radius of East
Hampton Airport. This Class E airspace area
is effective during specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the
Chart Supplement.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 13,
2021.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North,
Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
[FR Doc. 2021–15220 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am]
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0156; FRL–8697–01–
R4]
Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC;
Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2)
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Through this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘supplemental proposal’’ or
‘‘SNPRM’’), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is
supplementing its proposed approval of
state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina
(four Southeastern States), addressing
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
interstate transport requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). Specifically, EPA is
proposing to rely on updated analysis
using a 2021 analytic year to support the
proposed finding that each state’s
implementation plan contains 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 August 18, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2019–0156, at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
making effective comments, please visit
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Mr. Adams can be reached by telephone
at (404) 562–9009, or via electronic mail
at adams.evan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. Background for This Supplemental
Proposal
On December 30, 2019, EPA proposed
to approve SIP submissions from six
Southeast States (i.e., Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Tennessee) 1 as meeting the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the
Good Neighbor provision, for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 71854.
Refer to the December 30, 2019, notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an
explanation of the CAA requirements,
the four-step framework that EPA
applies under the Good Neighbor
provision for ozone NAAQS, a detailed
summary of the state submissions, and
EPA’s proposed rationale for approval.
See 84 FR 71854. The public comment
period for the December 30, 2019,
NPRM closed on January 29, 2020.2
1 The submittals from these six southeastern
states were submitted separately under the
following cover letters: Alabama Department of
Environmental Management dated August 20, 2018
(received by EPA on August 27, 2018); Florida
Department of Environmental Protection dated
September 18, 2018 (received by EPA on September
26, 2018); Georgia Environmental Protection
Division dated September 19, 2018 (received by
EPA on September 24, 2018); North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality dated
September 27, 2018 (received by EPA October 10,
2018); South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control dated and received by EPA
on September 7, 2018; and Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation dated September
13, 2018 (received by EPA on September 17, 2018).
2 On March 24, 2020, former EPA Region 4
Administrator Mary Walker signed a document
(hereinafter referred to as the March 24, 2020
document) that EPA intended to become a final rule
upon publication in the Federal Register. However,
the March 24, 2020 document was never published
in the Federal Register. Further, on January 19,
2021, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary
Walker signed a document (hereinafter referred to
as the January 19, 2021 document), which EPA
posted to its website at https://www.epa.gov/airquality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-20158-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements.
EPA noted in that posting ‘‘Notwithstanding the
fact that the EPA is posting a pre-publication
version, the final rule will not be promulgated until
published in the Federal Register.’’ EPA will not
publish either the March 24, 2020 document or the
January 19, 2021 document in the Federal Register;
therefore, neither document will result in a final
rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
Subsequent to the December 30, 2019,
proposal, two events occurred which
have caused EPA to adjust its analysis
of the aforementioned SIP submissions,
and consequently, to issue this
supplemental proposal. First, on May
19, 2020, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its ruling in
Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C.
Cir. 2020) (Maryland). That case
involved EPA’s denial of administrative
petitions filed by the states of Maryland
and Delaware under CAA section
126(b), seeking to have EPA impose
emissions limits on sources in upwind
states alleged to be emitting in violation
of the Good Neighbor Provision. The
court held that EPA must address Good
Neighbor obligations consistent with the
2021 attainment date for downwind
areas classified as being in Marginal
nonattainment under the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, ‘‘not at some later date.’’
958 F.3d at 1203–04 (citing Wisconsin v.
EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
(Wisconsin)). The court disagreed with
EPA that use of a 2023 analytic year,
consistent with the 2024 attainment
date for areas classified as being in
Moderate nonattainment, was a proper
reading of the court’s earlier decision in
Wisconsin. Id. at 1204. In light of the
Maryland decision, EPA is evaluating
these states’ Good Neighbor obligations
using a 2021 analytic year,
corresponding to the 2021 Marginal area
attainment date under the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
Second, on October 30, 2020, EPA
released and accepted public comment
on updated 2023 modeling that used the
2016 emissions platform developed
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional
Organization (MJO)/state collaborative
project as the primary source for the
base year and future year emissions
data.3 On April 30, 2021, EPA published
the final Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update using
the same modeling that was made
publicly available in the proposed
rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR
Update.4 Although that modeling
focused on the year 2023, EPA
3 See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see
also Emissions Modeling TSD titled ‘‘Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for the 2016v1 North
American Emissions Modeling Platform.’’ This TSD
is available in the docket for this proposed action
and at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/
2016v1-platform. The underlying modeling files are
available on data drives in the Docket office for
public review. See the docket for the Revised
CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0272). See
also in the docket for this supplemental proposal
the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data
Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a file inventory and
instructions on how to access the modeling files.
4 See 86 FR 23054.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37943
conducted an ‘‘interpolation’’ analysis
of these modeling results to generate air
quality and contribution values for the
2021 analytic year, consistent with the
Maryland holding, as the relevant
analytic year for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
This new modeling and analysis now
provides the primary basis for EPA’s
proposed approval of the Good
Neighbor SIP submissions for Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. By relying on the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most
current and technically appropriate
information as the primary basis for this
proposed rulemaking. As explained in
greater detail in this supplemental
proposal, this new analysis indicates
that in 2021, these four states are not
projected to impact any downwind
states at or above a contribution
threshold of one percent of the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is
equivalent to 0.70 parts per billion
(ppb). Thus, EPA is proposing to
approve these four states’ submissions.
Additionally, EPA previously
proposed to approve infrastructure SIP
elements submitted to fulfill the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by the
states of Alabama and Tennessee for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
December 30, 2019, NPRM referenced
above. This supplemental proposal does
not address these submissions, and EPA
is deferring action on the referenced SIP
submissions from Alabama and
Tennessee at this time.
II. EPA’s Analysis
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit
issued the Maryland decision 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).
See 958 F.3d 1185, 1203–04. The court
noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and
therefore ‘‘the 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, EPA
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
address Good Neighbor obligations by
the next applicable attainment date for
downwind areas, including a Marginal
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37944
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
area attainment date under CAA section
181 for ozone nonattainment.5
The Marginal area attainment date for
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
August 3, 2021.6 See CAA section 181(a);
40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4,
2018, effective August 3, 2018).
Historically, EPA has considered the
last full ozone season prior to the
attainment date as supplying an
appropriate analytic year for assessing
Good Neighbor obligations. See, e.g., 81
FR 74540. 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 analytic year
that is wholly in the past because EPA
interprets the Good Neighbor provision
as forward looking. See 85 FR 68964,
68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at
322. Consequently, as discussed further
below, EPA is using the analytic year of
2021 in this supplemental proposal to
evaluate Good Neighbor obligations for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina with respect to the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The December 30, 2019, NPRM
proposing approval of the 2015 8-hour
ozone Good Neighbor SIPs for Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina predates the D.C. Circuit’s
decision in Maryland. This decision
also came after the close of the public
comment period on the December 30,
2019, NPRM. However, this decision
bears directly on EPA’s action and its
consideration of the comments received
on the December 30, 2019, NPRM. As
discussed above and in accordance with
the Wisconsin and Maryland decisions,
the Agency considers 2021 to be the
relevant analytic year for the purpose of
determining whether sources in Florida,
5 EPA notes 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 four-step 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 a certain
degree of flexibility in effectuating the
implementation of the Good Neighbor provision.
Such circumstances are not at issue in this
proposed action.
6 The December 30, 2019, NPRM incorrectly
referred to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS Marginal
attainment date as August 2, 2021, and the
Moderate attainment date as August 2, 2024. See 84
FR 71857.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other states.
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
and South Carolina Good Neighbor SIP
submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are approvable using a 2021
analytic year. The SIP submissions from
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina rely on analysis of the
year 2023 to show that they do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour 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 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is in 2021.7 Nonetheless,
the analysis EPA has conducted for the
2021 analytic year corroborates the
conclusion reached in each state’s
submission and in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. In accordance with the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland,
EPA’s supplemental analysis relies on
2021 as the relevant attainment year for
evaluating Good Neighbor obligations
for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina with respect to the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS using the same
four-step interstate transport framework
described in the proposal of this action.
See 84 FR 71855.
In step 1, EPA identifies locations
where the Agency expects there to be
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on analysis of ozone
concentrations at individual monitoring
sites in the appropriate analytic year.
Where EPA’s analysis shows that a
monitoring site does not fall under the
definition of a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in the analytic
year, that site is excluded from further
analysis under EPA’s four-step interstate
transport framework.8 For monitoring
7 EPA recognizes that Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina as well as other states
may have been influenced by EPA’s 2018 guidance
memoranda (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 Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina have not done this, as
explained in this section, EPA’s proposed
independent analysis concludes that the states’
submissions in this instance are approvable.
8 While EPA has focused its analysis in this notice
on the year 2021, the Revised CSAPR Update
modeling data in years 2023 and 2028 confirm that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sites that are identified as
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in the appropriate analytic year, EPA
proceeds to step 2 of the four-step
interstate transport framework by
identifying whether emissions in
upwind states contribute to those
receptors in amounts that exceed a
contribution threshold.
EPA’s approach to identifying ozone
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this supplemental proposal
is consistent with the approach
described in the December 30, 2019,
NPRM, and is the same 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
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s
direction in North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896, 910–911 (2008) (holding that
EPA must give ‘‘independent
significance’’ to each prong of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
For the purpose of this supplemental
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
compliance year.9
In addition, in this supplemental
proposal, EPA identifies a receptor to be
a ‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes
of defining interference with
maintenance, consistent with the
method used in CSAPR and upheld by
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
no new linkages to downwind receptors are
projected for these states in later years. EPA notes
this is consistent with an overall, long-term
downward trend in emissions from these states. See
Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update,’’ available in the docket for this proposed
action and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revisedcross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. The results of
this modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the
docket for this proposed action titled ‘‘Ozone
Design Values and Contributions for the Revised
CSAPR Update.xlsx’’.
9 See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The
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).
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118,
136 (DC Cir. 2015).10 Specifically,
monitoring sites with a maximum
projected design value in 2021 that
exceeds the NAAQS are identified as
maintenance receptors in 2021. EPA’s
method of defining these receptors takes
into account both measured data and
reasonable projections based on
modeling analysis.11
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.
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina relied on the modeling
included in an EPA memorandum dated
March 2018 (‘‘March 2018
memorandum’’),12 as well as state
specific ozone precursor emission
trends, design values, and regulations,
to develop their SIPs as EPA had
suggested. In the December 30, 2019,
NPRM, EPA also relied on the modeling
results included in the March 2018
memorandum. See 84 FR 71855–71856,
71859–71861. However, EPA is now
supplementing the December 30, 2019,
NPRM with newly available, updated
modeling that was developed using a
2016-based modeling platform prepared
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional
Organization/state collaborative)
project.13 The results of this updated
modeling were released with the NPRM
for the Revised CSAPR Update on
October 30, 2020, and finalized in the
final Revised CSAPR Update without
changes. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30,
2021). The updated modeling includes
2016 base year and 2023 projection year
model simulations that were analyzed to
identify receptors and determine
interstate ozone contributions to these
receptors in 2021. Specifically, EPA
developed an interpolation technique
based on modeling for 2023 and
measured ozone data to determine
ozone design values for 2021. To
estimate average and maximum design
values for 2021, EPA first performed air
quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
project measured 2016 design values to
2023. The 2023 design values were then
coupled with the corresponding 2016
measured design values to estimate
design values in 2021. The Air Quality
Modeling technical support document
(TSD) developed in connection with the
Revised CSAPR Update, which is
included in the docket for this
supplemental proposal, describes the
modeling and interpolation for
estimating design values in 2021.14
37945
EPA’s analysis for this supplemental
proposal, supported by the modeling
analysis completed in the Revised
CSAPR Update, further substantiates
EPA’s proposed approval in the
December 30, 2019, NPRM. 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
2023 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 Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina contribute
at or above the threshold of one percent
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70
ppb) to any downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor.15 Table 1
presents the highest contribution in
2021 from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina to a
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor.
TABLE 1—MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE-ONLY
RECEPTORS IN 2021 16
Maximum
contribution
(ppb)
State
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Florida ...............................................................................................................
Georgia .............................................................................................................
North Carolina ...................................................................................................
10 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The CSAPR
Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this
approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and
86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
11 Further, as recognized by the court in
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320, nonattainment areas
that do not measure an exceedance of the level of
the standard in a given year, even if not sufficient
to be redesignated to attainment based on the threeyear design value, may qualify for up to two oneyear extensions of their attainment dates, as
provided at CAA section 181(a)(5). Thus, simply
providing the value that would be needed in 2020
in order for an area to be designated to attainment
using the three-year average does not present a
complete picture of the likelihood that an area will
be ‘‘reclassified’’ or ‘‘bumped-up.’’
12 ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:12 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
0.34
0.39
0.69
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),’’
March 27, 2018, available at https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/
transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf and available in
the docket for this SNPRM.
13 See 86 FR 23054. The results of this modeling
are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
proposed action titled Ozone Design Values and
Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx. The
underlying modeling files are available on data
drives in the Docket office for public review under
the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2020–0272). See also in the docket for
this proposed action the document titled Air
Quality Modeling Data Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a
file inventory and instructions on how to access the
modeling files.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Downwind receptor
County
Galveston .............
Fairfield .................
Fairfield .................
State
TX
CT
CT
AQS ID
481671034
90011123
90011123
14 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update,’’ available in the docket for this
supplemental proposal and at https://www.epa.gov/
csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
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 8-hour 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS and used in support
of this supplemental proposed action.
15 This supplemental proposal relies on the same
contribution threshold of one percent of the
NAAQS proposed in the December 30, 2019,
NPRM. See 85 FR 68964.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37946
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE-ONLY
RECEPTORS IN 2021 16—Continued
Maximum
contribution
(ppb)
State
South Carolina ..................................................................................................
Based on the analysis of the updated
modeling as described above, EPA
proposes to find that it is reasonable to
conclude that Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina,
individually, will not contribute greater
than one percent of the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to any potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in 2021.
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor
emissions trends in Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina to
support the findings from the air quality
analysis. In evaluating emissions trends,
EPA first reviewed the information
submitted by Florida, Georgia, North
0.25
Carolina, and South Carolina and then
reviewed additional information
derived from EPA’s National Emissions
Inventory. EPA focused on state-wide
emissions of NOX and VOCs in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina.17 Combined, emissions from
mobile sources, electric generating units
(EGUs), industrial facilities, gasoline
vapors, and chemical solvents are a
large percentage of anthropogenic
emissions of ozone precursors. This
evaluation looks at both past emissions
trends, as well as projected trends.
As shown in Table 2, from 2011 to
2023 annual total NOX and VOC
emissions are projected to decline in the
Downwind receptor
County
Fairfield .................
State
AQS ID
CT
90011123
following amounts, respectively: By 56
percent and 35 percent in Florida; by 57
percent and 27 percent in Georgia; by 53
percent and 18 percent in North
Carolina; and by 47 percent and 24
percent in South Carolina. The
projected reductions are a result of the
implementation of existing control
programs that will continue to decrease
NOX and VOC emissions in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina, as indicated by EPA’s most
recent 2021 and 2023 projected
emissions used in the updated 2023
modeling.
TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NORTH
CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA
[Tons per year]18, 19
FL NOX ....................................................
FL VOC ...................................................
GA NOX ...................................................
GA VOC ..................................................
NC NOX ...................................................
NC VOC 20 ..............................................
SC NOX ...................................................
SC VOC ..................................................
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
585,605
637,315
412,070
338,259
365,550
328,942
205,952
183,937
569,789
598,992
385,178
325,680
345,513
321,229
194,924
178,844
553,974
560,669
358,287
313,101
325,477
313,516
183,896
173,750
538,158
522,345
331,395
300,523
305,441
305,803
172,868
168,656
487,946
506,276
314,900
306,404
281,599
294,299
160,064
164,822
411,085
473,769
288,421
290,702
242,797
272,534
157,222
160,869
398,245
454,694
274,956
286,047
229,047
265,404
148,786
158,476
346,680
442,470
255,975
276,886
214,574
262,394
139,694
153,877
312,677
430,246
232,538
267,724
198,442
259,385
128,656
149,279
Projected
2021
Projected
2023
276,138
419,961
202,406
244,549
181,669
269,915
114,238
143,119
249,391
411,321
177,951
240,387
169,258
267,208
107,420
140,107
18 The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019 in Tables 2 and 3 were obtained from EPA’s National Emissions Inventory website: https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Emissions from miscellaneous sources are not included in the state totals presented in
Table 2. 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_v3’’ and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this proposed action.
19 Note that the methods used for calculating emissions for certain tier 1 categories in the NEI changed over time between 2005 and 2019 and certain methods
used for the NEI differ from the methods used for the 2016 Emissions Platform. These methodological differences may result in some year-to-year inconsistencies in
the emissions trends and the projected emissions trends.
20 EPA notes that for North Carolina, the projected VOC emissions are greater than historical emissions in recent years according to NEI data. However, EPA also
notes that NOx emissions are the primary contributor to regional ozone formation in ozone transport, and for North Carolina, NOx emissions are projected to continue
to decline. As a result of these NOx emissions reductions, North Carolina is projected to contribute below the one percent threshold in 2021 to projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors and is projected to continue to contribute below one percent in 2023 and 2028, despite the greater projected VOC emissions. Projected ozone design values and contributions data for 2021, 2023, and 2028 can be found in the file ‘‘Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx’’ in the docket for this action.
As presented below in Table 3,
onroad and nonroad mobile source
emissions collectively (i.e., mobile
source emissions) comprise a large
portion of these states’ total
anthropogenic NOX and VOC (i.e., 67
percent of the state total NOX and 36
percent to state total VOC for Florida; 61
percent of the state total NOX and 30
percent to state total VOC for Georgia;
57 percent of the state total NOX and 31
percent to state total VOC for North
Carolina; and 57 percent of the state
total NOX and 31 percent to state total
VOC for South Carolina).
TABLE 3—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES IN FLORIDA,
GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
[Tons per year]
FL NOX ....................................................
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
468,496
451,186
433,876
416,565
373,961
304,708
299,476
271,122
242,768
16 See data file titled Ozone Design Values and
Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx in the
docket for this SNPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:30 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
17 See
81 FR 74504, 74513–14.
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Projected
2021
Projected
2023
184,676
165,897
37947
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES IN FLORIDA,
GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA—Continued
[Tons per year]
FL VOC ...................................................
GA NOX ...................................................
GA VOC ..................................................
NC NOX ...................................................
NC VOC ..................................................
SC NOX ...................................................
SC VOC ..................................................
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
351,631
297,838
171,049
272,542
176,370
144,953
86,955
325,059
276,697
157,722
253,619
162,257
137,401
82,634
298,486
255,555
144,394
234,697
148,144
129,850
78,312
271,914
234,413
131,067
215,775
134,032
122,298
73,991
255,262
225,072
134,296
197,948
124,615
111,751
70,288
222,173
205,747
115,940
165,162
104,938
111,167
66,464
202,502
199,437
108,633
157,428
99,959
104,989
64,202
190,278
180,291
99,471
145,004
96,950
95,687
59,603
178,054
161,144
90,309
132,580
93,940
86,385
55,005
Projected
2021
Projected
2023
155,760
122,097
72,285
107,114
88,486
68,365
46,372
145,133
108,363
67,187
95,139
81,551
61,243
42,789
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
21 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007); Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel (69 FR
38957, June 29, 2004); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder
(73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008); Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment (73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008); Control of Emissions From
New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75 FR 22895, April 30, 2010); Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test Procedures (77 FR 36342, June 18, 2012).
The large decrease in NOX emissions
between 2016 emissions and projected
2023 emissions in Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina are
primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from onroad and nonroad
mobile sources. As shown by the mobile
source emissions trends in Table 3, 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.21
In summary, based on the projected
downward trend in projected future
emissions trends, in combination with
the historical decline in actual
emissions, there is no evidence to
suggest that the overall emissions trend
demonstrated in Table 2 would
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
beyond 2021would not continue to
show a decline in emissions.22
This downward trend in emissions in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina adds support to the air
quality analysis presented above and
indicates that the contributions from
emissions from sources in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina to ozone receptors in
downwind states will continue to
decline and remain below one percent
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus,
based on this supplemental analysis,
EPA continues to propose to conclude
that the air quality and emissions
analyses indicate that emissions from
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
22 EPA’s normal practice is to only include
changes in emissions from final regulatory actions
in its modeling because, until such rules are
finalized, any potential changes in NOX or VOC
emissions are speculative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
South Carolina will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
III. Supplemental Proposed Actions
In its December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA
originally proposed to find that
emissions from sources in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state based
on information for the analytic year
2023, consistent with the 2024 Moderate
area attainment date. Thus, EPA
proposed to approve the interstate
transport portions of the infrastructure
SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.23 See 84 FR 71854.
The analysis presented in this notice
provides a new primary basis for
approval to supplement EPA’s proposed
finding in the December 30, 2019,
NPRM. EPA continues to propose to
find that emissions from sources in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus,
EPA continues to propose to approve
the interstate transport portions of the
infrastructure SIP submissions from
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
23 As mentioned in Section I above, EPA is
deferring action on Alabama’s and Tennessee’s
Good Neighbor infrastructure SIP submittals at this
time.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. These actions merely propose
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
these proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions 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);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are 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.);
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37948
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do 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).
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 as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
For South Carolina, because this
proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, this action for the
state of South Carolina does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Therefore, this
proposed action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law. The
Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is
located within the boundary of York
County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the
Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act,
S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement
Act), ‘‘all state and local environmental
laws and regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation
and are fully enforceable by all relevant
state and local agencies and
authorities.’’ The Catawba Indian Nation
also retains authority to impose
regulations applying higher
environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state
law or local governing bodies, in
accordance with the Settlement Act.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
Dated: July 12, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021–15097 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0594; FRL–7251–01–
OW]
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List 5—Draft
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a
draft list of contaminants that are
currently not subject to any proposed or
promulgated national primary drinking
water regulations for public review and
comment. These contaminants are
known or anticipated to occur in public
water systems and may require
regulation under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). This draft list is the
Fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL
5) published by the agency since the
SDWA amendments of 1996. The Draft
CCL 5 includes 66 chemicals, 3
chemical groups (per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
cyanotoxins, and disinfection
byproducts) and 12 microbial
contaminants. EPA seeks comment on
the Draft CCL 5 and on improvements
implemented in the CCL 5 process for
consideration in developing future
CCLs.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before September 17, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
HQ–OW–2018–0594, by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method). Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Water
Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
Hand Delivery/Courier (by scheduled
appointment only): EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20004. The Docket Center’s hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except federal
holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OW–2018–0594 for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Out of an abundance of
caution for members of the public and
our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov, as there may be
delay in processing mail. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received
by scheduled appointment only. For
further information of EPA Docket
Center Services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on chemical contaminants
contact Kesha Forrest, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Standards
and Risk Management Division, at (202)
564–3632 or email forrest.kesha@
epa.gov. For information on microbial
contaminants contact Nicole Tucker,
Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Standards and Risk Management
Division, at (202) 564–1946 or email
tucker.nicole@epa.gov.
For more information visit https://
www.epa.gov/ccl.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action impose any
requirements on public water systems?
B. Public Participation
C. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. Purpose, Background, and Statutory
Requirements of This Action
A. What is the purpose of this action?
B. Background and Statutory Requirements
for CCL, Regulatory Determinations and
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule
1. Contaminant Candidate List
2. Regulatory Determinations
3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule
C. Interrelationship of the CCL, Regulatory
Determinations, and Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring
D. Summary of Previous CCLs and
Regulatory Determinations
1. The First Contaminant Candidate List
2. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL
1 Contaminants
3. The Second Contaminant Candidate List
4. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL
2 Contaminants
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37942-37948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15097]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-8697-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1
and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(``supplemental proposal'' or ``SNPRM''), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is supplementing its proposed approval of state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina (four Southeastern States), addressing the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). Specifically, EPA is proposing to rely on updated analysis
using a 2021 analytic year to support the proposed finding that each
state's implementation plan contains 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 August 18, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0156, at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on
[[Page 37943]]
making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be
reached by telephone at (404) 562-9009, or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background for This Supplemental Proposal
On December 30, 2019, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from
six Southeast States (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee) \1\ as meeting the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the Good Neighbor
provision, for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 71854. Refer to
the December 30, 2019, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an
explanation of the CAA requirements, the four-step framework that EPA
applies under the Good Neighbor provision for ozone NAAQS, a detailed
summary of the state submissions, and EPA's proposed rationale for
approval. See 84 FR 71854. The public comment period for the December
30, 2019, NPRM closed on January 29, 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The submittals from these six southeastern states were
submitted separately under the following cover letters: Alabama
Department of Environmental Management dated August 20, 2018
(received by EPA on August 27, 2018); Florida Department of
Environmental Protection dated September 18, 2018 (received by EPA
on September 26, 2018); Georgia Environmental Protection Division
dated September 19, 2018 (received by EPA on September 24, 2018);
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality dated September
27, 2018 (received by EPA October 10, 2018); South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control dated and received by
EPA on September 7, 2018; and Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation dated September 13, 2018 (received by EPA on
September 17, 2018).
\2\ On March 24, 2020, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary
Walker signed a document (hereinafter referred to as the March 24,
2020 document) that EPA intended to become a final rule upon
publication in the Federal Register. However, the March 24, 2020
document was never published in the Federal Register. Further, on
January 19, 2021, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary Walker
signed a document (hereinafter referred to as the January 19, 2021
document), which EPA posted to its website at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-2015-8-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements. EPA noted in that posting
``Notwithstanding the fact that the EPA is posting a pre-publication
version, the final rule will not be promulgated until published in
the Federal Register.'' EPA will not publish either the March 24,
2020 document or the January 19, 2021 document in the Federal
Register; therefore, neither document will result in a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the December 30, 2019, proposal, two events occurred
which have caused EPA to adjust its analysis of the aforementioned SIP
submissions, and consequently, to issue this supplemental proposal.
First, on May 19, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its ruling in
Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Maryland). That case
involved EPA's denial of administrative petitions filed by the states
of Maryland and Delaware under CAA section 126(b), seeking to have EPA
impose emissions limits on sources in upwind states alleged to be
emitting in violation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court held
that EPA must address Good Neighbor obligations consistent with the
2021 attainment date for downwind areas classified as being in Marginal
nonattainment under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, ``not at some later
date.'' 958 F.3d at 1203-04 (citing Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 314
(D.C. Cir. 2019) (Wisconsin)). The court disagreed with EPA that use of
a 2023 analytic year, consistent with the 2024 attainment date for
areas classified as being in Moderate nonattainment, was a proper
reading of the court's earlier decision in Wisconsin. Id. at 1204. In
light of the Maryland decision, EPA is evaluating these states' Good
Neighbor obligations using a 2021 analytic year, corresponding to the
2021 Marginal area attainment date under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, on October 30, 2020, EPA released and accepted public
comment on updated 2023 modeling that used the 2016 emissions platform
developed under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\3\ On April 30, 2021, EPA published the
final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update using the
same modeling that was made publicly available in the proposed
rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update.\4\ Although that modeling
focused on the year 2023, EPA conducted an ``interpolation'' analysis
of these modeling results to generate air quality and contribution
values for the 2021 analytic year, consistent with the Maryland
holding, as the relevant analytic year for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also Emissions
Modeling TSD titled ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the
2016v1 North American Emissions Modeling Platform.'' This TSD is
available in the docket for this proposed action and at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2016v1-platform. The underlying
modeling files are available on data drives in the Docket office for
public review. See the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0272). See also in the docket for this supplemental
proposal the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data Drives_Final
RCU.pdf for a file inventory and instructions on how to access the
modeling files.
\4\ See 86 FR 23054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new modeling and analysis now provides the primary basis for
EPA's proposed approval of the Good Neighbor SIP submissions for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. By relying on the
updated modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. As explained in greater detail in this supplemental
proposal, this new analysis indicates that in 2021, these four states
are not projected to impact any downwind states at or above a
contribution threshold of one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
which is equivalent to 0.70 parts per billion (ppb). Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve these four states' submissions.
Additionally, EPA previously proposed to approve infrastructure SIP
elements submitted to fulfill the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by the states of Alabama and Tennessee
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the December 30, 2019, NPRM
referenced above. This supplemental proposal does not address these
submissions, and EPA is deferring action on the referenced SIP
submissions from Alabama and Tennessee at this time.
II. EPA's Analysis
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued the Maryland decision 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). See 958 F.3d
1185, 1203-04. The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the
Good Neighbor Provision,'' and therefore ``the 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, EPA 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 address Good Neighbor obligations
by the next applicable attainment date for downwind areas, including a
Marginal
[[Page 37944]]
area attainment date under CAA section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA notes 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 four-step 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 a certain degree of flexibility in
effectuating the implementation of the Good Neighbor provision. Such
circumstances are not at issue in this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marginal area attainment date for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2021.\6\ See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR
25776 (June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018). Historically, EPA has
considered the last full ozone season prior to the attainment date as
supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing Good Neighbor
obligations. See, e.g., 81 FR 74540. 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 analytic year that is wholly in the past because EPA
interprets the Good Neighbor provision as forward looking. See 85 FR
68964, 68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. Consequently, as
discussed further below, EPA is using the analytic year of 2021 in this
supplemental proposal to evaluate Good Neighbor obligations for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina with respect to
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The December 30, 2019, NPRM incorrectly referred to the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS Marginal attainment date as August 2, 2021, and
the Moderate attainment date as August 2, 2024. See 84 FR 71857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 30, 2019, NPRM proposing approval of the 2015 8-hour
ozone Good Neighbor SIPs for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina predates the D.C. Circuit's decision in Maryland. This
decision also came after the close of the public comment period on the
December 30, 2019, NPRM. However, this decision bears directly on EPA's
action and its consideration of the comments received on the December
30, 2019, NPRM. As discussed above and in accordance with the Wisconsin
and Maryland decisions, the Agency considers 2021 to be the relevant
analytic year for the purpose of determining whether sources in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other states.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina Good Neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS are approvable using a 2021 analytic year. The SIP
submissions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
rely on analysis of the year 2023 to show that they do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour 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 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is in 2021.\7\ Nonetheless, the analysis EPA has conducted for
the 2021 analytic year corroborates the conclusion reached in each
state's submission and in the December 30, 2019, NPRM. In accordance
with the holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA's supplemental
analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant attainment year for evaluating
Good Neighbor obligations for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS using the
same four-step interstate transport framework described in the proposal
of this action. See 84 FR 71855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA recognizes that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina as well as other states may have been influenced by
EPA's 2018 guidance memoranda (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 Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina have not done this, as explained in this section, EPA's
proposed independent analysis concludes that the states' submissions
in this instance are approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In step 1, EPA identifies locations where the Agency expects there
to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on analysis of ozone concentrations at individual
monitoring sites in the appropriate analytic year. Where EPA's analysis
shows that a monitoring site does not fall under the definition of a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in the analytic year, that site
is excluded from further analysis under EPA's four-step interstate
transport framework.\8\ For monitoring sites that are identified as
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the appropriate analytic
year, EPA proceeds to step 2 of the four-step interstate transport
framework by identifying whether emissions in upwind states contribute
to those receptors in amounts that exceed a contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ While EPA has focused its analysis in this notice on the
year 2021, the Revised CSAPR Update modeling data in years 2023 and
2028 confirm that no new linkages to downwind receptors are
projected for these states in later years. EPA notes this is
consistent with an overall, long-term downward trend in emissions
from these states. See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also
Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the final
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' available in the
docket for this proposed action and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
proposed action titled ``Ozone Design Values and Contributions for
the Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this supplemental proposal is consistent with the approach
described in the December 30, 2019, NPRM, and is the same 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 CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-911 (2008) (holding that EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
For the purpose of this supplemental 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 compliance year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The 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 supplemental proposal, EPA identifies a
receptor to be a ``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining
interference with maintenance, consistent with the method used in CSAPR
and upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
[[Page 37945]]
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (DC Cir. 2015).\10\
Specifically, monitoring sites with a maximum projected design value in
2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are identified as maintenance receptors in
2021. EPA's method of defining these receptors takes into account both
measured data and reasonable projections based on modeling
analysis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The CSAPR Update and
Revised CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
\11\ Further, as recognized by the court in Wisconsin, 938 F.3d
at 320, nonattainment areas that do not measure an exceedance of the
level of the standard in a given year, even if not sufficient to be
redesignated to attainment based on the three-year design value, may
qualify for up to two one-year extensions of their attainment dates,
as provided at CAA section 181(a)(5). Thus, simply providing the
value that would be needed in 2020 in order for an area to be
designated to attainment using the three-year average does not
present a complete picture of the likelihood that an area will be
``reclassified'' or ``bumped-up.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina relied on the
modeling included in an EPA memorandum dated March 2018 (``March 2018
memorandum''),\12\ as well as state specific ozone precursor emission
trends, design values, and regulations, to develop their SIPs as EPA
had suggested. In the December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA also relied on the
modeling results included in the March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR
71855-71856, 71859-71861. However, EPA is now supplementing the
December 30, 2019, NPRM with newly available, updated modeling that was
developed using a 2016-based modeling platform prepared under the EPA/
Multi-Jurisdictional Organization/state collaborative) project.\13\ The
results of this updated modeling were released with the NPRM for the
Revised CSAPR Update on October 30, 2020, and finalized in the final
Revised CSAPR Update without changes. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
The updated modeling includes 2016 base year and 2023 projection year
model simulations that were analyzed to identify receptors and
determine interstate ozone contributions to these receptors in 2021.
Specifically, EPA developed an interpolation technique based on
modeling for 2023 and measured ozone data to determine ozone design
values for 2021. To estimate average and maximum design values for
2021, EPA first performed air quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
project measured 2016 design values to 2023. The 2023 design values
were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured design values to
estimate design values in 2021. The Air Quality Modeling technical
support document (TSD) developed in connection with the Revised CSAPR
Update, which is included in the docket for this supplemental proposal,
describes the modeling and interpolation for estimating design values
in 2021.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' March 27, 2018, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf and available in the docket for this
SNPRM.
\13\ See 86 FR 23054. The results of this modeling are included
in a spreadsheet in the docket for this proposed action titled Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx. The
underlying modeling files are available on data drives in the Docket
office for public review under the docket for the Revised CSAPR
Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272). See also in the docket for this
proposed action the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data
Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a file inventory and instructions on how to
access the modeling files.
\14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' available in
the docket for this supplemental proposal and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
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 8-hour 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS and used in support of this
supplemental proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis for this supplemental proposal, supported by the
modeling analysis completed in the Revised CSAPR Update, further
substantiates EPA's proposed approval in the December 30, 2019, NPRM.
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 2023
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 Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina contribute at
or above the threshold of one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor.\15\
Table 1 presents the highest contribution in 2021 from Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to a downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This supplemental proposal relies on the same contribution
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS proposed in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. See 85 FR 68964.
Table 1--Maximum Contribution From Each State to Downwind Nonattainment or Maintenance-Only Receptors in 2021
\16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Downwind receptor
State contribution ------------------------------------------------------------
(ppb) County State AQS ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida............................ 0.34 Galveston............. TX 481671034
Georgia............................ 0.39 Fairfield............. CT 90011123
North Carolina..................... 0.69 Fairfield............. CT 90011123
[[Page 37946]]
South Carolina..................... 0.25 Fairfield............. CT 90011123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the analysis of the updated modeling as described above,
EPA proposes to find that it is reasonable to conclude that Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, individually, will not
contribute greater than one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See data file titled Ozone Design Values and Contributions
Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx in the docket for this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to support the findings
from the air quality analysis. In evaluating emissions trends, EPA
first reviewed the information submitted by Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina and then reviewed additional information
derived from EPA's National Emissions Inventory. EPA focused on state-
wide emissions of NOX and VOCs in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina.\17\ Combined, emissions from mobile
sources, electric generating units (EGUs), industrial facilities,
gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are a large percentage of
anthropogenic emissions of ozone precursors. This evaluation looks at
both past emissions trends, as well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 81 FR 74504, 74513-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2, from 2011 to 2023 annual total NOX
and VOC emissions are projected to decline in the following amounts,
respectively: By 56 percent and 35 percent in Florida; by 57 percent
and 27 percent in Georgia; by 53 percent and 18 percent in North
Carolina; and by 47 percent and 24 percent in South Carolina. The
projected reductions are a result of the implementation of existing
control programs that will continue to decrease NOX and VOC
emissions in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as
indicated by EPA's most recent 2021 and 2023 projected emissions used
in the updated 2023 modeling.
Table 2--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
[Tons per year]18, 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NOX.................................. 585,605 569,789 553,974 538,158 487,946 411,085 398,245 346,680 312,677 276,138 249,391
FL VOC.................................. 637,315 598,992 560,669 522,345 506,276 473,769 454,694 442,470 430,246 419,961 411,321
GA NOX.................................. 412,070 385,178 358,287 331,395 314,900 288,421 274,956 255,975 232,538 202,406 177,951
GA VOC.................................. 338,259 325,680 313,101 300,523 306,404 290,702 286,047 276,886 267,724 244,549 240,387
NC NOX.................................. 365,550 345,513 325,477 305,441 281,599 242,797 229,047 214,574 198,442 181,669 169,258
NC VOC \20\............................. 328,942 321,229 313,516 305,803 294,299 272,534 265,404 262,394 259,385 269,915 267,208
SC NOX.................................. 205,952 194,924 183,896 172,868 160,064 157,222 148,786 139,694 128,656 114,238 107,420
SC VOC.................................. 183,937 178,844 173,750 168,656 164,822 160,869 158,476 153,877 149,279 143,119 140,107
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019 in Tables 2 and 3 were obtained from EPA's National Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Emissions from miscellaneous sources are not included in the state totals
presented in Table 2. 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_v3'' and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this proposed action.
\19\ Note that the methods used for calculating emissions for certain tier 1 categories in the NEI changed over time between 2005 and 2019 and certain
methods used for the NEI differ from the methods used for the 2016 Emissions Platform. These methodological differences may result in some year-to-
year inconsistencies in the emissions trends and the projected emissions trends.
\20\ EPA notes that for North Carolina, the projected VOC emissions are greater than historical emissions in recent years according to NEI data.
However, EPA also notes that NOx emissions are the primary contributor to regional ozone formation in ozone transport, and for North Carolina, NOx
emissions are projected to continue to decline. As a result of these NOx emissions reductions, North Carolina is projected to contribute below the one
percent threshold in 2021 to projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors and is projected to continue to contribute below one percent in 2023
and 2028, despite the greater projected VOC emissions. Projected ozone design values and contributions data for 2021, 2023, and 2028 can be found in
the file ``Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'' in the docket for this action.
As presented below in Table 3, onroad and nonroad mobile source
emissions collectively (i.e., mobile source emissions) comprise a large
portion of these states' total anthropogenic NOX and VOC
(i.e., 67 percent of the state total NOX and 36 percent to
state total VOC for Florida; 61 percent of the state total
NOX and 30 percent to state total VOC for Georgia; 57
percent of the state total NOX and 31 percent to state total
VOC for North Carolina; and 57 percent of the state total
NOX and 31 percent to state total VOC for South Carolina).
Table 3--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Onroad and Nonroad Mobile Sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NOX.................................. 468,496 451,186 433,876 416,565 373,961 304,708 299,476 271,122 242,768 184,676 165,897
[[Page 37947]]
FL VOC.................................. 351,631 325,059 298,486 271,914 255,262 222,173 202,502 190,278 178,054 155,760 145,133
GA NOX.................................. 297,838 276,697 255,555 234,413 225,072 205,747 199,437 180,291 161,144 122,097 108,363
GA VOC.................................. 171,049 157,722 144,394 131,067 134,296 115,940 108,633 99,471 90,309 72,285 67,187
NC NOX.................................. 272,542 253,619 234,697 215,775 197,948 165,162 157,428 145,004 132,580 107,114 95,139
NC VOC.................................. 176,370 162,257 148,144 134,032 124,615 104,938 99,959 96,950 93,940 88,486 81,551
SC NOX.................................. 144,953 137,401 129,850 122,298 111,751 111,167 104,989 95,687 86,385 68,365 61,243
SC VOC.................................. 86,955 82,634 78,312 73,991 70,288 66,464 64,202 59,603 55,005 46,372 42,789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Hazardous
Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007); Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad
Diesel Engines and Fuel (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition
Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008); Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment (73 FR
59034, October 8, 2008); Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75 FR 22895, April 30,
2010); Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test Procedures (77 FR 36342, June 18, 2012).
The large decrease in NOX emissions between 2016
emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina are primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources. As shown by the
mobile source emissions trends in Table 3, 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.\21\
In summary, based on the projected downward trend in projected
future emissions trends, in combination with the historical decline in
actual emissions, there is no evidence to suggest that the overall
emissions trend demonstrated in Table 2 would 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 beyond 2021would not continue to show a decline in
emissions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA's normal practice is to only include changes in
emissions from final regulatory actions in its modeling because,
until such rules are finalized, any potential changes in
NOX or VOC emissions are speculative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This downward trend in emissions in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina adds support to the air quality analysis
presented above and indicates that the contributions from emissions
from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to
ozone receptors in downwind states will continue to decline and remain
below one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, based on this
supplemental analysis, EPA continues to propose to conclude that the
air quality and emissions analyses indicate that emissions from
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
III. Supplemental Proposed Actions
In its December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA originally proposed to find
that emissions from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state based on information for the analytic year 2023, consistent with
the 2024 Moderate area attainment date. Thus, EPA proposed to approve
the interstate transport portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions
from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\23\ See 84 FR 71854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As mentioned in Section I above, EPA is deferring action on
Alabama's and Tennessee's Good Neighbor infrastructure SIP
submittals at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis presented in this notice provides a new primary basis
for approval to supplement EPA's proposed finding in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. EPA continues to propose to find that emissions from
sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus,
EPA continues to propose to approve the interstate transport portions
of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are 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.);
Do 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);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National
[[Page 37948]]
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and
Do 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).
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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action
for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' The Catawba Indian Nation also
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
Dated: July 12, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-15097 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
