Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7071 

1National 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. 

2SIP 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. 

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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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 the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 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, Oxides of 

nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

Dated: February 1, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02462 Filed 2–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0075; FRL–9428–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Kansas; 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 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of air quality in other 

states. The State of Kansas made a 

submission to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to 

address these requirements for the 2015 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing 

to approve the submission for Kansas as 

meeting the requirement that the SIP 

contains adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 10, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2022–0075, to the Federal 

Rulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in www.regulations.gov. 

To reduce the risk of COVID–19 

transmission, for this action we do not 

plan to offer hard copy review of the 

docket. Please email or call the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section if you need to make 

alternative arrangements for access to 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Stone, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7714; 

email address: stone.william@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Kansas’s Submission 

III. EPA Evaluation of Kansas’s Submission 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7072 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909– 

911 (2008). 

4See 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). 

6The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (86 FR 23054 

(April 30, 2021)) was signed by the EPA 

Administrator on March 15, 2021 and responded to 

the remand of the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504 

October 26, 2016)) and the vacatur of a separate 

rule, the CSAPR Close-Out (83 FR 65878 (December 

21, 2018)) by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 

938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781 

F. App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

7 In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other 

regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport 

include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 

1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

8See 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). 

10See 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 as ‘‘October 2017 

Memorandum’’ or at https://www.epa.gov/ 

interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices. 

11See Information on the Interstate Transport 

State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 

2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the 

docket for this action as ‘‘March 2018 

Memorandum.’’ 

12See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for 

Use in Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan 

Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August 

2018 memorandum’’), and Considerations for 

Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport 

State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 

2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, October 19, 2018, available in the docket 

for this section as ‘‘Maintenance Receptors 

MemolOct2018’’ or at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs. 

13See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The underlying 

modeling files are available for public review in the 

docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0272). 

14See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30, 

2021). 

requirements is found in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as 

the good neighbor or interstate transport 

provision, which generally requires SIPs 

to contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit in-state emissions activities 

from having certain adverse air quality 

effects on other states due to interstate 

transport of pollution. There are four socalled ‘‘prongs’’ within CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i); section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

contains prongs 1 and 2. Under prongs 

1 and 2 of the good neighbor provision, 

a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants in amounts that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). EPA and states must give 

independent significance to prong 1 and 

prong 2 when evaluating downwind air 

quality problems under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).3

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) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and, 

most recently, the Revised CSAPR 

Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6

Through the development and 

implementation of CSAPR and other 

regional rulemakings pursuant to the 

good neighbor provision,7 EPA, working 

in partnership with states, developed 

the following four-step interstate 

transport framework to address the 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) 

Identify downwind air quality 

problems; (2) identify upwind states 

that impact those downwind air quality 

problems sufficiently such that they are 

considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore 

warrant further review and analysis; (3) 

identify the emissions reductions 

necessary (if any), considering airquality and cost factors, to prevent 

linked upwind states identified in step 

2 from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS at the 

locations of the downwind air quality 

problems; and (4) adopt permanent and 

enforceable measures needed to achieve 

those emissions reductions. 

EPA has released several documents 

containing information relevant to 

evaluating interstate transport with 

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 modeling platform, on which we 

requested public comment.8 In the 

NODA, EPA used the year 2023 as the 

analytic year for this preliminary 

modeling because that year aligns with 

the expected attainment year for 

Moderate ozone nonattainment areas for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS.9 On October 

27, 2017, we released a memorandum 

(2017 memorandum) containing 

updated modeling data for 2023, which 

incorporated changes made in response 

to comments on the NODA, and noted 

that the modeling may be useful for 

states developing SIPs to address good 

neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.10 On March 27, 2018, we 

issued a memorandum (March 2018 

memorandum) noting that the same 

2023 modeling data released in the 2017 

memorandum could also be useful for 

identifying potential downwind air 

quality problems with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the 

four-step interstate transport 

framework.11 The March 2018 

memorandum also included the then 

newly available contribution modeling 

results to assist states in evaluating their 

impact on potential downwind air 

quality problems for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS under step 2 of the interstate 

transport framework. EPA subsequently 

issued two more memoranda in August 

and October 2018, providing additional 

information to states developing good 

neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively, 

potential contribution thresholds that 

may be appropriate to apply in step 2 

of the framework, and considerations for 

identifying downwind areas that may 

have problems maintaining the standard 

at step 1 of the framework.12

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.13 On March 

15, 2021, EPA signed the final Revised 

CSAPR Update using the same modeling 

released at proposal.14 Although Kansas 

relied on the modeling included in the 

March 2018 memorandum to develop 

their SIP submission as EPA had 

suggested, EPA now proposes to 

primarily rely on the updated and 

newly available 2016 base year 

modeling in evaluating this submission. 

By using the Revised CSAPR Update 

modeling results, EPA is using the most 

current and technically appropriate 

information as the primary basis for this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7073 

15EPA recently made available updated modeling 

results on its website but was not able to 

incorporate those results into this proposal prior to 

signature. See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2016v2-platform. In any case, these 

results corroborate the prior EPA modeling on 

which this proposal relies with respect to Kansas. 

16See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document for the Final 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. 

17 938 F.3d 303, 313. 

18 Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203–04 (D.C. 

Cir. 2020). 

19We 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. 

20CAA 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). 

21The EPA’s August 2018 memorandum 

recognized that in certain circumstances, a state 

may be able to establish that an alternative 

contribution threshold of 1 ppb is justifiable. 

Typically, where a state relies on this alternative 

threshold, and where that state determined that it 

was not linked at step 2 using the alternative 

threshold, the EPA will evaluate whether the state 

provided a technically sound assessment of the 

appropriateness of using this alternative threshold 

Continued 

proposed rulemaking.15 EPA’s 

independent analysis evaluated the 

Revised CSAPR Update modeling data 

and historical and projected emissions 

trends for Kansas. 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 the Revised 

CSAPR Update modeling.16

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 relying on the one 

percent threshold for the purpose of 

evaluating Kansas’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).17

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).18 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 no later than the next 

applicable attainment date, including a 

Marginal area attainment date under 

CAA section 181 for ozone 

nonattainment.19

However, the Marginal area 

attainment date for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS was August 3, 2021.20 EPA 

does not believe it would be appropriate 

to focus its analysis on an attainment 

date 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, as this action 

is being proposed after the 2021 

attainment date (as well as after the end 

of the 2021 ozone season), EPA 

proposes to use 2023 as an appropriate 

analytic year in this action. The year 

2023 contains the last full ozone season 

before the next downwind attainment 

date, which is the August 3, 2024, 

Moderate area attainment date. 

(Historically, EPA has considered the 

full ozone season prior to the attainment 

date as supplying an appropriate 

analytic year for assessing Kansas’s good 

neighbor obligations.) EPA 

acknowledges that the first order 

directive for the timing of good neighbor 

compliance is ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable.’’ See CAA section 181(a)(1); 

938 F.3d at 313. EPA believes that an 

assessment of future air quality in the 

2023 analytic year is as expeditiously as 

practicable. Should any emission 

reductions be required under the fourstep interstate transport framework 

(though, to be clear, none are found to 

be necessary for Kansas in this 

proposal), EPA believes 2023 is the 

earliest ozone season by which such 

reductions would be possible. 

Therefore, EPA has analyzed projected 

ozone air quality and Kansas’s 

emissions for purposes of the good 

neighbor provision using the 2023 

analytic year. 

II. Kansas’s Submission 

On September 27, 2018, EPA received 

a SIP revision from the State of Kansas 

addressing the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. Kansas relied on the results of 

EPA’s modeling for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS contained in the March 2018 

memorandum to identify downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors that may be impacted by 

emissions from sources in Kansas in the 

year 2023. These results indicated the 

State’s greatest impact on any potential 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor would be 0.77 

ppb. Referencing the modeling results 

from the March 2018 memorandum, 

Kansas found this level of impact in 

Allegan, Michigan (monitoring site 

260050003). Kansas compared this 

value to a screening threshold of 0.70 

ppb, representing one percent of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Because Kansas’s 

impacts to receptors in downwind states 

were projected to be greater than 0.70 

ppb in 2023 but less than 1 ppb, the 

State cited EPA’s August 2018 

memorandum to argue that an 

alternative threshold of 1ppb was more 

appropriate than the one percent 

threshold.21 The State concluded that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7074 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

based on the facts and circumstances underlying its 

application in the particular SIP submission. 

22See 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). 

23 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that EPA must 

give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 24See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised 

CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 86 FR 

23054 (April 30, 2021). This same concept, relying 

on both current monitoring data and modeling to 

define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in 

CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 14, 2005). See also 

North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913–914 (affirming as 

reasonable EPA’s approach to defining 

nonattainment in CAIR). 

25See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR 

Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this 

approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and 

See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). 

26See 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). 

27The 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. 

emissions from sources within Kansas 

will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

III. EPA Evaluation of Kansas’s 

Submission 

Kansas’s SIP submission relies on 

analysis of EPA’s modeling for 2023 

released in the March 2018 

memorandum to conclude that the State 

does not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. As explained in 

section I of this proposal, EPA 

conducted updated modeling for the 

2023 analytical year (using a 2016 base 

year platform) for the RCU and proposes 

to rely primarily on this updated 

modeling to evaluate Kansas’s transport 

SIP submission. EPA’s evaluation of the 

RCU modeling corroborates Kansas’s 

conclusion that the State will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state.22 While EPA has 

focused its analysis in this document on 

the year 2023, modeling data in the 

record for a future analytic year, 2028, 

confirm that no new linkages to 

downwind receptors are projected in 

later years. This is consistent with an 

overall, long-term downward trend in 

emissions from the State. 

In step 1 of the four-step interstate 

framework, we identify locations where 

the Agency expects there to be 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the 2023 analytic future year, using the 

2016 base year modeling platform. 

Where EPA’s analysis shows that an 

area or site does not fall under the 

definition of a nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor in 2023, 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 2023, 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 proposal is consistent 

with the approach used in previous 

transport rulemakings and is consistent 

with the D.C. Circuit’s direction in 

North Carolina to give independent 

consideration to both the ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ and the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ prongs of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).23

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 the 

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.24

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).25 Specifically, monitoring sites 

with a projected maximum design value 

in 2023 that exceeds the NAAQS are 

considered maintenance receptors. 

EPA’s method of defining these 

receptors takes into account both 

measured data and projections based on 

modeling analysis. 

Recognizing that nonattainment 

receptors are also, by definition, 

maintenance receptors, EPA often uses 

the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to refer to 

receptors that are not also 

nonattainment receptors. Consistent 

with the methodology described above, 

monitoring sites with a projected 

maximum design value that exceeds the 

NAAQS, but with a projected average 

design value that is below the NAAQS, 

are identified as maintenance-only 

receptors. In addition, those sites that 

are currently measuring ozone 

concentrations below the level of the 

applicable NAAQS, but are projected to 

be nonattainment based on the average 

design value and that, by definition, are 

projected to have a maximum design 

value above the standard are also 

identified as maintenance-only 

receptors. 

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.26

To quantify the contribution of 

emissions from specific upwind states 

on 2023 8-hour design values for the 

identified downwind nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors, EPA first 

performed nationwide, state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling. 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. Details on the source 

apportionment modeling and the 

methods for determining contributions 

are in the Air Quality Modeling TSD in 

the docket. 

The design values and contributions 

were examined to determine if Kansas 

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 27 indicate that the highest 

contribution in 2023 from Kansas to 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors is 0.60 ppb, 

below the one percent of the NAAQS 

screening threshold. Kansas contributes 

0.49 ppb or less to 11 nonattainment 

receptors in five states and 0.60 ppb or 

less to seven maintenance receptors in 

five states. Although Kansas argued that 

an alternative contribution threshold of 

1 ppb was a more appropriate threshold 

than a threshold of one percent of the 

NAAQS, updated EPA modeling 

supports the conclusion that the State is 

projected to contribute less than both 

the one percent and 1 ppb thresholds to 

downwind receptors. Therefore, EPA 

will not, in this proposal, evaluate 

whether the State provided a technically 

sound assessment of the 

appropriateness of using an alternative 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7075 

28This is because ground-level ozone is not 

emitted directly into the air but is formed by 

chemical reactions between ozone precursors, 

chiefly NOX and VOC, in the presence of sunlight. 

See 86 FR 23054, 23063. 

29Tier 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). 

30The annual emissions data for the years 2011 

through 2019 were obtained from EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/ 

air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. Note that emissions from 

miscellaneous sources are not included in the State 

totals presented in Table 1. The emissions for 2023 

are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. 

See ‘‘2005 thru 2019_2021_2023_2028 Annual State 

Tier1 Emissions_v3’’ and the Emissions Modeling 

TSD in the docket for this action. 

1 ppb threshold based on the facts and 

circumstances underlying its 

application in the particular SIP 

submission. This should not be 

understood to mean that EPA approves 

of the State’s application of the 1 ppb 

threshold; rather, the State’s use of the 

alternative threshold is inconsequential 

to EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

submittal in this instance. 

EPA also analyzed emissions trends 

for ozone precursors in Kansas to 

support the findings from the air quality 

analysis. EPA focused on state-wide 

emissions of NOX and VOC from 

anthropogenic sources.28 Emissions 

from mobile sources, electric generating 

units (‘‘EGUs’’), industrial facilities, 

gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents 

represent the majority of the major 

anthropogenic sources of ozone 

precursors in Kansas. This evaluation 

looks at both past emissions trends, as 

well as projected trends. 

As shown in Table 1, for Kansas, 

between 2011 and 2019, annual total 

NOX and VOC emissions from 

anthropogenic source categories have 

declined by 38 percent and 18 percent, 

respectively. Between 2016 and 2023, 

annual NOX emissions are projected to 

decline by 30 percent as a result of the 

implementation of existing control 

programs that will continue to decrease 

NOX emissions in Kansas as indicated 

by EPA’s most recent 2023 projected 

emissions. 

As shown in Table 2, onroad and 

nonroad mobile source emissions 

collectively comprise a large portion of 

the State’s total anthropogenic NOX and 

VOC. For example, in 2019, NOX

emissions from mobile sources in 

Kansas comprised 45 percent of total 

NOX emissions and 16 percent of total 

VOC emissions. 

The large decrease in NOX emissions 

between 2011 emissions and projected 

2023 emissions in Kansas is primarily 

driven by reductions in emissions from 

onroad and nonroad mobile sources. 

EPA projects that the total 

anthropogenic NOX emissions and the 

highway and off highway VOC 

emissions will continue declining out to 

2023 as newer vehicles and engines that 

are subject to the most recent, stringent 

mobile source standards replace older 

vehicles and engines.29

In summary, there is no evidence to 

suggest that the overall emissions trend 

for Kansas demonstrated in Table 1 will 

suddenly reverse or spike in 2021 or 

2022 compared to historical emissions 

levels or those projected for 2023. 

Further, there is no evidence that the 

projected NOX emissions trend out to 

2023 and beyond would not continue to 

show a decline in emissions from 

Kansas. In addition, EPA’s normal 

practice is to include in our modeling 

only changes in NOX or VOC emissions 

that result from final regulatory actions. 

Any potential changes in NOX or VOC 

emissions that may result from possible 

future or proposed regulatory actions 

are speculative. 

This general downward trend in 

emissions in Kansas adds support to the 

air quality analyses presented above and 

indicates that the contributions from 

emissions from sources in the State to 

ozone receptors in downwind states will 

generally continue to decline and 

remain below one percent of the 

NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN KANSAS

[Tons per year] 30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2023 

NOX .......................... 312,156 299,082 286,009 272,935 252,036 221,455 207,211 200,848 192,785 160,604 

VOC .......................... 241,708 233,580 225,452 217,324 213,915 205,771 203,151 201,133 199,115 173,201 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD VEHICLES COMBINED IN KANSAS

[Tons per year] 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2023 

NOX .......................... 153,185 147,604 142,022 136,441 125,317 104,509 100,040 93,248 86,456 62,193 

VOC .......................... 58,563 55,930 53,297 50,664 46,810 38,220 35,155 33,137 31,119 24,851 

Thus, EPA’s evaluation of measured 

and monitored data, and contribution 

values in 2023, as discussed in this 

section, is consistent with conclusions 

made by Kansas that emissions from 

sources in the State will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

October 1, 2018 SIP submittal as 

meeting the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. 

The Agency is soliciting public 

comments on its proposed approval of 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

element of Kansas’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Significant comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I 
7076 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 CAA. 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 proposed 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

Dated: February 1, 2022. 

Meghan A. McCollister, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘(47)’’ in numerical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(47) Transport SIP for the 

2015 Ozone Standard.

Statewide ....... 9/27/2018 [Date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register], 

[Federal Register citation of 

the final rule].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0075; FRL–9428– 

01–R7]. This transport SIP shows that 

Kansas does not significantly contribute to 

ozone nonattainment or maintenance in 

any other state. This submittal is approved 

as meeting the requirements of Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

[FR Doc. 2022–02461 Filed 2–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS