Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9477 

IV. 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, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 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 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, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03690 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0663; FRL–9468–01–R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and withdrawal 

of 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 Iowa 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 Iowa 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. The EPA is 

also withdrawing its previous proposed 

rule to approve Iowa’s SIP submission, 

as published in the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2020. 

DATES: 

Comments: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received on or 

before March 24, 2022. 

Withdrawal: As of February 22, 2022, 

the proposed rule published March 2, 

2020, at 85 FR 12232, is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified as Docket No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2021–0870, by any of the 

following methods: Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments or via email to 

stone.william@epa.gov. Include Docket 

ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870 in 

the subject line of the message. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. For further 

information on EPA Docket Center 

services and the current status, please 

visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

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: Public 

participation: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2021–0870, at https://

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method), or the other methods 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from the docket. The 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit to 

EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9478 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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

11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

4See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 

2011). 

5Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 

6 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). The 

Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), responded 

to the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin 

and the vacatur of a separate rule, the ‘‘CSAPR 

Close-Out,’’ 83 FR 65878 (December 21, 2018), in 

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). 

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). 

There are two dockets supporting this 

action, EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. Docket No. 

EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870 contains 

information specific to Iowa, including 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663 

contains additional modeling files, 

emissions inventory files, technical 

support documents, and other relevant 

supporting documentation regarding 

interstate transport of emissions for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS which are 

being used to support this action. All 

comments regarding information in 

either of these dockets are to be made 

in Docket No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021– 

0870. For additional submission 

methods, please contact William Stone, 

(913) 551–7714, stone.william@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. Due to public 

health concerns related to COVID–19, 

the EPA Docket Center and Reading 

Room are open to the public by 

appointment only. Our Docket Center 

staff also continues to provide remote 

customer service via email, phone, and 

webform. For further information and 

updates on EPA Docket Center services, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), local area health 

departments, and our Federal partners 

so that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

The index to the docket for this action, 

Docket No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870, 

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). 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Iowa’s SIP Submission Addressing 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

III. Withdrawal of Prior Proposed Approval 

IV. EPA Evaluation of Iowa’s Submission 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Description of Statutory Background 

On October 1, 2015, the EPA 

promulgated a revision to the ozone 

NAAQS (2015 8-hour 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 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

otherwise known as the ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ or ‘‘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 socalled ‘‘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). The 

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

B. Description of the EPA’s Four Step 

Interstate Transport Regulatory Process 

The EPA is using the 4-step interstate 

transport framework (or 4-step 

framework) to evaluate the state’s SIP 

submittals addressing the interstate 

transport provision for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The 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 and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR 

Update) 5 and the Revised CSAPR 

Update, both of which addressed the 

2008 ozone NAAQS.6

Through the development and 

implementation of the CSAPR 

rulemakings and prior regional 

rulemakings pursuant to the interstate 

transport provision,7 the EPA, working 

in partnership with states, developed 

the following 4-step interstate transport 

framework to evaluate a State’s 

obligations to eliminate interstate 

transport emissions under the interstate 

transport provision for the ozone 

NAAQS: (1) Identify monitoring sites 

that are projected to have problems 

attaining and/or maintaining the 

NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment and/or 

maintenance receptors); (2) identify 

states that impact those air quality 

problems in other (i.e., downwind) 

states sufficiently such that the states 

are considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore 

warrant further review and analysis; (3) 

identify the emissions reductions 

necessary (if any), applying a 

multifactor analysis, to eliminate each 

linked upwind state’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance of the 

NAAQS at the locations identified in 

step 1; and (4) adopt permanent and 

enforceable measures needed to achieve 

those emissions reductions. 

C. Background on the EPA’s Ozone 

Transport Modeling Information 

In general, the EPA has performed 

nationwide air quality modeling to 

project ozone design values which are 

used in combination with measured 

data to identify nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. To quantify the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9479 

8See Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone 

Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 8-hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 

82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017). 

9 82 FR at 1735. 

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 

docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663 or at 

https://www.epa.gov/node/194139/. 

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 (‘‘March 2018 

memorandum’’), available in docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2021–0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/ 

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

12The March 2018 memorandum, however, 

provided, ‘‘While the information in this 

memorandum and the associated air quality 

analysis data could be used to inform the 

development of these SIPs, the information is not 

a final determination regarding states’ obligations 

under the good neighbor provision. Any such 

determination would be made through notice-andcomment rulemaking.’’ 

13See 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 docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663 or at https://

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplementalinformation-regarding-interstate-transport-sips2015-ozone-naaqs. 

14The results of this modeling, as well as the 

underlying modeling files, are included in docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. 

15See 85 FR 68964, 68981. 16See the Air Quality Modeling Technical 

Support Document for the Final Revised Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule Update, included in the 

Headquarters docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0663. 17Additional details and documentation related 

to the MOVES3 model can be found at https://

www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicleemission-simulator-moves. 18See Technical Support Document (TSD) 

Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 

North American Emissions Modeling Platform 

included in the Headquarters docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2021–0663. 19Ramboll Environment and Health, January 

2021, www.camx.com. 

contribution of emissions from specific 

upwind states on 2023 ozone design 

values for the identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors, the EPA performed 

nationwide, state-level ozone source 

apportionment modeling for 2023. The 

source apportionment modeling 

provided contributions to ozone at 

receptors from precursor emissions of 

anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

in individual upwind states. 

The EPA has released several 

documents containing projected ozone 

design values, contributions, and 

information relevant to evaluating 

interstate transport with respect to the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, on 

January 6, 2017, the EPA published a 

notice of data availability (NODA) in 

which we requested comment on 

preliminary interstate ozone transport 

data including projected ozone design 

values and interstate contributions for 

2023 using a 2011 base year platform.8

In the NODA, the 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 8-hour ozone NAAQS.9 On 

October 27, 2017, we released a 

memorandum (October 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 

interstate transport 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 

October 2017 memorandum could also 

be useful for identifying potential 

downwind air quality problems with 

respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework.11 The March 2018 

memorandum also included the then 

newly available contribution modeling 

data to assist states in evaluating their 

impact on potential downwind air 

quality problems for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS under Step 2 of the 4- 

step interstate transport framework.12

The EPA subsequently issued two more 

memoranda in August and October 

2018, providing additional information 

to states developing interstate transport 

SIP submissions for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively, 

potential contribution thresholds that 

may be appropriate to apply in Step 2 

of the 4-step interstate transport 

framework, and considerations for 

identifying downwind areas that may 

have problems maintaining the standard 

at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework.13

Since the release of the modeling data 

shared in the March 2018 

memorandum, the EPA performed 

updated modeling using a 2016-based 

emissions modeling platform (i.e., 

2016v1). This emissions platform was 

developed under the EPA/MultiJurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state 

collaborative project.14 This 

collaborative project was a multi-year 

joint effort by the EPA, MJOs, and states 

to develop a new, more recent emissions 

platform for use by the EPA and states 

in regulatory modeling as an 

improvement over the dated 2011-based 

platform that the EPA had used to 

project ozone design values and 

contribution data provided in the 2017 

and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used 

the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone 

design values and contributions for 

2023. On October 30, 2020, in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 

Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA 

released and accepted public comment 

on 2023 modeling that used the 2016v1 

emissions platform.15 Although the 

Revised CSAPR Update addressed 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

the projected design values and 

contributions from the 2016v1 platform 

are also useful for identifying 

downwind ozone problems and linkages 

with respect to the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS.16

Following the final Revised CSAPR 

Update, the EPA made further updates 

to the 2016 emissions platform to 

include mobile emissions from the 

EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator MOVES3 model 17 and 

updated emissions projections for 

electric generating units (EGUs) that 

reflect the emissions reductions from 

the Revised CSAPR Update, recent 

information on plant closures, and other 

sector trends. The construct of the 

updated emissions platform, 2016v2, is 

described in the emissions modeling 

technical support document (TSD) for 

this proposed rule.18 The EPA 

performed air quality modeling of the 

2016v2 emissions using the most recent 

public release version of the 

Comprehensive Air-quality Model with 

extensions (CAMx) photochemical 

modeling, version 7.10.19 The EPA now 

proposes to primarily rely on modeling 

based on the updated and newly 

available 2016v2 emissions platform in 

evaluating these submissions with 

respect to Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step 

interstate transport framework and 

generally referenced within this action 

as 2016v2 modeling for 2023. By using 

the updated modeling results, the EPA 

is using the most current and 

technically appropriate information for 

this proposed rulemaking. Section III of 

this document and the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD for 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

Transport SIP Proposed Actions, 

included in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663 for this proposal, 

contain additional detail on the EPA’s 

2016v2 modeling. In this document, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9480 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

20March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A. 

21 Id. at A–1. 

22 Id. 

23For attainment dates for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, refer to CAA section 181(a), 40 CFR 

51.1303, and Additional Air Quality Designations 

for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective 

Aug. 3, 2018). 

24We note that the court in Maryland did not 

have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which 

the 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 

interstate transport provision. 

25See 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). 

EPA is accepting public comment on 

this updated 2023 modeling, which uses 

a 2016v2 emissions platform. Comments 

on the EPA’s air quality modeling 

should be submitted in the Regional 

docket for this action, docket ID No. 

EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870. Comments 

are not being accepted in docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. 

D. The EPA’s Approach To Evaluating 

Interstate Transport SIPs for the 2015 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS 

The EPA proposes to apply a 

consistent set of policy judgments 

across all states for purposes of 

evaluating interstate transport 

obligations and the approvability of 

interstate transport SIP submittals for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These 

policy judgments reflect consistency 

with relevant case law and past agency 

practice as reflected in the CSAPR and 

related rulemakings. Nationwide 

consistency in approach is particularly 

important in the context of interstate 

ozone transport, which is a regionalscale pollution problem involving many 

smaller contributors. Effective policy 

solutions to the problem of interstate 

ozone transport going back to the NOX

SIP Call have necessitated the 

application of a uniform framework of 

policy judgments in order to ensure an 

‘‘efficient and equitable’’ approach. See 

EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). 

In the March, August, and October 

2018 memoranda, the EPA recognized 

that states may be able to establish 

alternative approaches to addressing 

their interstate transport obligations for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS that vary 

from a nationally uniform framework. 

The EPA emphasized in these 

memoranda, however, that such 

alternative approaches must be 

technically justified and appropriate in 

light of the facts and circumstances of 

each particular state’s submittal. In 

general, the EPA continues to believe 

that deviation from a nationally 

consistent approach to ozone transport 

must be substantially justified and have 

a well-documented technical basis that 

is consistent with relevant case law. 

Where states submitted SIPs that rely on 

any such potential ‘‘flexibilities’’ as may 

have been identified or suggested in the 

past, the EPA will evaluate whether the 

state adequately justified the technical 

and legal basis for doing so. 

The EPA notes that certain concepts 

included in an attachment to the March 

2018 memorandum require unique 

consideration, and these ideas do not 

constitute agency guidance with respect 

to transport obligations for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Attachment A to the 

March 2018 memorandum identified a 

‘‘Preliminary List of Potential 

Flexibilities’’ that could potentially 

inform SIP development.20 However, 

EPA made clear in that Attachment that 

the list of ideas were not suggestions 

endorsed by the Agency but rather 

‘‘comments provided in various forums’’ 

on which EPA sought ‘‘feedback from 

interested stakeholders.’’ 21 Further, 

Attachment A stated, ‘‘EPA is not at this 

time making any determination that the 

ideas discussed below are consistent 

with the requirements of the CAA, nor 

are we specifically recommending that 

states use these approaches.’’ 22

Attachment A to the March 2018 

memorandum, therefore, does not 

constitute agency guidance, but was 

intended to generate further discussion 

around potential approaches to 

addressing ozone transport among 

interested stakeholders. To the extent 

states sought to develop or rely on these 

ideas in support of their SIP submittals, 

EPA will thoroughly review the 

technical and legal justifications for 

doing so. 

The remainder of this section 

describes the EPA’s proposed 

framework with respect to analytic year, 

definition of nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, selection of 

contribution threshold, and multifactor 

control strategy assessment. 

1. Selection of Analytic Year 

In general, the states and the EPA 

must implement the interstate transport 

provision in a manner ‘‘consistent with 

the provisions of [title I of the CAA.]’’ 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This 

requires, among other things, that these 

obligations are addressed consistently 

with the timeframes for downwind areas 

to meet their CAA obligations. With 

respect to ozone NAAQS, under CAA 

section 181(a), this means obligations 

must be addressed ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ and no later than the 

schedule of attainment dates provided 

in CAA section 181(a)(1).23 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 at 313. 

On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA 

that cited the Wisconsin decision in 

holding that the 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 the 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). The EPA 

interprets the court’s holding in 

Maryland as requiring the states and the 

Agency, under the good neighbor 

provision, to assess downwind air 

quality as expeditiously as practicable 

and no later than the next applicable 

attainment date,24 which is now the 

Moderate area attainment date under 

CAA section 181 for ozone 

nonattainment. The Moderate area 

attainment date for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024.25 The 

EPA believes that 2023 is now the 

appropriate year for analysis of 

interstate transport obligations for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, because the 

2023 ozone season is the last relevant 

ozone season during which achieved 

emissions reductions in linked upwind 

states could assist downwind states 

with meeting the August 3, 2024, 

Moderate area attainment date for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA recognizes that the 

attainment date for nonattainment areas 

classified as Marginal for the 2015 8- 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9481 

26See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910– 

11 (holding that the EPA must give ‘‘independent 

significance’’ to each prong of CAA section 

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

27See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same 

concept, relying on both current monitoring data 

and modeling to define nonattainment receptor, 

was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR at 25241, 

25249 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 

531 F.3d at 913–14 (affirming as reasonable EPA’s 

approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR). 

28See 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). 

hour ozone NAAQS was August 3, 2021. 

Under the Maryland holding, any 

necessary emissions reductions to 

satisfy interstate transport obligations 

should have been implemented by no 

later than this date. At the time of the 

statutory deadline to submit interstate 

transport SIPs (October 1, 2018), many 

states relied upon the EPA modeling of 

the year 2023, and no state provided an 

alternative analysis using a 2021 

analytic year (or the prior 2020 ozone 

season). However, the EPA must act on 

SIP submittals using the information 

available at the time it takes such action. 

In this circumstance, the EPA does not 

believe it would be appropriate to 

evaluate states’ obligations under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as of an 

attainment date that is wholly in the 

past, because the Agency interprets the 

interstate transport provision as forward 

looking. See 86 FR at 23074; see also 

Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. 

Consequently, in this proposal the EPA 

will use the analytical year of 2023 to 

evaluate each state’s CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission with 

respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

In Step 1, the EPA identifies 

monitoring sites that are projected to 

have problems attaining and/or 

maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023 

analytic year. Where the EPA’s analysis 

shows that a site does not fall under the 

definition of a nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor, that site is 

excluded from further analysis under 

the EPA’s 4-step interstate transport 

framework. For sites that are identified 

as a nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor in 2023, we proceed to the next 

step of our 4-step interstate transport 

framework by identifying the upwind 

state’s contribution to those receptors. 

The EPA’s approach to identifying 

ozone nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in this action is consistent 

with the approach used in previous 

transport rulemakings. The 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.26

For the purpose of this proposal, the 

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 the EPA defined 

nonattainment receptors as those areas 

that both currently measure 

nonattainment and that the EPA projects 

will be in nonattainment in the future 

analytic year (i.e., 2023).27

In addition, in this proposal, the 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).28 Specifically, the EPA identified 

maintenance receptors as those 

receptors that would have difficulty 

maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a 

scenario that takes into account 

historical variability in air quality at 

that receptor. The variability in air 

quality was determined by evaluating 

the ‘‘maximum’’ future design value at 

each receptor based on a projection of 

the maximum measured design value 

over the relevant period. EPA interprets 

the projected maximum future design 

value to be a potential future air quality 

outcome consistent with the 

meteorology that yielded maximum 

measured concentrations in the ambient 

data set analyzed for that receptor (i.e., 

ozone conducive meteorology). EPA 

also recognizes that previously 

experienced meteorological conditions 

(e.g., dominant wind direction, 

temperatures, air mass patterns) 

promoting ozone formation that led to 

maximum concentrations in the 

measured data may reoccur in the 

future. The maximum design value 

gives a reasonable projection of future 

air quality at the receptor under a 

scenario in which such conditions do, 

in fact, reoccur. The projected 

maximum design value is used to 

identify upwind emissions that, under 

those circumstances, could interfere 

with the downwind area’s ability to 

maintain the NAAQS. 

Recognizing that nonattainment 

receptors are also, by definition, 

maintenance receptors, the EPA often 

uses the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to 

refer to those receptors that are not 

nonattainment receptors. Consistent 

with the concepts for maintenance 

receptors, as described above, the EPA 

identifies ‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors 

as those monitoring sites that have 

projected average design values above 

the level of the applicable NAAQS, but 

that are not currently measuring 

nonattainment based on the most recent 

official design values. In addition, those 

monitoring sites with projected average 

design values below the NAAQS, but 

with projected maximum design values 

above the NAAQS are also identified as 

‘‘maintenance only’’ receptors, even if 

they are currently measuring 

nonattainment based on the most recent 

official design values. 

3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

In Step 2 the EPA quantifies the 

contribution of each upwind state to 

each receptor in the 2023 analytic year. 

The contribution metric used in Step 2 

is defined as the average impact from 

each state to each receptor on the days 

with the highest ozone concentrations at 

the receptor based on the 2023 

modeling. If a state’s contribution value 

does not equal or exceed the threshold 

of 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 

ppb for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), 

the upwind state is not ‘‘linked’’ to a 

downwind air quality problem, and the 

EPA, therefore, concludes that the state 

does not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

downwind states. However, if a state’s 

contribution equals or exceeds the 1 

percent threshold, the state’s emissions 

are further evaluated in Step 3, 

considering both air quality and cost as 

part of a multi-factor analysis, to 

determine what, if any, emissions might 

be deemed ‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must 

be eliminated under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is proposing 

to rely in the first instance on the 1 

percent threshold for the purpose of 

evaluating a state’s contribution to 

nonattainment or maintenance of the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 

ppb) at downwind receptors. This is 

consistent with the Step 2 approach that 

the EPA applied in CSAPR for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, which has subsequently 

been applied in the CSAPR Update 

when evaluating interstate transport 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA continues to find 1 percent to 

be an appropriate threshold. For ozone, 

as the EPA found in the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), CSAPR, and 

CSAPR Update, a portion of the 

nonattainment problems from 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9482 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

29As examples of general approaches for how 

such an analysis could be conducted for their 

sources, states could look to the CSAPR Update, 81 

FR 74504, 74539–51; CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48246– 

63; CAIR, 70 FR 25162, 25195–229; or the NOX SIP 

Call, 63 FR 57356, 57399–405. See also Revised 

CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054, 23086–23116. 

Consistently across these rulemakings, the EPA has 

developed emissions inventories, analyzed different 

levels of control stringency at different cost 

thresholds, and assessed resulting downwind air 

quality improvements. 

anthropogenic sources in the U.S. 

results from the combined impact of 

relatively small contributions from 

many upwind states, along with 

contributions from in-state sources and, 

in some cases, substantially larger 

contributions from a subset of particular 

upwind states. The EPA’s analysis 

shows that much of the ozone transport 

problem being analyzed in this 

proposed rule is still the result of the 

collective impacts of contributions from 

many upwind states. Therefore, 

application of a consistent contribution 

threshold is necessary to identify those 

upwind states that should have 

responsibility for addressing their 

contribution to the downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems to which they collectively 

contribute. Continuing to use 1 percent 

of the NAAQS as the screening metric 

to evaluate collective contribution from 

many upwind states also allows the EPA 

(and states) to apply a consistent 

framework to evaluate interstate 

emissions transport under the interstate 

transport provision from one NAAQS to 

the next. See 81 FR at 74518. See also 

86 FR at 23085 (reviewing and 

explaining rationale from CSAPR, 76 FR 

at 48237–38, for selection of 1 percent 

threshold). 

The 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. 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 based on 

the facts and circumstances underlying 

its application in the particular SIP 

submission. 

4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

Consistent with the EPA’s 

longstanding approach to eliminating 

significant contribution or interference 

with maintenance, at Step 3, states 

linked at Steps 1 and 2 are generally 

expected to prepare a multifactor 

assessment of potential emissions 

controls. The EPA’s analysis at Step 3 in 

prior Federal actions addressing 

interstate transport requirements has 

primarily focused on an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness of potential emissions 

controls (on a marginal cost-per-ton 

basis), the total emissions reductions 

that may be achieved by requiring such 

controls (if applied across all linked 

upwind states), and an evaluation of the 

air quality impacts such emissions 

reductions would have on the 

downwind receptors to which a state is 

linked; other factors may potentially be 

relevant if adequately supported. In 

general, where the EPA’s or alternative 

air quality and contribution modeling 

establishes that a state is linked at Steps 

1 and 2, it will be insufficient at Step 

3 for a state merely to point to its 

existing rules requiring control 

measures as a basis for approval. In 

general, the emissions-reducing effects 

of all existing emissions control 

requirements are already reflected in the 

air quality results of the modeling for 

steps 1 and 2. If the state is shown to 

still be linked to one or more downwind 

receptor(s), states must provide a welldocumented evaluation determining 

whether their emissions constitute 

significant contribution or interference 

with maintenance by evaluating 

additional available control 

opportunities by preparing a multifactor 

assessment. While the EPA has not 

prescribed a particular method for this 

assessment, the EPA expects states at a 

minimum to present a sufficient 

technical evaluation. This would 

typically include information on 

emissions sources, applicable control 

technologies, emissions reductions, 

costs, cost effectiveness, and downwind 

air quality impacts of the estimated 

reductions, before concluding that no 

additional emissions controls should be 

required.29

5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

At Step 4, states (or the EPA) develop 

permanent and federally enforceable 

control strategies to achieve the 

emissions reductions determined to be 

necessary at Step 3 to eliminate 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS. For a state 

linked at Steps 1 and 2 to rely on an 

emissions control measure at Step 3 to 

address its interstate transport 

obligations, that measure must be 

included in the state’s SIP so that it is 

permanent and federally enforceable. 

See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (‘‘Each 

such [SIP] shall . . . contain adequate 

provisions . . . .’’). See also CAA 

110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better 

Arvin v. U.S. E.P.A., 786 F.3d 1169, 

1175–76 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that 

measures relied on by state to meet CAA 

requirements must be included in the 

SIP). 

II. Iowa’s SIP Submission Addressing 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

On November 30, 2018, Iowa 

submitted a SIP revision addressing the 

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

transport requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Iowa chose to rely on 

the results of EPA’s 2023 modeling, as 

presented in the March 2018 

memorandum, to identify downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors that may be impacted by 

emissions from sources in Iowa. Based 

on Iowa’s review of the EPA’s modeling 

assumptions and model performance 

evaluation, Iowa determined that EPA’s 

future year projections were appropriate 

for purposes of evaluating Iowa’s impact 

on attainment and maintenance of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. 

Iowa relied on EPA’s 2023 modeling 

to conclude that the state does not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. Iowa referred to the 

analytic information in EPA’s August 

2018 memorandum as a basis to use a 

1 ppb contribution threshold when 

evaluating the state’s contribution to 

downwind receptors at Step 2 of EPA’s 

four-step interstate transport framework. 

Using EPA’s modeling, Iowa identified 

that it is projected to contribute below 

1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

(i.e., less than 0.70 ppb) to all but two 

downwind receptors: The 

nonattainment receptor in Milwaukee 

County, Wisconsin (Milwaukee 

receptor), and the maintenance-only 

receptor in Allegan County, Michigan 

(Allegan receptor). Iowa’s contribution 

to these two receptors was projected to 

be between 1 percent and 1 ppb. Iowa 

concluded that 1 ppb is an appropriate 

contribution threshold to apply with 

respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS and 

that Iowa’s emissions therefore do not 

contribute to nonattainment or 

maintenance problems at either 

receptor. 

Iowa noted that its 2023 modeled 

contribution to the Milwaukee receptor 

is 0.79 ppb, and its 2023 modeled 

contribution to the Allegan receptor is 

0.77 ppb. Iowa further noted that 

application of the 1 ppb threshold 

captures 83 percent of the upwind 

contribution captured at the 1 percent 

threshold at the Milwaukee receptor and 

94 percent of the upwind contribution 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9483 

30 Design values and contributions at individual 

monitoring sites nationwide are provide in the file: 

2016v2_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx which is 

included in docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0663. 

31The EPA’s analysis indicates that Iowa will 

have a 0.64 ppb impact at the projected 

nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, 

Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019), which has a 2023 

projected average design value of 72.8 ppb and a 

2023 projected maximum design value of 73.7 ppb. 

The EPA’s analysis further indicates that Iowa will 

have a 0.58 ppb impact at a projected maintenance 

receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 

170310032), which has which has a projected 2023 

average design value of 69.8 ppb and a 2023 

projected maximum design value of 72.4 ppb. 

captured at the 1 percent threshold at 

the Allegan receptor. Based on these 

data, Iowa concluded that the 1 ppb 

threshold is therefore appropriate 

because it captures a ‘‘substantial 

portion’’ of the transported contribution 

from upwind states when compared to 

the 1 percent threshold at both 

receptors. Because the state’s impact on 

both receptors was projected to be 

below the 1 ppb threshold, the state 

concluded that its emissions will not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in downwind states. 

III. Withdrawal of Prior Proposed 

Approval 

On March 2, 2020, EPA proposed to 

approve portions of the infrastructure 

SIP submission received from the State 

of Iowa on November 30, 2018, in 

accordance with section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA. In the document, the EPA 

proposed to approve the portion of the 

SIP addressing section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant 

contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), 

and interference with maintenance of 

the NAAQS (prong 2). This proposal 

relied on results of EPA’s 2023 

modeling, as presented in the March 

2018 memorandum explained above, as 

well as the State’s argument for using 

the 1 ppb threshold in Step 2 rather 

than the 1 percent threshold. The action 

received two adverse comments. In this 

document, we are withdrawing our 

March 2, 2020, proposed approval. We 

are now reproposing approval based on 

new modeling and a new rationale for 

approval based on that new modeling, 

as discussed in section IV. 

IV. EPA Evaluation of Iowa’s 

Submission 

Iowa’s SIP submission relies on 

analysis of the year 2023 (using a 2011 

base year platform) 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, the EPA has 

conducted an updated analysis for the 

2023 analytical year (using a 2016 base 

year platform) and proposes to rely 

primarily on this updated modeling to 

evaluate Iowa’s transport SIP 

submission. 

As described in section I, the EPA 

performed air quality modeling to 

project design values and contributions 

for 2023 using the 2016v2 emissions 

platform. The design values and 

contributions were examined to 

determine if Iowa contributes at or 

above the threshold of 1 percent of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor. The data 30

indicate that the highest contribution in 

2023 from Iowa to a downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors is 0.64 ppb and 0.58 ppb, 

respectively.31

Based on the EPA’s updated 

modeling, it is no longer necessary to 

evaluate Iowa’s use of 1 ppb as a 

contribution threshold at Step 2. The 

state is projected to contribute less than 

a 1 percent threshold. While the EPA 

does not, in this action, approve of the 

state’s application of the 1 ppb 

threshold, based on the state’s 

contributions of less than 1 percent to 

projected downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors, the state’s use of 

this alternative threshold is 

inconsequential to our action on this 

SIP submittal. The EPA is proposing to 

approve Iowa’s SIP submission on the 

basis of the use of a 1 percent 

contribution threshold at Step 2. 

The EPA’s evaluation of measured 

and monitored data and contribution 

values in 2023, as discussed in this 

section, is consistent with conclusions 

made by Iowa that emissions from 

sources in the State will not contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve a 

portion of Iowa’s November 30, 2018, 

SIP submittal as meeting the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

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

NAAQS. The EPA has addressed the 

remaining infrastructure elements 

included in Iowa’s submittal in a 

separate action. Additionally, this 

proposal withdraws and replaces EPA’s 

March 2, 2020, proposed rule as 

discussed in section III. 

The Agency is soliciting public 

comments on its proposed approval of 

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

element of Iowa’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Significant 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. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9484 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 Q—Iowa 

■ 2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

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

follows: 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non regulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(55) Transport SIP for the 2015 

Ozone Standard.

Statewide ....... 11/30/2018 [Date of publication of the final 

rule in the [Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of the final rule].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0870; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663; FRL–9468–01–R7]. This 

transport SIP shows that Iowa 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. 2022–02935 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

EPA–R02–OAR–2021–0673; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0663; FRL–9424–01–R2] 

Air Plan Disapproval; New York and 

New Jersey; Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals 

from New York and New Jersey 

regarding interstate transport for the 

2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). This 

provision requires that each state’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions from within the state from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. The ‘‘good neighbor’’ or 

‘‘interstate transport’’ requirement is 

part of the broader set of 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements, which 

are designed to ensure that the 

structural components of each state’s air 

quality management program are 

adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

disapproval, if finalized, will establish a 

2-year deadline for the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to address the relevant 

interstate transport requirements, unless 

the EPA approves a subsequent SIP 

submittal that meets these requirements. 

Disapproval does not start a mandatory 

sanctions clock. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received on or before April 25, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified as Docket No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2021–0673 to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https:// 

www.regulations.gov following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. For further 

information on the EPA Docket Center 

services and the current status, please 

visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866, (212) 637–3702, or by 

email at Fradkin.Kenneth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

Participation: Submit your comments, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1