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
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9485 

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). 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2021–0673 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 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 the 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 

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–R02–OAR–2021–0673 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. Docket No. 

EPA–R02–OAR–2021–0673 contains 

information specific to New York and 

New Jersey, 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–R02–OAR–2021– 

0673. For additional submission 

methods, please contact Kenneth 

Fradkin, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, 10007–1866, (212) 637–3702, or 

by email at Fradkin.Kenneth@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 the 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–R02–OAR– 

2021–0673, 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. 

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 states’ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9486 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 18Ramboll Environment and Health, January 

2021, www.camx.com. 

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 

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 for 2023 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 CSPAR 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. 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 7.10.18 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. 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 

notice 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 contains 

additional detail on the EPA’s 2016v2 

modeling. In this notice, the EPA is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9487 

19March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A. 

20 Id. at A–1. 

21 Id. 

22For 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). 23We 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. 

24See 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). 

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 No. EPA– 

R02–OAR–2021–0673. Comments are 

not being accepted in Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663. 

In some cases, states may rely on the 

results of EPA modeling and/or 

alternative modeling performed by 

states or Multi-Jurisdictional 

Organizations (MJOs) to evaluate 

downwind air quality problems and 

contributions as part of their 

submissions. New York and New Jersey 

have done so, and so we have evaluated 

the use of that alternative modeling in 

Section III. 

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.19 However, 

the 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 the EPA sought 

‘‘feedback from interested 

stakeholders.’’ 20 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.’’ 21 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, the 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).22 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,23 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, 2024.24 The 

EPA believes that 2023 is now the 

appropriate year for analysis of 

interstate transport obligations for the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9488 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

25See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910– 

11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA must give 

‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of CAA 

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

26See 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). 

27See 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). 

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- 

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.25

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).26

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).27 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. The 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). The 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9489 

28As 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. 29 86 FR 35034 (July 1, 2021). 

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 

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 the 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.28

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. SIP Submissions Addressing 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

A. New York 

On September 25, 2018, the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted a 

revision to its SIP addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS, including the 

interstate transport obligations pursuant 

to the good neighbor provision. The 

EPA finalized approval of elements of 

New York’s submittal, except for the 

portion of the SIP submittal addressing 

the good neighbor provision, on June 23, 

2021.29

In New York’s SIP submittal, the State 

followed the 4-step framework for 

determining its good neighbor 

obligations. New York provided air 

quality modeling (Steps 1 and 2) and a 

list of already-enacted and ‘‘on-theway’’ state air pollution control 

measures to conclude that New York 

satisfied its good neighbor obligations 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (under Step 

3). The State did not reach Step 4 of the 

framework as it concluded that the State 

did not need additional emissions 

reductions at Step 3 to eliminate 

significant contribution. 

At Step 1, New York identified 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors based on the EPA’s 2023 

projection modeling shared in the EPA 

March 2018 memorandum. New York 

identified nonattainment receptors at 

the Stratford (receptor ID 90013007) and 

Westport (receptor ID 90019003) 

monitoring sites in Fairfield County, in 

Connecticut, in 2023 and identified 

maintenance receptors at the Greenwich 

(receptor ID 900190017) and New Haven 

(receptor ID 90099002) monitoring sites 

in Fairfield and New Haven Counties, in 

Connecticut, respectively, in 2023. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9490 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

30Simple cycle combustion turbines, also known 

as peaking units (peakers), run to meet electric load 

during periods of peak electricity demand. These 

peakers typically operate during periods of elevated 

temperature when electric demand increases. Older 

simple cycle combustion turbines sometimes have 

no or only low-level NOX emission controls. 

31See Appendix C of New York’s submittal. 

32The SIP submittal also addressed the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

which EPA acted on in a separate action. The EPA 

proposed disapproval on October 26, 2021, at 86 FR 

60602 (November 3, 2021). 

33OTC modeling included in Appendix I of NJ 

submittal. 

34OTC modeling generally followed the EPA 

approach for identifying nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. Monitors in the Eastern U.S. 

were projected as nonattainment (an average design 

value greater than or equal to 71 ppb) or 

maintenance only (a maximum design value greater 

than or equal to 71 ppb) of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

in 2023. The EPA’s approach for identifying ozone 

nonattainment and maintenance receptors is 

defined in section I.D.2. 

35Referenced as the Sherwood Island site in the 

New Jersey submittal. 

New York submitted state-by-state 

contribution modeling for 2023 based 

on CAMx modeling performed by the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE). New York coupled 

2023 Community Multiscale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) projection modeling with 

MDE’s CAMx contribution modeling to 

show that New York was linked to the 

Stratford, Westport, Greenwich, and 

New Haven monitoring sites in 

Connecticut using a 1 percent of the 

NAAQS threshold (0.70 ppb for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Based on 

this information, New York conceded 

that it was linked to four Connecticut 

receptors at Step 2. 

New York asserted that, despite its 

contributions, the State had met its good 

neighbor obligations through the 

implementation and enforcement of 

stringent NOX and VOC control 

measures that the State asserted go well 

beyond the EPA presumptive cost 

threshold in the CSAPR Update for 

highly cost-effective emissions 

reductions, and through the ongoing 

adoption and revision of additional 

control measures to further ensure the 

reduction of ozone in both New York 

State and downwind areas. 

New York cited its Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

rules, which have been required on 

major sources of NOX throughout the 

State since 1995, and have been 

periodically updated (in 1999, 2004, 

and 2010) to keep up with advances in 

control technology. New York indicated 

that the State’s RACT presumptive 

emissions limits and facility-specific 

emissions limits are based on inflationadjusted control cost valued at $5,500 

per ton of NOX reduced, which New 

York indicated was consistent with 

typical costs to install selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) units, and above the 

EPA’s $1,400 per ton control cost 

threshold used for the CSAPR Update 

that reflected the cost of turning on 

already-existing SCR controls at EGUs. 

New York also noted that the State’s 

EGU NOX emissions rates are among the 

lowest in the country, as reflected in its 

CSAPR Update ozone season emissions 

budget, which is lower than all other 

states with the exception of New Jersey 

and Maryland. New York indicated that 

its $5,500 RACT control cost also 

applied to non-EGUs. 

New York also stated in the 

September 2018 submittal that it was in 

various stages of the rulemaking process 

for additional measures to further 

control NOX and VOC emissions from 

EGU, non-EGU, area, and mobile 

sources. 

Additional NOX reductions would be 

obtained, according to the State, through 

the following regulatory updates that 

were, at the time of the submittal, under 

development by the State: Establishing 

new NOX limits for simple cycle 

combustion turbines (or ‘‘peaking’’ 30

units), which New York noted would 

benefit the New York Metropolitan Area 

on hot summer days that are most 

conducive to ozone formation (i.e., high 

electric demand days) (6 NYCRR Part 

227); establishing NOX limits for 

distributed generation sources (6 

NYCRR Part 222); applying NOX RACT 

requirements to municipal waste 

combustors (6 NYCRR Part 219); 

requiring new installation, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for aftermarket catalytic 

converters (Part 218); and the adoption 

of the CSAPR Update trading program (6 

NYCRR Part 243). 

New York’s submittal also indicates 

that it will further control area-source 

VOC emissions through updates to State 

VOC RACT regulations for Oil and Gas 

(6 NYCRR Part 203); Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance Coatings (6 

NYCRR Part 205); Solvent Metal 

Cleaning Processes (Part 226); Motor 

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 

Refinishing and Recoating Operations (6 

NYCRR Part 228, Subpart 228–1); 

Gasoline Dispensing Sites and Transport 

Vehicles (6 NYCRR Part 230); and 

Consumer Products (6 NYCRR Part 235). 

In its submittal to the EPA, New York 

commented that the State’s mobile onroad sector alone (without considering 

other state emissions) ‘‘significantly 

impacted downwind monitors, with 

2023 contributions as high as 4.64 ppb 

at the Greenwich, Connecticut monitor’’ 

(receptor ID 90010017), based on CAMx 

modeling conducted by the University 

of Maryland.31

New York stated that the on-road 

sector is controlled through the 

inspection/maintenance and anti-idling 

standards in 6 NYCRR Part 217, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Emissions,’’ and the 

implementation of the California LowEmission Vehicle Standards under 6 

NYCRR Part 218, ‘‘Emission Standards 

for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle 

Engines.’’ 

B. New Jersey 

On May 13, 2019, New Jersey 

submitted a SIP revision that addressed 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS,32 including its 

interstate transport obligations pursuant 

to the good neighbor provision. Except 

for the portion of the SIP submittal 

addressing the good neighbor provision 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

EPA will act on the portion of the 

submittal addressing the remaining 

infrastructure SIP elements for the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in a separate 

action at a later date. 

In New Jersey’s SIP submittal, the 

State followed the 4-step framework 

based on a 2023 analytic year for 

evaluating its significant contribution. 

New Jersey provided air quality 

modeling (Steps 1 and 2), and a list of 

its adopted and implemented air 

pollution control measures, to 

demonstrate that it satisfied its transport 

obligations for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (under Step 3). The State did 

not reach Step 4 of the framework as it 

concluded that the State did not need 

additional emissions reductions to 

eliminate significant contribution at 

Step 3. 

At Step 1, New Jersey identified areas 

that the State potentially significantly 

contributed to in other states based on 

2023 regional modeling 33 conducted 

under the coordination of the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) modeling 

Committee. The OTC modeling used 

CAMx modeling, version 6.3, to project 

emissions to 2023 (using a 2011 base 

year). OTC used the Eastern Regional 

Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) 

EGU Projection Tool to estimate 

emissions from the EGU sector. 

New Jersey identified four 

nonattainment and four maintenance 

receptors in the OTC/MANE–VU 12 

kilometer (km) modeling domain 

utilized in the OTC modeling.34 The 

nonattainment receptors were located at 

the Westport 35 (receptor ID 90019003) 

monitoring site in Fairfield County, in 

Connecticut; the Susan Wagner 

(receptor ID 360850067) and Babylon 

(receptor ID 36103002) monitoring sites 

in Richmond and Suffolk Counties, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9491 

36Table 5 of the SIP submittal. 

37Control measures that the State identified as 

‘‘USEPA Approval Pending’’ have been approved 

by the EPA as follows: The EPA finalized approval 

of the CTGs for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials; Industrial Cleaning Solvents; 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings; 

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; and Natural Gas 

Engines and Turbines. 83 FR 50506 (October 9, 

2018). The EPA approved revisions to New Jersey’s 

I/M rules. 83 FR 21174 (May 9, 2018). The EPA 

finalized approval of New Jersey’s Vapor Recovery 

2017 Stage I and Refueling. 85 FR 36748 (June 18, 

2020). 38Table 5 of the New Jersey SIP submittal. 

respectively, in New York; and the 

Edgewood (receptor ID 240251001) 

monitoring site in Harford County, 

Maryland. The maintenance receptors 

were located at the Greenwich (receptor 

ID 90010017), New Haven (receptor ID 

90099002) and Stratford (receptor ID 

90013007) monitoring sites in Fairfield, 

New Haven, and Fairfield Counties, in 

Connecticut, respectively; and the 

Queens College (receptor ID 360810124) 

in Queens County, in New York. 

New Jersey relied on the OTC 2023 

regional modeling using CAMx to 

determine the nonattainment and 

maintenance sites that it was linked to 

as a potential significant contributor 

based on its contribution above 1 

percent of the NAAQS (0.70 ppb for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The OTC 

modeling showed that New Jersey was 

linked above the 1 percent threshold to 

four receptors, including two 

nonattainment receptors at the Westport 

monitoring site in Connecticut and at 

the Susan Wagner and Babylon 

monitoring sites in New York. 

Additionally, the modeling 

demonstrated that New Jersey was 

linked to maintenance receptors located 

at the Greenwich, New Haven, and 

Stratford monitoring sites in 

Connecticut and the Babylon 

monitoring site in New York. 

New Jersey asserted that considering 

air quality, emissions reductions from 

the State’s adopted measures, and the 

cost effectiveness of those measures, no 

additional emissions reductions from 

New Jersey are necessary to address its 

good neighbor obligations to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

New Jersey noted that from 1990 to 

2017, annual NOX and VOC emissions 

in New Jersey have each decreased 

approximately 77 percent. From 2011 to 

2017, annual NOX and VOC emissions 

decreased 31 percent and 17 percent, 

respectively. From 2002 to 2017, for 

point sources in the State, NOX was 

reduced by 81 percent and VOC 

emissions were reduced by 63 percent. 

New Jersey also noted that its point 

source emissions represent only about 8 

percent of New Jersey’s total NOX

emissions, while mobile sources were 

approximately 43 percent. 

New Jersey stated that there has been 

a significant decreasing trend in 8-hour 

ozone design values in New Jersey, 

approximately 40 percent from 1988 to 

2017 and 13 percent from 2011 to 2017. 

According to the State, the significant 

decrease demonstrates the impact of 

New Jersey control measures. 

New Jersey provided a list 36 of its 

post-2002 adopted NOX and VOC 

control measures, including estimated 

cost-effectiveness (dollar ($) per ton of 

NOX reduced or VOC reduced), and the 

EPA’s approval date 37 for many of the 

measures. New Jersey notes that the 

State has met Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM) and RACT 

requirements and has gone beyond 

RACM/RACT by adopting control 

measures more stringent than Federal 

rules and rules adopted by other states. 

Furthermore, New Jersey states that its 

rules are implemented statewide and 

not limited to the Northern New JerseyNew York-Connecticut ozone 

nonattainment area. New Jersey 

highlighted several of its control 

measures: 

—Power generation rules, including 

requirements for high electric demand 

days (HEDD) when ozone 

concentrations are highest. New 

Jersey estimates NOX emissions 

reduction during HEDD to be over 60 

tons from a baseline without the rules; 

—municipal waste combustor controls; 

—stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) controls 

(as low as 37 kW) used for distributed 

generation or demand response (DG/ 

DR), which the State noted are often 

operated on hot summer days that 

often coincide with high ozone days; 

—mobile source controls including New 

Jersey’s Low Emission Vehicle 

Program (NJ LEV) (based on 

California’s program), which requires 

a certain percentage of Zero Emission 

Vehicles in the State, as well as its 

rules for vehicle idling and heavyduty vehicle inspection and 

maintenance using on-board 

diagnostics technology; and 

—various NOX and VOC measures to 

address the EPA Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG), NOX Alternative 

Control Technique (ACT) categories, 

and updated controls at gasoline 

dispensing facilities including 

California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) enhanced vapor recovery 

certified Phase I vapor recovery 

systems, dripless nozzles, and low 

permeation hoses. 

New Jersey also asserts that it has 

implemented its control measures 

before the attainment deadlines for 

downwind nonattainment areas. New 

Jersey provides the example of the New 

Jersey power generation and HEDD rules 

being effective in 2015 or earlier. New 

Jersey further asserts that, when 

determining New Jersey’s significant 

contribution to interstate transport, the 

State should not be penalized for its 

early adoption of appropriate and 

effective rules in advance of and more 

stringent than other states. 

In the State’s evaluation of cost 

effectiveness, New Jersey claims that it 

has gone beyond the measures of other 

nearby and upwind states and 

previously established the EPA cost 

effectiveness thresholds. The State notes 

that the cost-effectiveness values 

associated with many of its adopted 

rules are several times greater than the 

threshold of $1,400 per ton NOX

reduced set for upwind states in the 

CSAPR Update. For example, according 

to the State’s list of existing NOX and 

VOC control measures 38 included in its 

SIP submittal, the control measures for 

turbines operating during HEDD had a 

cost effectiveness of $44,000 per ton 

NOX reduced; the control measures for 

oil-fired boilers operating during HEDD 

had a cost effectiveness up to $18,000 

per ton NOX reduced; and, for natural 

gas compressor engines and turbines 

rules adopted in 2017, the rules have a 

cost effectiveness up to $26,020 per ton 

NOX reduced, with SCR costs up to 

$18,983 per ton NOX reduced. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

New York SIP revision submitted on 

September 25, 2018, and the New Jersey 

SIP revision submitted on May 13, 2019, 

do not meet the States’ obligations with 

respect to prohibiting emissions that 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in any other state based on the 

EPA’s evaluation of the SIP submissions 

using the 4-step interstate transport 

framework. Both States conceded that 

they are linked to nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in another state 

at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework-which is confirmed 

by the EPA’s most recent modeling. 

However, neither state conducted an 

adequate Step 3 analysis to conclude 

that either state’s SIP contains adequate 

measures to prohibit significant 

contribution or interference with 

maintenance. Both states conclude that 

their existing (or certain ‘‘on-the-way’’) 

control measures are already sufficient 

to meet good neighbor obligations. 

However, for this argument to provide 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9492 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

39 Design values and contributions at individual 

monitoring sites nationwide are provide in the file: 

2023_DVs_Contributions_2016v2_Platform which is 

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

0663. 40These modeling results are consistent with the 

results of a prior round of 2023 modeling using the 

2016v1 emissions platform which became available 

to the public in the fall of 2020 in the Revised 

CSAPR Update, as noted in Section I. 

support for their conclusions, an 

analysis as to why no additional control 

measures are justified is needed. Neither 

state provided such an analysis in their 

respective SIP submittals. Therefore, as 

discussed below, the EPA proposes to 

disapprove both New York’s and New 

Jersey’s good neighbor SIP submittals 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

A. New York 

1. Results of the EPA’s Step 1 and Step 

2 Modeling and Findings for New York 

As described in section I, the EPA 

performed air quality modeling using 

the 2016v2 emissions platform to 

project design values and contributions 

for 2023. These data were examined to 

determine if New York contributes at or 

above the threshold of 1 percent of the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to 

any downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor. As shown in 

Table 1, the data 39 indicate that in 2023, 

emissions from New York contribute 

greater than 1 percent of the standard to 

nonattainment or maintenance-only 

receptors in Stratford, Connecticut 

(receptor ID 90013007), Westport, 

Connecticut (receptor ID 90019003), 

Greenwich, Connecticut (receptor ID 

90010017), New Haven, Connecticut 

(receptor ID 90099002), and Bucks 

County, Pennsylvania (receptor ID 

480170012).40

TABLE 1—NEW YORK LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON EPA UPDATED 2023 MODELING

Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance 

2023 Average 

design value 

(ppb) 

2023 

Maximum 

design value 

(ppb) 

New York 

contribution 

(ppb) 

90013007 .............................. Stratford, CT ......................... Nonattainment ....................... 74.2 75.1 13.56

90019003 .............................. Westport, CT ......................... Nonattainment ....................... 76.1 76.4 14.36 

90010017 .............................. Greenwich, CT ...................... Nonattainment ....................... 73.0 73.7 16.81 

90099002 .............................. New Haven, CT .................... Nonattainment ....................... 71.8 73.9 11.54 

420170012 ............................ Bucks County, PA ................. Maintenance ......................... 70.7 72.2 1.80 

2. Evaluation of Information Provided 

by New York Regarding Step 1 

At Step 1 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework, New York relied 

on EPA modeling released in the March 

2018 memorandum to identify 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in 2023. As described 

previously in this notice, the EPA has 

recently updated this modeling using 

the most current and technically 

appropriate information. The EPA 

proposes to primarily rely on the EPA’s 

most recent modeling to identify 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in 2023. 

3. Evaluation of Information Provided 

by New York Regarding Step 2 

As described previously in this 

notice, the EPA has recently updated 

modeling to identify upwind state 

contributions to nonattainment and/or 

maintenance receptors in 2023. In this 

proposal, the EPA relies on the Agency’s 

most recently available modeling to 

identify upwind contributions and 

‘‘linkages’’ to downwind air quality 

problems in 2023 using a threshold of 

1 percent of the NAAQS. As shown in 

Table 1, updated EPA modeling 

identifies New York’s maximum 

contribution to a downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

is greater than 1 percent of the standard 

(i.e., 0.70 ppb). 

Although New York relied on 

alternative modeling to the EPA’s 

modeling at Step 2, New York 

acknowledged in its SIP submission that 

it is linked above 1 percent of the 

NAAQS to one or more downwind 

receptors in 2023. Because the 

alternative modeling relied on by the 

State also demonstrates that a linkage 

exists between the State and downwind 

receptors at Step 2, the EPA need not 

conduct a comparative assessment of 

the alternative modeling; the State 

concedes that it is linked. New York’s 

analysis corroborates the conclusion in 

the EPA’s most recent modeling. The 

EPA therefore will proceed to Step 3 of 

the 4-step interstate transport 

framework to assess arguments the State 

presented as to why, despite this 

linkage, the State should not be 

considered to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state such that additional emissions 

reductions are required. 

4. Evaluation of Information Provided 

Regarding Step 3 

At Step 3 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework, a state’s emissions 

are further evaluated, in light of 

multiple factors, including air quality 

and cost considerations, to determine 

what, if any, emissions significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance and, thus, must be 

eliminated under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). To effectively evaluate 

which emissions in the state should be 

deemed ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

prohibited, states generally should 

prepare an accounting of sources and 

other emissions activity and assess 

potential, additional emissions 

reduction opportunities and resulting 

downwind air quality improvements. 

The EPA has consistently applied this 

general approach (i.e., Step 3 of the 4- 

step interstate transport framework) 

when identifying emissions 

contributions that the Agency has 

determined to be ‘‘significant’’ (or 

interfere with maintenance) in each of 

its prior Federal, regional ozone 

transport rulemakings, and this 

interpretation of the statute has been 

upheld by the Supreme Court. See EME 

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

While the EPA has not directed states 

that they must conduct a Step 3 analysis 

in precisely the manner the EPA has 

done in its prior regional transport 

rulemakings, state implementation 

plans addressing the obligations in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit 

‘‘any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State’’ from emitting 

air pollutants which will contribute 

significantly to downwind air quality 

problems. Thus, states must complete 

something similar to the EPA’s analysis 

(or an alternative approach to defining 

‘‘significance’’ that comports with the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9493 

41New York regulations are available at https:// 

www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/regulations.html. 

42The NOX emission limits are on a part per 

million dry volume basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15 

percent oxygen. 

43New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on May 18, 2020. The EPA 

finalized approval on August 3, 2021. 86 FR 43956 

(August 11, 2021). 

44 Distributed generation (DG) sources are engines 

used by host sites to supply electricity outside that 

supplied by distribution utilities. This on-site 

generation of electricity by DG sources is used by 

a wide range of commercial, institutional, and 

industrial facilities. DG applications range from 

supplying electricity during blackouts to supplying 

all a facility’s electricity demand year-round. NY’s 

DG rule applies to sources enrolled in demand 

response programs sponsored by the New York 

Independent System Operator or transmission 

utilities as well as sources used during times when 

the cost of electricity supplied by utilities is high 

(i.e., price-responsive generation sources). 

45New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on October 15, 2020. 46New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on February 23, 2021. 47As of December 1, 2021, New York had not 

submitted a revised version of subpart 218–7 to the 

EPA for SIP approval. 

48The compliance date for the sale of products is 

January 1, 2021. The sell-through provision allows 

for product manufactured before January 1, 2021, to 

be sold through May 1, 2023. 

49New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on October 15, 2020. 

50New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on November 5, 2019. The 

EPA finalized approval on April 19, 2020. 85 FR 

28490 (May 13, 2020). 

51New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on March 3, 2021. 

statute’s objectives) to determine 

whether and to what degree emissions 

from a state should be ‘‘prohibited’’ to 

eliminate emissions that will 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance of,’’ the NAAQS in any 

other state. New York did not conduct 

such an analysis in its SIP submission. 

Although in this action we are relying 

on the results of the EPA’s most recent 

air quality modeling results for receptor 

identification and contributions, we will 

continue to evaluate the analysis 

provided by New York at Step 3 to 

assess whether the analysis provided 

adequately supports New York’s 

conclusion, and whether the analysis 

could apply to the linkages identified by 

the EPA at Step 2. 

As previously indicated in section 

II.A, New York asserted in its September 

2018 submittal that, despite its 

contributions, the State had met its good 

neighbor obligations through the 

implementation and enforcement of 

stringent NOX and VOC control 

measures that go beyond the EPA’s 

presumptive cost threshold in the 

CSAPR Update for highly cost-effective 

emissions reductions, and through the 

ongoing adoption and revision of 

additional control measures to further 

ensure the reduction of ozone in both 

New York and downwind areas. 

The State’s submittal, however, did 

not contain a demonstration at Step 3 

that the State was adequately 

controlling its emissions for the 

purposes of the good neighbor 

provision, particularly because New 

York conceded in its submission that its 

emissions were linked to Connecticut 

receptors at Steps 1 and 2. The SIP 

submittal pointed to the State’s existing 

NOX RACT measures with presumptive 

and facility-specific emission limits 

based on $5,500 per ton of NOX

reduced, as well as ongoing state and 

local emission control efforts to 

conclude New York is already meeting 

its good neighbor obligations for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, 

the State’s submittal does not include a 

sufficient examination or a technical 

justification that could support the 

conclusion that the State has no further 

good neighbor obligations for the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. In particular, the 

State did not conduct in its submittal an 

analysis of potential additional 

emissions-reduction measures to further 

reduce its impact on the identified 

downwind receptors. For example, New 

York did not include in its submission 

an accounting of sources and other 

emissions activity in the State along 

with an analysis of potential NOX

emissions control technologies, their 

associated costs, estimated emissions 

reductions, and downwind air quality 

improvements. Nor does the submittal 

include an analysis of whether such 

potential additional control 

technologies or measures could reduce 

the impact of New York’s emissions on 

out of state receptors. Though there is 

not a prescribed method for a Step 3 

analysis, EPA has consistently applied 

Step 3 of the good neighbor framework 

through a more rigorous evaluation of 

potential additional control 

technologies or measures than what was 

provided in the SIP submission. 

Identifying a range of various emissions 

control measures that have been or may 

be enacted at the state or local level, 

without analysis of the impact of those 

measures on the out of state receptors, 

is not analytically sufficient. In general, 

the air quality modeling that the EPA 

has conducted (as well the modeling 

relied on by New York in its submittal) 

already accounts for ‘‘on-the-books’’ 

emissions control measures. Both sets of 

modeling clearly establish continued 

linkage from New York to downwind 

receptors in 2023 at Steps 1 and 2, 

despite those emissions control efforts. 

New York’s September 2018 submittal 

referenced regulatory updates that New 

York asserted were in development and 

would provide for additional NOX and 

VOC reductions. The EPA notes that 

New York has since adopted many of 

these regulatory updates.41 New York 

adopted 6 NYCRR Part 227, Subpart 

227–3, ‘‘Ozone Season Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOX) Emission Limits for 

Simple Cycle and Regenerative 

Combustion Turbines,’’ with a State 

effective date of January 16, 2020, that 

lowered allowable NOX emissions from 

peaking units during the ozone season 

on high electric demand days, with 

compliance dates of May 1, 2023 (100 

ppmvd 42 limit), and May 1, 2025 (25 

ppmvd limit for gas and 42 ppmvd limit 

for oil).43 New York adopted a 

regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 222, 

‘‘Distributed Generation Sources,’’ with 

a State effective date of March 25, 2020, 

that established NOX emissions control 

requirements for distributed generation 

and price responsive generation 

sources 44 with compliance dates of May 

1, 2021 and May 1, 2025.45 New York 

adopted revisions, with a State effective 

date of March 13, 2020, to NYCRR Part 

219, including adoption of a new 

Subpart 219–10, ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) For Oxides 

of Nitrogen (NOX) At Municipal and 

Private Solid Waste Incineration Units,’’ 

which established NOX limits for 

municipal waste combustors with a 

compliance date of March 14, 2021.46

New York adopted revisions to NYCRR 

Part 218, subpart 218–7, ‘‘Aftermarket 

Parts,’’ with a State effective date of 

March 14, 2020, which required cleaner 

California certified aftermarket catalytic 

converters offered for sale or installed in 

New York State beginning January 1, 

2023.47 New York adopted revisions, 

with a State effective date of January 11, 

2020, to 6 NYCRR Part 205, 

‘‘Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings,’’ with 

compliance effective January 1, 2021,48

requiring more stringent VOC limits for 

coatings.49 New York adopted revisions, 

with a State effective date of November 

1, 2019, to 6 NYCRR Part 226, ‘‘Solvent 

Metal Cleaning Processes,’’ establishing 

VOC content limits for cleaning solvents 

used in operations not covered by other 

regulations, beginning November 1, 

2020.50 New York adopted revisions to 

6 NYCRR Part 230, with a State effective 

date of February 11, 2021, ‘‘Gasoline 

Dispensing Sites and Transport 

Vehicles,’’ and 6 NYCRR Part 235, 

‘‘Consumer Products.’’ Updates to 

NYCRR Part 230 include additional 

VOC control requirements for facilities 

during gasoline transfer operations 

beginning February 5, 2021.51 Updates 

to Part 235, which require compliance 

by January 1, 2022, include revising and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

52New York submitted the updated regulation for 

SIP approval to the EPA on March 3, 2021. 

53CSAPR provided a process for the submission 

and approval of SIP revisions to replace certain 

provisions of the CSAPR FIPs while the remaining 

FIP provisions continue to apply. This type of 

CSAPR SIP is termed an abbreviated SIP. 

54The regulations implementing the Revised 

CSAPR Update provide that, for states subject to the 

Revised CSAPR Update and with respect to control 

periods after 2020, the EPA will no longer 

administer state trading program provisions 

approved under SIP revisions addressing the 

CSAPR Update’s trading program. See 40 CFR 

52.38(b)(16)(ii). 

55New York filed a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on April 20, 2021. See https://

www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/122829.html. 

56While Wisconsin was decided after the state 

made its submission, EPA must evaluate the SIP 

based on the information available at the time of its 

action, including any relevant changes in caselaw 

or other requirements. States are generally free to 

withdraw and resubmit their SIP submissions in 

light of intervening changes in the law. The State 

of New York has not done so in this case. 

establishing VOC contents for consumer 

products.52

Additionally, New York adopted a 

revised version of 6 NYCRR Part 243, 

‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

Trading Program,’’ with a State effective 

date of January 2, 2019, in order to 

allow New York to allocate CSAPR 

allowances to regulated entities in New 

York under an abbreviated SIP.53

However, the EPA notes that although 

New York’s revised Part 243 replaced 

the EPA’s default allocation procedures 

for the control periods in 2021 and 

beyond under the CSAPR Update FIP, 

the revised state rules did not create any 

enforceable emission limitations and 

did not replace the enforceable emission 

limitations set forth in the additional 

trading program provisions established 

under the CSAPR Update FIP. 

Moreover, the allowance allocations 

provisions adopted in Part 243 (as well 

as the additional trading program 

provisions established under the CSAPR 

Update) are no longer in effect for New 

York’s sources because those provisions 

have been replaced as to the State’s 

sources by the new trading program 

provisions established under the 

Revised CSAPR Update.54

In any case, in both the CSAPR 

Update and the more recent Revised 

CSAPR Update, the EPA found, in spite 

of the nominal stringency of New York’s 

control programs, additional emissions 

reductions were achievable from EGUs 

in the State. This was true even under 

the level of control stringency the EPA 

determined appropriate to eliminate 

significant contribution for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Further, the EPA has not 

established a benchmark costeffectiveness threshold for good 

neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, and New York in its submittal 

has not conducted an analysis to 

establish one for EPA to evaluate. 

Additionally, while New York’s existing 

control measures have undoubtedly 

reduced the amount of transported 

ozone pollution to other states and have 

contributed to the downward emissions 

trends and improving air quality in the 

State, in light of continuing contribution 

to out of state receptors from the State 

at Steps 1 and 2 despite these measures, 

New York’s SIP submission failed to 

provide an adequate analysis at Step 3. 

As of December 1, 2021, New York 

had not yet adopted revisions to 6 

NYCRR Part 203, ‘‘Oil and Gas 

Sector,’’ 55 or NYCRR Part 228, Subpart 

228–1, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and Mobile 

Equipment Refinishing and Recoating 

Operation.’’ 

The EPA also notes that New York’s 

6 NYCRR Part 227, Subpart 227–3, 

which was approved into the SIP after 

EPA’s receipt of this September 2018 

submittal, and which implements NOX

limits on combustion turbines that 

operate as peaking units, will not be 

fully phased in until 2025, which is past 

the August 3, 2024 Moderate area 

attainment date for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. Additionally, New York said 

that the State’s mobile on-road sector 

alone significantly impacted downwind 

monitors and noted that it controls its 

mobile emissions through its 

inspection/maintenance (I/M) and antiidling standards. However, New York 

did not explain the role its I/M and antiidling standards play in eliminating its 

significant contribution. 

The EPA acknowledges that New 

York’s RACT presumptive emissions 

limits and facility-specific emissions 

limits are based on an inflation-adjusted 

control cost valued at $5,500 per ton of 

NOX reduced. 

In general, however, the listing of 

existing or ‘‘on-the-way’’ control 

measures, whether approved into the 

State’s SIP or not, does not substitute for 

a complete Step 3 analysis under the 

EPA’s 4-step framework to define 

‘‘significant contribution.’’ New York’s 

submittal does not include an 

assessment of the overall effects of these 

measures, when the reductions would 

be achieved, and what the overall 

resulting air quality effects would be 

observed at identified out-of-state 

receptors. The State’s submittal does not 

include an evaluation of additional 

potential emissions control 

opportunities, or their costs or impacts, 

or attempt to analyze whether, if 

applied more broadly across linked 

states, the emissions reductions would 

constitute the elimination of significant 

contribution on a regional scale. The 

State’s submittal did not contain an 

explanation as to whether any faster or 

more stringent emissions reductions 

that may be available were prohibitively 

costly or infeasible. Although the EPA 

acknowledges states are not necessarily 

bound to follow its own analytical 

framework at Step 3, we note that the 

State did not attempt to determine or 

justify an appropriate uniform costeffectiveness threshold for the more 

stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS, nor did 

the State offer an alternative to this 

analytical framework for determining 

‘‘significant contribution’’ in its 

submittal. This would have been similar 

to the approach to defining significant 

contribution that the EPA has applied in 

prior rulemakings such as CSAPR and 

the CSAPR Update. 

Further, the EPA’s modeling already 

accounts for ‘‘on-the-books’’ control 

measures, and the State has not 

explained which of its measures were 

not already included in the EPA’s 

modeling and thus deserve to be further 

credited as reducing the impact of the 

State’s emissions beyond what the 

EPA’s air quality modeling has already 

accounted for. In light of continuing 

contribution to out of state receptors 

from the State (at Steps 1 and 2) despite 

these measures, New York’s SIP 

submission failed to evaluate the 

availability of any additional controls to 

improve downwind air quality at 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors at Step 3. 

Finally, under the Wisconsin 

decision, states and the EPA may not 

delay implementation of measures 

necessary to address good neighbor 

requirements beyond the next 

applicable attainment date without a 

showing of impossibility or necessity. 

See 938 F.3d at 320. In those cases 

where the measures identified by the 

State had implementation timeframes 

beyond the next relevant attainment 

dates the submission did not offer a 

demonstration of impossibility of earlier 

implementation of those control 

measures.56 Similarly, the State’s 

submittal is insufficient to the extent the 

implementation timeframes for 

identified control measures were left 

unidentified, unexplained, or too 

uncertain to permit the EPA to form a 

judgment as to whether the timing 

requirements for good neighbor 

obligations have been met. 

5. Evaluation of Information Provided 

Regarding Step 4 

Step 4 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework calls for 

development of permanent and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9495 

57Pointing to anticipated upcoming emission 

reductions, even if they were not included in the 

analysis at Steps 1 and 2, is not sufficient as a Step 

3 analysis, for the reasons discussed in Section 

III.A.4. In this section, we explain that to the extent 

such anticipated reductions are not included in the 

SIP and rendered permanent and enforceable, 

reliance on such anticipated reductions is also 

insufficient at Step 4. 

58 Design values and contributions at individual 

monitoring sites nationwide are provide in the file: 

2023_DVs_Contributions_2016v2_Platform which is 

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

0663. 59These modeling results are consistent with the 

results of a prior round of 2023 modeling using the 

2016v1 emissions platform which became available 

to the public in the fall of 2020 in the Revised 

CSAPR Update, as noted in Section I. That 

modeling showed that New Jersey had a maximum 

contribution greater than 0.70 ppb to at least one 

nonattainment or maintenance-only receptor in 

2023. These modeling results are included in the 

file ‘‘Ozone Design Values And Contributions 

Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx’’ in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663. 

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. New York 

identified a number of measures that 

were either in development or 

anticipated to occur in the future (See 

section III.4).57 However, the State had 

not revised its SIP to include these 

emission reductions to ensure the 

reductions were permanent and 

enforceable. Although New York has 

subsequently adopted many of the 

measures identified in section III.4, 

several measures have not been 

approved into the SIP, either because 

the State failed to submit (e.g., 6 NYCRR 

Part 218, Subpart 218–7, ‘‘Aftermarket 

Parts) or the EPA has not yet finalized 

approval into the SIP. Therefore, the 

emission reductions associated with 

those rules are not permanent and 

enforceable. As a result, EPA proposes 

to disapprove New York’s submittal on 

the separate, additional basis that New 

York has not included permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions in its 

SIP as necessary to meet the obligations 

of 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I). 

6. Conclusion 

Based on the EPA’s evaluation of New 

York’s’ SIP submission, the EPA is 

proposing to find that the portion of 

New York’s September 25, 2018 SIP 

submission addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not meet the 

State’s interstate transport obligations 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

because it fails to contain the necessary 

provisions to eliminate emissions in 

amounts that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. 

B. New Jersey 

1. Results of the EPA’s Step 1 and Step 

2 Modeling and Findings for New Jersey 

As described in section I, the EPA 

performed air quality modeling using 

the 2016v2 emissions platform to 

project design values and contributions 

for 2023. These data were examined to 

determine if New Jersey contributes at 

or above the threshold of 1 percent of 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 

ppb) to any downwind nonattainment 

or maintenance receptor. As shown in 

Table 2, the data 58 indicate that in 2023 

emissions from New Jersey contribute 

greater than 1 percent of the standard to 

nonattainment or maintenance-only 

receptors in Stratford, Connecticut 

(receptor ID 90013007), Westport, 

Connecticut (receptor ID 90019003), 

Greenwich, Connecticut (receptor ID 

90010017), Madison, Connecticut 

(receptor ID 90099002), and Bucks 

County, Pennsylvania (receptor ID 

480170012).59

TABLE 2—NEW JERSEY LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON EPA UPDATED 2023 MODELING

Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance 

2023 Average 

design value 

(ppb) 

2023 

Maximum 

design value 

(ppb) 

New Jersey 

contribution 

(ppb) 

90013007 .............................. Stratford, CT ......................... Nonattainment ....................... 74.2 75.1 7.43 

90019003 .............................. Westport, CT ......................... Nonattainment ....................... 76.1 76.4 8.85 

90010017 .............................. Greenwich, CT ...................... Nonattainment ....................... 73.0 73.7 6.90 

90099002 .............................. Madison, CT ......................... Nonattainment ....................... 71.8 73.9 5.67 

420170012 ............................ Bucks County, PA ................. Maintenance ......................... 70.7 72.2 5.79 

2. Evaluation of Information Provided 

by New Jersey Regarding Step 1 

As noted in section II.B., New Jersey 

submitted OTC modeling that identified 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in 2023. Although the State 

used a different modeling approach 

(utilizing 2011 based modeling and the 

ERTAC EGU Projection tool), than the 

EPA’s modeling, which used a 2016- 

based emissions platform developed 

under an EPA/MJO/state collaborative 

project, New Jersey’s alternative 

modeling also identified a number of 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptor sites in 2023. See page 9 of the 

May 30, 2019 SIP submission. New 

Jersey determined that there were 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

at eight locations in Connecticut, New 

York, and Maryland, which exceeded 

the 5 locations in Connecticut and 

Pennsylvania that the EPA determined 

to have nonattainment or maintenance 

problems. Based on both the New Jersey 

and the EPA modeling, nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors are projected 

in 2023 at Step 1. Thus, even under the 

alternative modeling of 2023, New 

Jersey acknowledges in its submittal the 

existence of several nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. 

3. Evaluation of Information Provided 

by the State Regarding Step 2 

Although New Jersey relied on 

alternative modeling to the EPA’s 

modeling at Step 2, New Jersey 

acknowledged in its SIP submission that 

it is linked above 1 percent of the 

NAAQS (0.70 ppb for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS) to one or more 

downwind receptors in 2023. Because 

the alternative modeling relied on by 

the State also demonstrates that a 

linkage exists between the State and 

downwind receptors at Step 2, the EPA 

need not conduct a comparative 

assessment of the alternative modeling; 

the State concedes that it is linked. New 

Jersey’s analysis corroborates the 

conclusion in the EPA’s most recent 

modeling. The EPA therefore will 

proceed to Step 3 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework to assess arguments 

the State presented as to why, despite 

this linkage, the State should not be 

considered to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9496 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

state such that additional emissions 

reductions are required. 

4. Evaluation of Information Provided 

Regarding Step 3 

At Step 3 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework, a state’s emissions 

are further evaluated, in light of 

multiple factors, including air quality 

and cost considerations, to determine 

what, if any, emissions significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance and, thus, must be 

eliminated under CAA section 

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

To effectively evaluate which 

emissions in the state should be deemed 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore prohibited, 

states generally should prepare an 

accounting of sources and other 

emissions activity and assess potential, 

additional emissions reduction 

opportunities and resulting downwind 

air quality improvements. The EPA has 

consistently applied this general 

approach (i.e., Step 3 of the 4-step 

interstate transport framework) when 

identifying emissions contributions that 

the Agency has determined to be 

‘‘significant’’ (or interfere with 

maintenance) in each of its prior 

Federal, regional ozone transport 

rulemakings, and this interpretation of 

the statute has been upheld by the 

Supreme Court. See EME Homer City, 

572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). While the EPA 

has not directed states that they must 

conduct a Step 3 analysis in precisely 

the manner the EPA has done in its 

prior regional transport rulemakings, 

state implementation plans addressing 

the obligations in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit ‘‘any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State’’ from emitting 

air pollutants which will contribute 

significantly to downwind air quality 

problems. Thus, states must complete 

something similar to the EPA’s analysis 

(or an alternative approach to defining 

‘‘significance’’ that comports with the 

statute’s objectives) to determine 

whether and to what degree emissions 

from a state should be ‘‘prohibited’’ to 

eliminate emissions that will 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance of,’’ the NAAQS in any 

other state. New Jersey did not conduct 

such an analysis in its SIP submission. 

As previously noted, New Jersey 

asserted in its May 2019 submittal that 

considering air quality, the emissions 

reductions from New Jersey’s adopted 

measures, and the cost effectiveness of 

those measures, no additional emissions 

reductions from New Jersey are 

necessary to address its good neighbor 

obligations to downwind nonattainment 

and maintenance areas. New Jersey 

stated that control measures were 

adopted and implemented before 

attainment deadlines and go beyond 

previously established the EPA cost 

effectiveness thresholds. New Jersey 

also provided information documenting 

the emissions reductions that have been 

made throughout the State beginning in 

2002 with corresponding improvements 

in air quality in New Jersey to 

demonstrate the impact of New Jersey’s 

control measures. 

New Jersey’s submittal, however, did 

not contain a demonstration at Step 3 

that the State was adequately 

controlling its emissions for purposes of 

the good neighbor provision, 

particularly because the State conceded 

in its submission that it was potentially 

significantly contributing to eight 

receptors in 2023 at Steps 1 and 2. The 

SIP submittal pointed to the State’s 

existing NOX and VOC control measures 

that were adopted by the State to 

conclude New Jersey is already meeting 

its good neighbor obligations for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, 

the State’s submittal does not include a 

sufficient examination or a technical 

justification that could support the 

conclusion that the State has no further 

good neighbor obligations for the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. In particular, the 

State did not conduct in its submittal an 

analysis of potential additional 

emissions-reduction measures to further 

reduce its impact on the identified 

downwind receptors. For example, New 

Jersey did not include in its submission 

an accounting of individual emissions 

units at facilities in the State along with 

an analysis of potential NOX emissions 

control technologies, their associated 

costs, estimated emissions reductions, 

and downwind air quality 

improvements. Nor does the submittal 

include an analysis of whether such 

potential, additional control 

technologies or measures could reduce 

the impact of New Jersey’s emissions on 

out of state receptors. Though there is 

not a prescribed method for a Step 3 

analysis, the EPA has consistently 

applied Step 3 of the good neighbor 

framework through a more rigorous 

evaluation of potential additional 

control technologies or measures than 

what New Jersey provided in its 

submission. Identifying a range of 

various emissions control measures that 

have been or may be enacted at the state 

level, without analysis of the impact of 

those measures on the out of state 

receptors, is not analytically sufficient. 

In general, the air quality modeling that 

EPA has conducted (as well the 

modeling relied on by New Jersey in its 

submittal) already accounts for ‘‘on-thebooks’’ emissions control measures. 

Both sets of modeling clearly establish 

continued linkage from New Jersey to 

downwind receptors in 2023 at Steps 1 

and 2, despite those emissions control 

efforts. 

The EPA acknowledges that the 

State’s control measures listed in the 

State’s SIP submittal may be nominally 

more stringent than the EPA costthresholds used for the CSAPR Update 

or Revised CSAPR Update. But those 

cost-thresholds were for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS (a less stringent NAAQS than 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS). Further, in the 

Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA found 

that despite the nominal stringency of 

New Jersey’s control programs, 

additional emissions reductions were 

achievable from EGUs in the State, even 

under the level of control stringency the 

EPA determined appropriate to 

eliminate significant contribution for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In any case, the 

EPA has not established a benchmark 

cost-effectiveness threshold for good 

neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, and New Jersey in its submittal 

has not conducted an analysis to 

establish one for the EPA to evaluate. 

Additionally, while New Jersey’s 

existing control measures have 

undoubtedly reduced the amount of 

transported ozone pollution to other 

states and have contributed to the 

downward emissions trends and 

improving air quality in the State as 

shown in the State’s SIP submittal, in 

light of continuing contribution to out of 

state receptors from the State at Steps 1 

and 2 despite these measures, New 

Jersey’s SIP submission failed to provide 

an adequate analysis at Step 3. 

We therefore propose that New Jersey 

was required to analyze emissions from 

the sources and other emissions activity 

from within the state to determine 

whether its contributions were 

significant, and we propose to 

disapprove its submission because New 

Jersey failed to do so. 

5. Evaluation of Information Provided 

Regarding Step 4 

Step 4 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework calls for 

development of 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. As 

mentioned previously, New Jersey’s SIP 

submission did not contain an 

evaluation of additional emission 

control opportunities (or establish that 

no additional controls are required), 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9497 

60 In deciding whether to invoke the exception by 

making and publishing a finding that an action is 

based on a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect, the Administrator takes into account a 

number of policy considerations, including his 

judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. 

Circuit’s authoritative centralized review versus 

allowing development of the issue in other contexts 

and the best use of agency resources. 

thus, no information was provided at 

Step 4. As a result, EPA proposes to 

disapprove New Jersey’s submittal on 

the separate, additional basis that the 

State has not developed permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions 

necessary to meet the obligations of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I). 

6. Conclusion 

Based on the EPA’s evaluation of New 

Jersey’s SIP submission, the EPA is 

proposing to find that the portion of 

New Jersey’s May 13, 2019 SIP 

submission addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not meet the 

State’s interstate transport obligations 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

because it fails to contain the necessary 

provisions to eliminate emissions in 

amounts that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

portion of New York’s and New Jersey’s 

SIP submissions pertaining to interstate 

transport of air pollution which will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other states. Under CAA 

section 110(c)(1), disapproval, if 

finalized, would establish a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP for New York and New Jersey to 

address interstate transport 

requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, unless the EPA approves a SIP 

that meets these requirements. 

Disapproval does not start a mandatory 

sanctions clock for New York and New 

Jersey. The remaining elements of New 

York’s September 25, 2018 submission, 

and New Jersey’s May 13, 2019 

submission are not addressed in this 

action and either have been or will be 

acted on in separate rulemakings. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action does not apply 

on any Indian reservation land, any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 

Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it merely proposes to 

disapprove a SIP submission as not 

meeting the CAA. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

K. CAA Section 307(b)(1) 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs 

judicial review of final actions by the 

EPA. This section provides, in part, that 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

D.C. Circuit: (i) When the agency action 

consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) 

when such action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ For locally or regionally 

applicable final actions, the CAA 

reserves to the EPA complete discretion 

whether to invoke the exception in 

(ii).60

The EPA anticipates that this 

proposed rulemaking, if finalized, 

would be ‘‘nationally applicable’’ 

within the meaning of CAA section 

307(b)(1) because it would take final 

action on SIP submittals for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS for two states, which are 

located in two different Federal judicial 

circuits. It would apply uniform, 

nationwide analytical methods, policy 

judgments, and interpretation with 

respect to the same CAA obligations, 

i.e., implementation of good neighbor 

requirements under CAA section 

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

NAAQS for states across the country, 

and final action would be based on this 

common core of determinations, 

described in further detail below. 

If the EPA takes final action on this 

proposed rulemaking, in the alternative, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9498 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

61A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also 

appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple 

judicial circuits. In the report on the 1977 

Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the 

CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator’s 

determination that the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ 

exception applies would be appropriate for any 

action that has a scope or effect beyond a single 

judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 

324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. 

62The EPA may take a consolidated, single final 

action on all the proposed SIP disapproval actions 

with respect to obligations under CAA section 

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

Should EPA take a single final action on all such 

disapprovals, this action would be nationally 

applicable, and the EPA would also anticipate, in 

the alternative, making and publishing a finding 

that such final action is based on a determination 

of nationwide scope or effect. 

the Administrator intends to exercise 

the complete discretion afforded to him 

under the CAA to make and publish a 

finding that the final action (to the 

extent a court finds the action to be 

locally or regionally applicable) is based 

on a determination of ‘‘nationwide 

scope or effect’’ within the meaning of 

CAA section 307(b)(1). Through this 

rulemaking action (in conjunction with 

a series of related actions on other SIP 

submissions for the same CAA 

obligations), the EPA interprets and 

applies section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) of the 

CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based 

on a common core of nationwide policy 

judgments and technical analysis 

concerning the interstate transport of 

pollutants throughout the continental 

U.S. In particular, the EPA is applying 

here (and in other proposed actions 

related to the same obligations) the 

same, nationally consistent 4-step 

framework for assessing good neighbor 

obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA relies on a single set of 

updated, 2016-base year photochemical 

grid modeling results of the year 2023 

as the primary basis for its assessment 

of air quality conditions and 

contributions at Steps 1 and 2 of that 

framework. Further, the EPA proposes 

to determine and apply a set of 

nationally consistent policy judgments 

to apply the 4-step framework. The EPA 

has selected a nationally uniform 

analytic year (2023) for this analysis and 

is applying a nationally uniform 

approach to nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and a nationally 

uniform approach to contribution 

threshold analysis.61 For these reasons, 

the Administrator intends, if this 

proposed action is finalized, to exercise 

the complete discretion afforded to him 

under the CAA to make and publish a 

finding that this action is based on one 

or more determinations of nationwide 

scope or effect for purposes of CAA 

section 307(b)(1).62

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone. 

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

Dated: January 31, 2022. 

Lisa Garcia, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02946 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0841; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663; FRL–9423–01–R4] 

Air Plan Disapproval; Kentucky; 

Interstate Transport Requirements 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 

or Agency) is proposing to disapprove a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from the Kentucky Energy and 

Environment Cabinet, Department of 

Environmental Quality (DAQ) (herein 

after referred to as Kentucky or the 

Commonwealth) regarding the interstate 

transport requirements for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or standard). The 

‘‘Good Neighbor’’ or ‘‘Interstate 

Transport’’ provision requires that each 

state’s implementation plan 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. This 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 EPA to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the relevant interstate transport 

requirements, unless EPA approves a 

subsequent SIP submittal that meets 

these requirements. Disapproval does 

not start a mandatory sanctions clock. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2022. 

Withdrawals: As of February 22, 2022, 

the proposed rule published in 

December 30, 2019, at 84 FR 71854, is 

withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0841, through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0841 for this rulemaking. 

Comments received may be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

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 

staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. The 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 EPA online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

Mr. Adams can be reached by telephone 

at (404) 562–9009, or via electronic mail 

at adams.evan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

Participation: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0841, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from the docket. 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 

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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1