Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements, 48357-48363 [2021-18516]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
anchorage is 750 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 250 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area, 2.2
miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 45.4 to mile 47.6 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
700 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 400 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
800 feet.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area,
1.1 miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 200 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 700 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area,
1.34 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 69.56 to mile 70.9 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(12): Jesuit Bend
Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the
lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area,
2.15 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 73.05 to mile 75.2 Above
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 375 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 875 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage.
An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river
extending from mile 78.6 to mile 80.8
Above Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 300 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(14): English Turn
Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the
lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area,
2.4 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 82.6 to mile 85.0 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 300 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area,
2.2 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 40.0 to mile 42.2 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 325 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 825 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 400 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48357
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 19, 2021.
Richard V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2021–18467 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2021–0353; FRL–8916–01–
R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015
Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in
other states. The State of Connecticut
made a submission to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to address these requirements for the
2015 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submission as
meeting the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 29,
2021.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2021–0353 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
48358
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109—3912, telephone number: (617)
918–1684, email address:
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable
requirements is found in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which
generally requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain
adverse air quality effects on other states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
There are two so-called ‘‘prongs’’ within
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for
a new or revised NAAQS must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting
air pollutants in amounts that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1), or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). EPA and states must give
independent significance to prong 1 and
prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).3
We note that EPA has addressed the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to prior ozone NAAQS in
several regional regulatory actions,
including the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which addressed
interstate transport with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
standards,4 the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most
recently, the Revised CSAPR Update for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6
Through the development and
implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the
good neighbor provision,7 EPA, working
Table of Contents
2 SIP revisions that are intended to meet the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the applicable elements under section
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
911 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
4 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
5 In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it failed
to require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin v.
EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
6 The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021), was signed by the EPA
Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded
to the remand of the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016), and the vacatur of a separate
rule, the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (December
21, 2018), by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA,
938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781
F. App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
7 In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other
regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
II. Connecticut Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut’s
Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated
a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015
ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of
both the primary and secondary
standards to 0.070 parts per million
(ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit, within 3 years
after promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIP submissions meeting the
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Although the level of the standard is specified in
the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also
described in parts per billion (ppb). For example,
0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in partnership with states, developed
the following four-step interstate
transport framework to address the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1)
Identify downwind air quality
problems; (2) identify upwind states
that impact those downwind air quality
problems sufficiently such that they are
considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore
warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions
necessary (if any), applying a multifactor analysis, to prevent linked
upwind states identified in step 2 from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
EPA has released several documents
containing information relevant to
evaluating interstate transport with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First,
on January 6, 2017, EPA published a
notice of data availability (NODA) with
preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design
values (DVs) for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform, on which we requested
public comment.8 In the NODA, EPA
used the year 2023 as the analytic year
for this preliminary modeling because
that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.9 On October 27, 2017, we
released a memorandum (2017 memo)
containing updated modeling data for
2023, which incorporated changes made
in response to comments on the NODA,
and noted that the modeling may be
useful for states developing SIPs to
address good neighbor obligations for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.10 On March 27,
2018, we issued a memorandum (March
2018 memo) noting that the same 2023
modeling data released in the 2017
memo could also be useful for
identifying potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27,
1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
8 See Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
9 82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017).
10 See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the
docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
four-step interstate transport framework.
The March 2018 memo also included
the then newly available contribution
modeling results to assist states in
evaluating their impact on potential
downwind air quality problems for the
2015 ozone NAAQS under step 2 of the
interstate transport framework. EPA
subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October
2018, providing additional information
to states developing good neighbor SIP
submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
concerning, respectively, potential
contribution thresholds that may be
appropriate to apply in step 2 of the
framework, and considerations for
identifying downwind areas that may
have problems maintaining the standard
at step 1 of the framework.11
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised
CSAPR Update, EPA released and
accepted public comment on updated
2023 modeling that used a 2016
emissions platform developed under the
EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
(MJO)/state collaborative project as the
primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.12 On March
15, 2021, EPA signed the final Revised
CSAPR Update using the same modeling
released at proposal.13 Although
Connecticut relied on the modeling
included in the March 2018 memo to
develop its SIP submission as EPA had
suggested, EPA now proposes to
primarily rely on the updated and
newly available 2016 base year
modeling in evaluating these
submissions. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most
current and technically appropriate
information as the primary basis for this
proposed rulemaking. EPA’s
independent analysis, which also
evaluated historical monitoring data,
recent DVs, and emissions trends, found
that such information provides
additional support and further
11 See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for
Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August
2018 memo’’), and Considerations for Identifying
Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
October 19, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memoand-supplemental-information-regarding-interstatetransport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
12 See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the
docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public review in the docket
for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2020–0272).
13 See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30,
2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
substantiates the results of the 2016 base
year modeling as the basis for this
proposed rulemaking. Section III of this
document and the Air Quality Modeling
technical support document (TSD)
included in the docket for this proposal
contain additional detail on this
modeling.14
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and
the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used a
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS
to determine whether a given upwind
state was ‘‘linked’’ at step 2 of the
interstate transport framework and
would, therefore, contribute to
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites identified in step 1. If
a state’s impact did not equal or exceed
the one percent threshold, the upwind
state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a downwind
air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a state’s
impact equaled or exceeded the one
percent threshold, the state’s emissions
were further evaluated in step 3,
considering both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions might be deemed
‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must be
eliminated under the good neighbor
provision. EPA is proposing to rely on
the one percent threshold (which is 0.70
ppb) for the purpose of evaluating
Connecticut’s contribution to
nonattainment or maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions
address the issue of the relevant analytic
year for the purposes of evaluating
ozone transport air-quality problems.
On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA,
remanding the CSAPR Update to the
extent that it failed to require upwind
states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with
the NAAQS, as established under CAA
section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313.
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA
that cited the Wisconsin decision in
holding that EPA must assess the impact
14 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update,’’ 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021),
available in the docket for this action. This TSD was
originally developed to support EPA’s action in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding
good neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. While developed in this separate context,
the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be
evaluated with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
and used in support of this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48359
of interstate transport on air quality at
the next downwind attainment date,
including Marginal area attainment
dates, in evaluating the basis for EPA’s
denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185,
1203–04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court
noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and,
therefore, ‘‘EPA must find a violation [of
section 126] if an upwind source will
significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment at the next downwind
attainment deadline. Therefore, the
agency must evaluate downwind air
quality at that deadline, not at some
later date.’’ Id. at 1204 (emphasis
added). EPA interprets the court’s
holding in Maryland as requiring the
Agency, under the good neighbor
provision, to assess downwind air
quality by the next applicable
attainment date, including a Marginal
area attainment date under CAA section
181 for ozone nonattainment.15 The
Marginal area attainment date for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.16
Historically, EPA has considered the
full ozone season prior to the attainment
date as supplying an appropriate
analytic year for assessing good
neighbor obligations. While this would
be 2020 for an August 2021 attainment
date (which falls within the 2021 ozone
season running from May 1 to
September 30), in this circumstance,
when the 2020 ozone season is wholly
in the past, it is appropriate to focus on
2021 to address good neighbor
obligations to the extent possible by the
2021 attainment date. EPA does not
believe it would be appropriate to select
an analytical year that is wholly in the
past, because the agency interprets the
good neighbor provision as forward
looking. See 86 FR 23054 at 23074; see
also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322.
Consequently, in this proposal EPA will
use the analytical year of 2021 to
evaluate Connecticut’s good neighbor
15 We note that the court in Maryland did not
have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which
EPA may determine that an upwind linkage to a
downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and
2 of the interstate transport framework by a
particular attainment date, but for reasons of
impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency is
unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by
that date. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C.
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient
showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good
neighbor provision. Such circumstances are not at
issue in the present proposal.
16 CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303;
Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 83
FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48360
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
obligation with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS.17
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut’s
Submittal
II. Connecticut Submittal
On December 6, 2018, Connecticut
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Connecticut relied on
the results of EPA’s modeling for the
2015 ozone NAAQS contained in the
March 2018 memo to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
Connecticut in the year 2023. These
results indicate Connecticut’s greatest
impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.83 ppb in Suffolk County,
New York.18 Based on the March 2018
memo, this was the only nonattainment
or maintenance receptor for which
Connecticut was projected in 2023 to
contribute above the screening
threshold of 0.70 ppb (one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
Connecticut noted in its December
2018 good neighbor submittal that ‘‘EPA
had considered cost-effective only
reductions that are available at a cost of
less than $1,400 per ton of emissions
reduced. Connecticut’s emitters are
currently required to adopt control
measures at costs exceeding $13,000 per
ton (of NOX).’’ 19 Connecticut states that
as it requires this high level of control
of ozone precursor emissions, it has
exhausted lower-cost emission
reduction measures.
As evidence of this, Connecticut
points to Regulations of Connecticut
Agencies section 22a–174–22e(g) and its
ozone attainment plan technical support
document for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
which was submitted to EPA in August
2017 and documents the State’s ozone
precursor emission reduction measures.
Connecticut concludes that it has met
its good neighbor obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS because of the
existing control measures that are in
place.
Connecticut’s SIP submission relies
on analysis of the year 2023 to show
whether it contributes to nonattainment
or interferes with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.20
As explained in Section I of this
proposal, EPA has conducted an
updated analysis for the 2021 analytical
year that is being used to evaluate
Connecticut’s transport SIP submittal.
Significantly, this new analysis shows
that, in 2021, Connecticut is not
projected to contribute to any potential
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor, including the
monitor in Suffolk County, New York,
above the screening threshold of 0.70
ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS). While EPA has focused its
analysis in this document on the year
2021, modeling data in the record for
years 2023 and 2028 confirm that no
new linkages to downwind receptors are
projected for Connecticut in later years.
This is not surprising as it is consistent
with an overall, long-term downward
trend in emissions from this state.
As explained in Section I of this
document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland,
EPA’s analysis relies on 2021 as the
relevant attainment year for evaluating
Connecticut’s good neighbor obligations
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
using the four-step interstate transport
framework. In step 1, we identify
locations where the Agency expects
there to be nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2015 8hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic
year. Where EPA’s analysis shows that
an area or site does not fall under the
definition of a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor, that site is
excluded from further analysis under
EPA’s four step interstate transport
framework. For areas that are identified
as a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor in 2021, we proceed to the next
step of our four-step framework by
identifying the upwind state’s
contribution to those receptors.
17 EPA recognizes that by the time final action is
taken with respect to this SIP submission, the 2021
ozone season will be wholly in the past. As
discussed below, the available modeling
information indicates that our analysis would not
change even using 2023 as the analytic year. The
2023 modeling results are included in the ‘‘Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR
Update.xlsx’’, included in the docket for this action.
18 EPA notes that the monitoring site ID for
Suffolk County, New York is 361030002.
19 EPA notes that the $1,400 ton per year
threshold stated by Connecticut is in reference to
the cost per ton threshold used in the CSAPR
Update, which was used to evaluate available costeffective EGU controls under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. See 81 FR 74504 (October
26, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
20 We recognize that Connecticut and other states
may have been influenced by EPA’s 2018 guidance
memos (issued prior to the Wisconsin and Maryland
decisions) in making good neighbor submissions
that relied on EPA’s modeling of 2023. When there
are intervening changes in relevant law or legal
interpretation of CAA requirements, states are
generally free to withdraw, supplement, and/or resubmit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP
submissions). While Connecticut has not done this,
as explained in this section, the independent
analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion
confirms that the state’s submission in this instance
is ultimately approvable.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA’s approach to identifying ozone
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent
with the approach used in previous
transport rulemakings. EPA’s approach
gives independent consideration to both
the ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
D.C. Circuit’s direction in North
Carolina v. EPA.21
For the purpose of this proposal, EPA
identifies nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites that are projected
to have average design values that
exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the
most recent monitored design values.
This approach is consistent with prior
transport rulemakings, such as CSAPR
Update, where EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those areas
that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that EPA projects
will be in nonattainment in the future
analytic year.22
In addition, in this proposal, EPA
identifies a receptor to be a
‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes of
defining interference with maintenance,
consistent with the method used in the
CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit
in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir.
2015).23 Specifically, monitoring sites
with a projected maximum design value
in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are
considered maintenance receptors.
EPA’s method of defining these
receptors takes into account both
measured data and reasonable
projections based on modeling analysis.
Recognizing that nonattainment
receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses
the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to refer to
receptors that are not also
nonattainment receptors. Consistent
with the methodology described above,
monitoring sites with a projected
maximum design value that exceeds the
NAAQS, but with a projected average
design value that is below the NAAQS,
21 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910–
11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA must give
‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
22 See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 86 FR
23054 (April 30, 2021). This same concept, relying
on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in
CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 14, 2005); see also
North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913–14 (affirming as
reasonable EPA’s approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
23 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR
Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this
approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and
86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
are identified as maintenance-only
receptors. In addition, those sites that
are currently measuring ozone
concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS but are projected to
be nonattainment based on the average
design value and that, by definition, are
projected to have a maximum design
value above the standard are also
identified as maintenance-only
receptors.
To evaluate future air quality in steps
1 and 2 of the interstate transport
framework, EPA is using the 2016 and
2023 base case emissions developed
under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative
emissions modeling platform project as
the primary source for base year and
2023 future year emissions data for this
proposal.24 Because this platform does
not include emissions for 2021, EPA
developed an interpolation technique
based on modeling for 2023 and
measured ozone data to determine
ozone concentrations for 2021. To
estimate average and maximum design
values for 2021, EPA first performed air
quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with
the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values
in 2021. Details on the modeling,
including the interpolation
methodology, can be found in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD, found in the
docket for this proposal.
To quantify the contribution of
emissions from specific upwind states
on 2021 8-hour design values for the
identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, EPA first
performed nationwide, state-level ozone
source apportionment modeling for
2023. The source apportionment
modeling provided contributions to
ozone from precursor emissions of
anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in each state, individually. The modeled
contributions were then applied in a
relative sense to the 2021 average design
value to estimate the contributions in
2021 from each state to each receptor.
Details on the source apportionment
modeling and the methods for
determining contributions in 2021 are in
the Air Quality Modeling TSD in the
docket.
The 2021 design values and
contributions were examined to
determine if Connecticut contributes at
or above the threshold of one percent of
24 See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results
of this modeling are included in a spreadsheet in
the docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public access in the docket for
the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–
0272).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to
any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. The data 25
indicate that the highest contribution in
2021 from Connecticut to a downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
is 0.44 ppb to a nonattainment receptor
in Richmond County, New York
(monitoring site 360850067). The data
also show modeled ozone contributions
from Connecticut to the design values of
a larger set of monitoring sites
(independent of attainment status) and
indicate that the highest projected
contribution in 2021 from Connecticut
to any of these sites is 3.51 ppb to Kent
County in Rhode Island (monitoring site
440030002; #378 on the Design Values
and Contributions spreadsheet). While
Connecticut’s modeled contribution to
the Kent County monitor exceeds one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
EPA’s analysis at step 1 does not
identify the Kent County monitor as a
downwind area that may have problems
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The Kent County monitor’s projected
average design value in 2021 is 65.5
ppb. The updated modeling for 2021
also shows that Connecticut is no longer
projected to be linked to the Suffolk
County monitoring site, since this
monitor is no longer projected to be a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor.
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor
emissions trends in Connecticut to
support the findings from the air quality
analysis. In evaluating emissions trends,
we first reviewed the information
submitted by the state and then
reviewed additional information
available to the Agency. We focused on
state-wide emissions of NOX and
VOCs.26 Emissions from mobile sources,
electric generating units (‘‘EGUs’’),
industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and
chemical solvents are some of the major
anthropogenic sources of ozone
precursors. This evaluation looks at
both past emissions trends, as well as
projected trends.
As shown in Table 1, for Connecticut,
annual total NOX and VOC emissions
are projected to decline between 2016
and 2023 by 31 percent and 2 percent,
respectively. The projected reductions
are a result of the implementation of
existing control programs that will
continue to decrease NOX and VOC
25 The data are given in the ‘‘Air Quality
Modeling Technical Support Document for the
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update’’ and
‘‘Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised
CSAPR Update.xlsx,’’ which are included in the
docket for this action.
26 This is because ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly into the air but is formed by
chemical reactions between ozone precursors,
chiefly NOX and VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
See 86 FR 23054, 23063.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48361
emissions in Connecticut, as indicated
by EPA’s most recent 2021 and 2023
projected emissions.
As shown in Table 2, on-road and
nonroad mobile source emissions
collectively comprise a large portion of
Connecticut’s total anthropogenic NOX
and VOCs. For example, in 2019, NOX
emissions from mobile sources in
Connecticut comprised 62 percent of
total NOX emissions and 38 percent of
total VOC emissions.
The large decrease in NOX emissions
between 2016 emissions and projected
2023 emissions in Connecticut is
primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from on-road and nonroad
mobile sources. EPA projects that both
VOC and NOX emissions will continue
declining to 2023 as newer vehicles and
engines that are subject to the most
recent, stringent mobile source
standards replace older vehicles and
engines.27
In summary, 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 2021 would not continue to
show a decline in emissions. In
addition, EPA followed its normal
practice of including in our modeling
only changes in NOX or VOC emissions
that result from final regulatory actions.
Any potential changes in NOX or VOC
emissions that may result from possible
future or proposed regulatory actions
are speculative.
This downward trend in emissions in
Connecticut adds support to the air
quality analyses presented above for the
state and indicates that the
contributions from emissions from
sources in Connecticut to ozone
receptors in downwind states will
27 Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel
Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR 8428,
February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Clean
Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29,
2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098,
May 6, 2008); Marine Spark-Ignition and Small
Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR 59034, October
8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR
22895, April 30, 2010); and Aircraft and Aircraft
Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342, June 18,
2012).
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
48362
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
continue to decline and remain below
one percent of the NAAQS.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOCS FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN CONNECTICUT
[Tons per year] 28
CT NOX ..........
CT VOCs ........
I
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
72,815
79,806
69,540
80,621
66,264
81,435
62,989
82,250
57,791
74,313
48,729
62,658
46,285
57,777
43,751
56,137
40,219
54,498
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Projected
2021
I
Projected
2023
35,033
63,354
33,412
61,110
TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOCS FROM ON-ROAD AND NONROAD VEHICLES IN CONNECTICUT
[Tons per year]
CT NOX ..........
CT VOCs ........
I
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
54,371
38,749
50,956
37,166
47,540
35,583
44,124
33,999
40,040
30,837
32,090
23,957
30,760
23,851
27,878
22,212
24,995
20,573
I
I
Thus, EPA’s air quality and emissions
analyses indicate that emissions from
Connecticut will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state in 2021.
I
I
I
I
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register
document.
As discussed in Section II,
Connecticut concluded that it has met
its good neighbor obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS based on existing
control measures that are in place. EPA
conducted an independent analysis for
the analytic year 2021 based on more
recent data and updated modeling.
EPA’s evaluation of measured and
monitored data, including interpolating
values to generate a reasonable
expectation of air quality and
contribution values in 2021, is
discussed in Section III. Based on the
updated modeling and analysis, EPA
concluded that emissions from sources
in the state will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state. This
conclusion remains true for later
modeled years 2023 and 2028 in the
updated modeling EPA is relying on.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
Connecticut submission as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is soliciting public comments on
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
28 The annual emissions data for the years 2011
through 2019 were obtained from EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-
trends-data. Note that emissions from
miscellaneous sources are not included in the state
totals. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based
on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See
IV. Proposed Action
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I
Projected
2021
I
Projected
2023
19,128
17,398
16,935
16,229
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
‘‘2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State
Tier 1 Emissions_v3’’ and the Emissions Modeling
TSD in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 24, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
[FR Doc. 2021–18516 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 61 and 63
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0086; FRL–8847–01–
R6]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation
of Authority to Oklahoma
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has
submitted updated regulations for
receiving delegation and approval of its
program for the implementation and
enforcement of certain National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), as provided for
under previously approved delegation
mechanisms. The updated state
regulations incorporate by reference
certain NESHAP promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as they existed through June 30, 2019.
The EPA is proposing to approve
ODEQ’s requested delegation update.
The proposed delegation of authority
under this action applies to sources
located in certain areas of Indian
country as discussed herein.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received on or
before September 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2020–0086, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
barrett.richard@epa.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Rick Barrett, 214–665–7227,
barrett.richard@epa.gov. For the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
Barrett, EPA Region 6 Office, ARPE,
(214) 665–7227, barrett.richard@
epa.gov. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed
to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID–19. We encourage
the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov, as there
will be a delay in processing mail and
no courier or hand deliveries will be
accepted. Please call or email the
contact listed above if you need
alternative access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What does this action do?
II. What is the authority for delegation?
III. What criteria must Oklahoma’s program
meet to be approved?
IV. How did ODEQ meet the NESHAP
program approval criteria?
V. What is being delegated?
VI. What is not being delegated?
VII. How will statutory and regulatory
interpretations be made?
VIII. What Authority Does the EPA Have?
IX. What Information must ODEQ provide to
the EPA?
X. What is the EPA’s oversight role?
XI. Should sources submit notices to the EPA
or ODEQ?
XII. How will unchanged authorities be
delegated to ODEQ in the future?
XIII. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
XIV. Proposed Action
XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What does this action do?
The EPA is proposing to approve the
delegation of the implementation and
enforcement of certain NESHAPs to
ODEQ. If finalized, the delegation will
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48363
provide ODEQ with the primary
responsibility to implement and enforce
the delegated standards.
II. What is the authority for delegation?
Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E,
authorize the EPA to delegate authority
to any State or local agency which
submits adequate regulatory procedures
for implementation and enforcement of
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant
standards are codified at 40 CFR parts
61 and 63.
III. What criteria must Oklahoma’s
program meet to be approved?
Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA requires
the EPA to disapprove any program
submitted by a State for the delegation
of NESHAP standards if the EPA
determines that:
(A) The authorities contained in the
program are not adequate to assure
compliance by the sources within the
State with respect to each applicable
standard, regulation, or requirement
established under section 112;
(B) adequate authority does not exist,
or adequate resources are not available,
to implement the program;
(C) the schedule for implementing the
program and assuring compliance by
affected sources is not sufficiently
expeditious; or
(D) the program is otherwise not in
compliance with the guidance issued by
the EPA under section 112(l)(2) or is not
likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
objectives of the CAA.
In carrying out its responsibilities
under section 112(l), the EPA
promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part
63, subpart E setting forth criteria for the
approval of submitted programs. For
example, in order to obtain approval of
a program to implement and enforce
Federal section 112 rules as
promulgated without changes (straight
delegation) for part 70 sources, a state
must demonstrate that it meets the
criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). 40 CFR
63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final
Title V program approval will satisfy the
criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d).1 The
NESHAP delegation for Oklahoma, as it
applies to both part 70 and non-part 70
1 Some NESHAP standards do not require a
source to obtain a Title V permit (e.g., certain area
sources that are exempt from the requirement to
obtain a Title V permit). For these non-Title V
sources, the EPA believes that the State must assure
the EPA that it can implement and enforce the
NESHAP for such sources. See 65 FR 55810, 55813
(September 14, 2000). The EPA previously
approved Oklahoma’s program to implement and
enforce the NESHAP as they apply to non-part 70
sources. See 66 FR 1584 (January 9, 2001).
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48357-48363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18516]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0353; FRL-8916-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate
Transport Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The
State of Connecticut made a submission to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for the 2015 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the
submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 29,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2021-0353 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
[[Page 48358]]
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, telephone
number: (617) 918-1684, email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Connecticut Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these
applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are two
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting air pollutants in amounts that will significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1), or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). EPA and
states must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
\2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that EPA has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\4\ the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most recently, the Revised
CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\5\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
\6\ The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), was signed by the
EPA Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded to the remand of
the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016), and the vacatur of
a separate rule, the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (December 21,
2018), by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C.
Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the development and implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\7\ EPA,
working in partnership with states, developed the following four-step
interstate transport framework to address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify downwind air
quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind
air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered
``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), applying a multi-
factor analysis, to prevent linked upwind states identified in step 2
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to
achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the NOX
SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has released several documents containing information relevant
to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design values (DVs) for 2023 using a 2011
base year platform, on which we requested public comment.\8\ In the
NODA, EPA used the year 2023 as the analytic year for this preliminary
modeling because that year aligns with the expected attainment year for
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ On
October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017 memo) containing
updated modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in
response to comments on the NODA, and noted that the modeling may be
useful for states developing SIPs to address good neighbor obligations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum
(March 2018 memo) noting that the same 2023 modeling data released in
the 2017 memo could also be useful for identifying potential downwind
air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of
the
[[Page 48359]]
four-step interstate transport framework. The March 2018 memo also
included the then newly available contribution modeling results to
assist states in evaluating their impact on potential downwind air
quality problems for the 2015 ozone NAAQS under step 2 of the
interstate transport framework. EPA subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October 2018, providing additional information
to states developing good neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS concerning, respectively, potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply in step 2 of the framework, and
considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have problems
maintaining the standard at step 1 of the framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
\9\ 82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017).
\10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018 memo''), and
Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Revised CSAPR Update, EPA released and accepted public comment on
updated 2023 modeling that used a 2016 emissions platform developed
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\12\ On March 15, 2021, EPA signed the final
Revised CSAPR Update using the same modeling released at proposal.\13\
Although Connecticut relied on the modeling included in the March 2018
memo to develop its SIP submission as EPA had suggested, EPA now
proposes to primarily rely on the updated and newly available 2016 base
year modeling in evaluating these submissions. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. EPA's independent analysis, which also evaluated historical
monitoring data, recent DVs, and emissions trends, found that such
information provides additional support and further substantiates the
results of the 2016 base year modeling as the basis for this proposed
rulemaking. Section III of this document and the Air Quality Modeling
technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
proposal contain additional detail on this modeling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this modeling are
included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this action. The
underlying modeling files are available for public review in the
docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272).
\13\ See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30, 2021).
\14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' 86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021), available in the docket for this action. This TSD
was originally developed to support EPA's action in the Revised
CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding good neighbor obligations
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. While developed in this separate
context, the data and modeling outputs, including interpolated
design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS and used in support of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used
a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given
upwind state was ``linked'' at step 2 of the interstate transport
framework and would, therefore, contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance sites identified in step 1. If a state's impact did not
equal or exceed the one percent threshold, the upwind state was not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states.
However, if a state's impact equaled or exceeded the one percent
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 3,
considering both air quality and cost considerations, to determine
what, if any, emissions might be deemed ``significant'' and, thus, must
be eliminated under the good neighbor provision. EPA is proposing to
rely on the one percent threshold (which is 0.70 ppb) for the purpose
of evaluating Connecticut's contribution to nonattainment or
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions address the issue of the
relevant analytic year for the purposes of evaluating ozone transport
air-quality problems. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a
decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the CSAPR Update to the extent
that it failed to require upwind states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with the NAAQS, as established under
CAA section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313.
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Maryland v.
EPA that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must assess
the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind
attainment date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The
court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the Good Neighbor
Provision,'' and, therefore, ``EPA must find a violation [of section
126] if an upwind source will significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment at the next downwind attainment deadline. Therefore, the
agency must evaluate downwind air quality at that deadline, not at some
later date.'' Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). EPA interprets the court's
holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency, under the good neighbor
provision, to assess downwind air quality by the next applicable
attainment date, including a Marginal area attainment date under CAA
section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\15\ The Marginal area attainment
date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.\16\ Historically, EPA
has considered the full ozone season prior to the attainment date as
supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing good neighbor
obligations. While this would be 2020 for an August 2021 attainment
date (which falls within the 2021 ozone season running from May 1 to
September 30), in this circumstance, when the 2020 ozone season is
wholly in the past, it is appropriate to focus on 2021 to address good
neighbor obligations to the extent possible by the 2021 attainment
date. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to select an
analytical year that is wholly in the past, because the agency
interprets the good neighbor provision as forward looking. See 86 FR
23054 at 23074; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. Consequently, in
this proposal EPA will use the analytical year of 2021 to evaluate
Connecticut's good neighbor
[[Page 48360]]
obligation with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport framework by a particular attainment date,
but for reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency
is unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by that date. See
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that
upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good neighbor
provision. Such circumstances are not at issue in the present
proposal.
\16\ CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; Additional Air Quality
Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
\17\ EPA recognizes that by the time final action is taken with
respect to this SIP submission, the 2021 ozone season will be wholly
in the past. As discussed below, the available modeling information
indicates that our analysis would not change even using 2023 as the
analytic year. The 2023 modeling results are included in the ``Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'',
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Connecticut Submittal
On December 6, 2018, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Connecticut relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS contained in the
March 2018 memo to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Connecticut
in the year 2023. These results indicate Connecticut's greatest impact
on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor would
be 0.83 ppb in Suffolk County, New York.\18\ Based on the March 2018
memo, this was the only nonattainment or maintenance receptor for which
Connecticut was projected in 2023 to contribute above the screening
threshold of 0.70 ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA notes that the monitoring site ID for Suffolk County,
New York is 361030002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut noted in its December 2018 good neighbor submittal that
``EPA had considered cost-effective only reductions that are available
at a cost of less than $1,400 per ton of emissions reduced.
Connecticut's emitters are currently required to adopt control measures
at costs exceeding $13,000 per ton (of NOX).'' \19\
Connecticut states that as it requires this high level of control of
ozone precursor emissions, it has exhausted lower-cost emission
reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ EPA notes that the $1,400 ton per year threshold stated by
Connecticut is in reference to the cost per ton threshold used in
the CSAPR Update, which was used to evaluate available cost-
effective EGU controls under the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. See
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As evidence of this, Connecticut points to Regulations of
Connecticut Agencies section 22a-174-22e(g) and its ozone attainment
plan technical support document for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which was
submitted to EPA in August 2017 and documents the State's ozone
precursor emission reduction measures.
Connecticut concludes that it has met its good neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because of the existing control measures that
are in place.
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal
Connecticut's SIP submission relies on analysis of the year 2023 to
show whether it contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.\20\ As
explained in Section I of this proposal, EPA has conducted an updated
analysis for the 2021 analytical year that is being used to evaluate
Connecticut's transport SIP submittal. Significantly, this new analysis
shows that, in 2021, Connecticut is not projected to contribute to any
potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor, including the
monitor in Suffolk County, New York, above the screening threshold of
0.70 ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS). While EPA has focused
its analysis in this document on the year 2021, modeling data in the
record for years 2023 and 2028 confirm that no new linkages to downwind
receptors are projected for Connecticut in later years. This is not
surprising as it is consistent with an overall, long-term downward
trend in emissions from this state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We recognize that Connecticut and other states may have
been influenced by EPA's 2018 guidance memos (issued prior to the
Wisconsin and Maryland decisions) in making good neighbor
submissions that relied on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are
intervening changes in relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA
requirements, states are generally free to withdraw, supplement,
and/or re-submit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While
Connecticut has not done this, as explained in this section, the
independent analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion confirms
that the state's submission in this instance is ultimately
approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in Section I of this document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA's analysis relies on 2021 as
the relevant attainment year for evaluating Connecticut's good neighbor
obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS using the four-step
interstate transport framework. In step 1, we identify locations where
the Agency expects there to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic year. Where EPA's
analysis shows that an area or site does not fall under the definition
of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, that site is excluded from
further analysis under EPA's four step interstate transport framework.
For areas that are identified as a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor in 2021, we proceed to the next step of our four-step
framework by identifying the upwind state's contribution to those
receptors.
EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent with the approach used in
previous transport rulemakings. EPA's approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina v. EPA.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir.
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 proposal, EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to have average
design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design values. This
approach is consistent with prior transport rulemakings, such as CSAPR
Update, where EPA defined nonattainment receptors as those areas that
both currently monitor nonattainment and that EPA projects will be in
nonattainment in the future analytic year.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised CSAPR Update
also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR
25241 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-
14 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to defining nonattainment
in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in this proposal, EPA identifies a receptor to be a
``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining interference with
maintenance, consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\23\ Specifically, monitoring sites with a
projected maximum design value in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are
considered maintenance receptors. EPA's method of defining these
receptors takes into account both measured data and reasonable
projections based on modeling analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS,
[[Page 48361]]
are identified as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites
that are currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of
the applicable NAAQS but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
To evaluate future air quality in steps 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport framework, EPA is using the 2016 and 2023 base case emissions
developed under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative emissions modeling
platform project as the primary source for base year and 2023 future
year emissions data for this proposal.\24\ Because this platform does
not include emissions for 2021, EPA developed an interpolation
technique based on modeling for 2023 and measured ozone data to
determine ozone concentrations for 2021. To estimate average and
maximum design values for 2021, EPA first performed air quality
modeling for 2016 and 2023 to obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values in 2021. Details on the
modeling, including the interpolation methodology, can be found in the
Air Quality Modeling TSD, found in the docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
action. The underlying modeling files are available for public
access in the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0272).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind
states on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors, EPA first performed
nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023.
The source apportionment modeling provided contributions to ozone from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in each state, individually. The
modeled contributions were then applied in a relative sense to the 2021
average design value to estimate the contributions in 2021 from each
state to each receptor. Details on the source apportionment modeling
and the methods for determining contributions in 2021 are in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD in the docket.
The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if Connecticut contributes at or above the threshold of one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. The data \25\ indicate that the highest
contribution in 2021 from Connecticut to a downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor is 0.44 ppb to a nonattainment receptor in
Richmond County, New York (monitoring site 360850067). The data also
show modeled ozone contributions from Connecticut to the design values
of a larger set of monitoring sites (independent of attainment status)
and indicate that the highest projected contribution in 2021 from
Connecticut to any of these sites is 3.51 ppb to Kent County in Rhode
Island (monitoring site 440030002; #378 on the Design Values and
Contributions spreadsheet). While Connecticut's modeled contribution to
the Kent County monitor exceeds one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
EPA's analysis at step 1 does not identify the Kent County monitor as a
downwind area that may have problems maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The Kent County monitor's projected average design value in 2021 is
65.5 ppb. The updated modeling for 2021 also shows that Connecticut is
no longer projected to be linked to the Suffolk County monitoring site,
since this monitor is no longer projected to be a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The data are given in the ``Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update'' and ``Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR
Update.xlsx,'' which are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Connecticut
to support the findings from the air quality analysis. In evaluating
emissions trends, we first reviewed the information submitted by the
state and then reviewed additional information available to the Agency.
We focused on state-wide emissions of NOX and VOCs.\26\
Emissions from mobile sources, electric generating units (``EGUs''),
industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some
of the major anthropogenic sources of ozone precursors. This evaluation
looks at both past emissions trends, as well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ This is because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly
into the air but is formed by chemical reactions between ozone
precursors, chiefly NOX and VOCs, in the presence of
sunlight. See 86 FR 23054, 23063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, for Connecticut, annual total NOX
and VOC emissions are projected to decline between 2016 and 2023 by 31
percent and 2 percent, respectively. The projected reductions are a
result of the implementation of existing control programs that will
continue to decrease NOX and VOC emissions in Connecticut,
as indicated by EPA's most recent 2021 and 2023 projected emissions.
As shown in Table 2, on-road and nonroad mobile source emissions
collectively comprise a large portion of Connecticut's total
anthropogenic NOX and VOCs. For example, in 2019,
NOX emissions from mobile sources in Connecticut comprised
62 percent of total NOX emissions and 38 percent of total
VOC emissions.
The large decrease in NOX emissions between 2016
emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Connecticut is primarily
driven by reductions in emissions from on-road and nonroad mobile
sources. EPA projects that both VOC and NOX emissions will
continue declining to 2023 as newer vehicles and engines that are
subject to the most recent, stringent mobile source standards replace
older vehicles and engines.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR
23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR
8428, February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002,
January 18, 2001); Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June
29, 2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008);
Marine Spark-Ignition and Small Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR
59034, October 8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at
or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR 22895, April 30, 2010);
and Aircraft and Aircraft Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342,
June 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, 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 2021 would not continue to show a decline in
emissions. In addition, EPA followed its normal practice of including
in our modeling only changes in NOX or VOC emissions that
result from final regulatory actions. Any potential changes in
NOX or VOC emissions that may result from possible future or
proposed regulatory actions are speculative.
This downward trend in emissions in Connecticut adds support to the
air quality analyses presented above for the state and indicates that
the contributions from emissions from sources in Connecticut to ozone
receptors in downwind states will
[[Page 48362]]
continue to decline and remain below one percent of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019
were obtained from EPA's National Emissions Inventory website:
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Note that emissions from miscellaneous
sources are not included in the state totals. The emissions for 2021
and 2023 are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See
``2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State Tier 1 Emissions_v3''
and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this action.
Table 1--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOCs From Anthropogenic Sources in Connecticut
[Tons per year] 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT NOX.............................. 72,815 69,540 66,264 62,989 57,791 48,729 46,285 43,751 40,219 35,033 33,412
CT VOCs............................. 79,806 80,621 81,435 82,250 74,313 62,658 57,777 56,137 54,498 63,354 61,110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOCs From On-Road and Nonroad Vehicles in Connecticut
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT NOX.............................. 54,371 50,956 47,540 44,124 40,040 32,090 30,760 27,878 24,995 19,128 16,935
CT VOCs............................. 38,749 37,166 35,583 33,999 30,837 23,957 23,851 22,212 20,573 17,398 16,229
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA's air quality and emissions analyses indicate that
emissions from Connecticut will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state in 2021.
IV. Proposed Action
As discussed in Section II, Connecticut concluded that it has met
its good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on
existing control measures that are in place. EPA conducted an
independent analysis for the analytic year 2021 based on more recent
data and updated modeling. EPA's evaluation of measured and monitored
data, including interpolating values to generate a reasonable
expectation of air quality and contribution values in 2021, is
discussed in Section III. Based on the updated modeling and analysis,
EPA concluded that emissions from sources in the state will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. This conclusion remains
true for later modeled years 2023 and 2028 in the updated modeling EPA
is relying on. Therefore, we propose to approve the Connecticut
submission as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is soliciting public comments on this document. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register document.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
[[Page 48363]]
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 24, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-18516 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
