[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7734-7746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02653]



[[Page 7734]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0310; FRL-8007-03-OAR]

40 CFR Part 81


Response to Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition From Maine; Final 
Action on Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action on petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a Clean 
Air Act (CAA) section 176A petition submitted by the state of Maine on 
February 24, 2020. The petition requested that the EPA remove a portion 
of Maine from the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) based on that area's 
continued attainment with ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and technical analyses demonstrating that further control of 
emissions from that portion of Maine will not significantly contribute 
to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR.

DATES: This final action is effective March 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0310. All documents in the docket are 
listed and publicly available at http://www.regulations.gov. Publicly 
available docket materials are also available in hard copy at the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA William 
Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC. Out of an abundance of caution, the EPA Docket 
Center and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31, 
2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. The EPA Docket 
Center and Reading Room has since started the reopening process. 
Visitors will be considered on an exception basis and allowed entrance 
by appointment only. Docket Center staff will continue to provide 
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further 
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, 
please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. In addition to being 
available in the docket, an electronic copy of this document will be 
posted at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-section-176a-petition-maine.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this final notice 
should be directed to Holly DeJong, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality 
Policy Division, Mail code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-4353; email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d7d6d9dcddd49ddbdcdfdfcaf3d6c3d29dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="026667686d6c652c6a6d6e6e7b426772632c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the U.S. EPA. The information in 
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Legal Authority
    A. Ozone Formation and Impacts
    B. Sections 176A and 184 of the CAA and the OTR Process
    C. Legal Standard for This Action
    D. Previous Actions
    E. The CAA Section 176A Petition From Maine
III. The EPA's Final Response to the CAA Section 176A Petition From 
Maine
    A. The EPA's Assessment of Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition
    B. Public Comments
IV. Final Action To Grant Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition
V. Judicial Review and Determinations Under Sections 307(b)(1) and 
307(d) of the CAA
VI. Statutory Authority

I. Executive Summary

    The EPA is finalizing approval of a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 
176A petition submitted by the state of Maine on February 24, 2020. In 
the petition, Maine requested that the EPA remove the state of Maine 
from the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) except for 111 towns and cities 
comprising the Androscoggin Valley,\1\ Down East \2\ and Metropolitan 
Portland \3\ Air Quality Control Regions, commonly referred to as the 
``Portland and Midcoast Ozone Areas.'' Maine contended that emissions 
from northern and eastern Maine do not significantly contribute to 
ozone nonattainment in other states nor do they interfere with 
maintenance of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
in those Maine municipalities that would remain in the OTR. Therefore, 
the state asserted that removing these areas from the OTR would not 
degrade the air quality in Maine or in any other state. The petition 
included monitoring data and technical analyses to support a 
demonstration that the areas requested to be removed from the OTR are 
in attainment with the ozone NAAQS and that emissions from these areas 
do not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in any area of 
the OTR. For the reasons detailed in this notice, the EPA is finalizing 
approval of the petition on the basis that the portion of the state 
requested to be removed from the OTR does not contribute to a violation 
of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR, and that further control 
of emissions from that portion of Maine will not significantly 
contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the 
OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 81.90 defines the Androscoggin Valley Interstate Air 
Quality Control Region as Androscoggin County, Kennebec County, Knox 
County, Lincoln County, Waldo County and parts of Franklin County, 
Oxford County, Somerset County. Androscoggin Valley also includes 
Cass County in the State of New Hampshire. Cass County is not 
included in the scope of this petition and will remain in the OTR.
    \2\ 40 CFR 81.181 defines the Down East Intrastate Air Quality 
Control Region as Hancock County, Washington County and parts of 
Penobscot County and Piscataquis County.
    \3\ 40 CFR 81.78 defines the Metropolitan Portland Intrastate 
Air Quality Control Region as Cumberland County, Sagadahoc County, 
York County, and the towns of Brownfield, Denmark, Fryeburg, Hiram, 
and Porter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176A(a) of the CAA provides the Administrator with the 
authority to develop transport regions for particular pollutants where 
the Administrator determines that interstate transport of air 
pollutants from one or more states contributes significantly to 
violations of air quality standards in one or more other states. In the 
1990 CAA Amendments, Congress created the OTR by statute under CAA 
section 184(a) to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution 
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States (U.S.).
    The creation of an interstate transport region requires 
establishing a transport commission with representatives from each 
state who make recommendations to mitigate interstate pollution. Model 
rules and programs designed through the OTC (Ozone Transport 
Commission) may be adopted by the individual states through their own 
rulemaking processes. Under CAA section 184(c), the OTC may petition 
the EPA to approve additional control measures to be applied within all 
or part of the transport region. Maine seeks to remove portions of the 
state from the OTR, thereby releasing those areas from OTC 
recommendations and applicable control requirements established under 
CAA section 184, effective 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Existing State Implementation Plan (SIP)-approved controls 
that were adopted by Maine due to its inclusion in the OTR will 
remain in place unless and until Maine submits, and the EPA 
approves, a SIP revision which includes a CAA section 110(1) 
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176A(a)(1) of the CAA provides the Administrator with 
authority to ``add any state or portion of

[[Page 7735]]

a state to any [transport] region . . . whenever the Administrator has 
reason to believe that the interstate transport of air pollutants from 
such state significantly contributes to a violation of the standard in 
the transport region.'' Conversely, CAA section 176A(a)(2) allows the 
Administrator to ``remove any state or portion of a state from [a 
transport] region whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that 
the control of emissions in that state or portion of the state . . . 
will not significantly contribute to the attainment of the standard in 
any area in the region.''
    In making this final decision, the EPA reviewed the petition from 
Maine, the public comments received, the relevant statutory authorities 
and other relevant materials. Accordingly, the EPA grants the CAA 
section 176A petition from Maine.

II. Background and Legal Authority

A. Ozone Formation and Impacts

    Ground-level ozone causes a variety of negative effects on human 
health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and chronic 
exposure to ozone is associated with premature mortality and several 
morbidity effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In ecosystems, ozone 
exposure may cause visible foliar injury, decrease plant growth, and 
affect ecological community composition. Ground-level ozone is not 
emitted directly into the air. Rather, it is a secondary air pollutant 
created by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. 
These precursor emissions can be transported downwind directly or, 
after transformation in the atmosphere, as ozone. As a result, ozone 
formation, atmospheric residence, and transport can occur on a regional 
scale (i.e., hundreds of miles).
    The EPA has regulated ozone pollution and the precursor emissions 
that contribute to ozone for the last five decades.\5\ Currently, there 
are two NAAQS in effect for ozone.\6\ On March 12, 2008, the EPA 
promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS, lowering both the primary 
and secondary standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb).\7\ On October 1, 
2015, the EPA lowered the primary and secondary standards to 70 ppb.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Primary and secondary NAAQS were first established for 
photochemical oxidants in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971). In 
1979, the EPA revised the NAAQS to change the indicator from 
photochemical oxidants to O<INF>3</INF> and to revise the primary 
and secondary standards. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). In 2005, the 
1-Hour Ozone NAAQS was revoked for all areas except the 8-Hour Ozone 
nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. 70 FR 44470 (June 
15, 2005). In 1997, the EPA once again revised the primary and 
secondary standards for ozone NAAQS. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In 
2015, the 1997 ozone NAAQS were revoked. 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 
2015).
    \6\ The 1997 ozone NAAQS were revoked in 2015. 80 FR 12264 
(March 6, 2015).
    \7\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final 
Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \8\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final 
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with CAA section 107(d), the EPA designates areas as 
``attainment'' (meeting the standard), ``nonattainment'' (not meeting 
the standard) or ``unclassifiable'' (insufficient data to classify). 
States with areas designated as nonattainment must develop and submit 
SIPs to the EPA with the goal of attaining and maintaining the level of 
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadline. In this way, the EPA 
and states work collaboratively to establish and implement 
nonattainment area planning requirements that are designed to bring 
areas into attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
deadline. A key step in ensuring that areas attain and maintain ozone 
NAAQS is to assess and understand the potential for ozone source 
formation in a given area, including the potential for upwind states' 
emissions to impact ozone formation in downwind states.

B. Sections 176A and 184 of the CAA and the OTR Process

    Subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA provides the general plan 
requirements for designated nonattainment areas. This subpart includes 
provisions governing the development of transport regions to address 
the interstate transport of pollutants that contribute to NAAQS 
violations. In particular, section 176A(a) of the CAA provides that, on 
the EPA's own motion or by a petition from the Governor of any state, 
whenever the EPA has reason to believe that the interstate transport of 
air pollutants from one or more states contributes significantly to a 
violation of the NAAQS in one or more other states, the EPA may 
establish, by rule, a transport region for such pollutant that includes 
such states. The provision further provides that the EPA may add any 
state or portion of a state to any transport region whenever the 
Administrator has reason to believe that the interstate transport of 
air pollutants from such state significantly contributes to a violation 
of the standard in the transport region.
    Section 176A(b) of the CAA provides that when the EPA establishes a 
transport region, the Administrator shall establish an associated 
transport commission, comprised of (at a minimum) the following: The 
Governor or her or his designee of each covered state, the EPA 
Administrator or a designee, the Regional EPA Administrator or a 
designee, and an air pollution control official appointed by the 
Governor of each state. The purpose of the transport commission is to 
assess the degree of interstate transport throughout the transport 
region and assess and recommend control strategies to the EPA to 
mitigate such interstate transport.
    Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA provides plan 
requirements specific to the ozone NAAQS. Consistent with CAA section 
176A, found in subpart 1, subpart 2 includes specific provisions 
focused on the interstate transport of ozone. CAA section 184(a) 
establishes a single transport region for ozone--the OTR--comprising 
the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area for the 
District of Columbia, which includes certain portions of northern 
Virginia. The Virginia counties and cities included in the OTR are 
Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William 
County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church 
City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.
    Section 184(b) of the CAA establishes specific control requirements 
that each state in the OTR is required to implement within the state, 
including certain controls on sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOCs. These 
control requirements are required to be implemented statewide in any 
state included within the OTR, regardless of ozone attainment 
status.\9\ Under CAA section 184(b)(1)(A), OTR states must include 
enhanced vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs in 
their SIPs.\10\ Under CAA section 184(b)(2), major stationary sources 
of VOCs in the OTR are subject to the same requirements that apply to 
major sources in designated ozone nonattainment areas classified as 
Moderate.\11\ Thus, the state must adopt

[[Page 7736]]

rules to apply nonattainment new source review (NNSR) and reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) (pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2)) 
provisions for major VOC sources. Under CAA section 184(b)(2) states 
must also implement Stage II gasoline refueling vapor recovery 
programs, incremental to vehicle Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 
achievements, or measures that achieve comparable emissions reductions 
for both attainment and nonattainment areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that one exception to the statewide applicability of 
these control requirements applies to Virginia, as only a portion of 
that state is included within the OTR.
    \10\ In the OTR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance 
programs are required in metropolitan statistical areas with a 1990 
Census population of 100,000 or more.
    \11\ Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA provides that, for purposes of 
implementing these requirements, a major stationary source shall be 
defined as any source that emits or has the potential to emit at 
least 50 tons per year of VOCs.
    \12\ See 72 FR 28772, May 16, 2012, Air Quality: Widespread Use 
for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(f) of the CAA requires states to apply the same 
requirements to major stationary sources of NO<INF>X</INF> as are 
applied to major stationary sources of VOCs under subpart 2. Thus, the 
same NNSR and RACT requirements that apply to major stationary sources 
of VOC in the OTR also apply to major stationary sources of 
NO<INF>X</INF>.\13\ CAA section 182(f) provides for a NO<INF>X</INF> 
waiver, or an exemption to the NO<INF>X</INF> requirements, where the 
Administrator determines that such NO<INF>X</INF> reductions would not 
contribute to the attainment of the NAAQS in an area. Areas granted a 
NO<INF>X</INF> waiver under CAA section 182(f) may be exempt from 
certain requirements of the EPA's motor vehicle I/M program regulations 
and from certain federal requirements of general and transportation 
conformity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 57 FR 55622 (Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General 
Preamble, published November 25, 1992).
    \14\ As stated in the EPA's I/M (November 5, 1992; 57 FR 52950) 
and conformity rules (60 FR 57179 for transportation rules and 58 FR 
63214 for general rules), certain NO<INF>X</INF> requirements in 
those rules do not apply where the EPA grants an areawide exemption 
under CAA section 182(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Legal Standard for This Action

    The EPA proposed to interpret the key terms in CAA section 
176A(a)(2) (i.e., ``control of emissions . . . will not significantly 
contribute to the attainment of the standard'' and ``in any area in the 
region'') within the context of and consistently with other parts of 
the CAA that govern the interstate transport of ozone pollution, taking 
into account relevant facts and circumstances and the EPA's past 
approaches to addressing interstate ozone transport. Specifically, 
because of CAA section 176A(a)(2)'s use of the phrase ``significantly 
contribute to [ ] attainment,'' the EPA proposed to look to its prior 
interpretations of the interstate pollution transport provision, often 
referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provision, at section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and the 4-step interstate transport 
framework the Agency has applied to analyze significant contributions 
under that provision in various regional interstate transport rules, to 
guide the Agency's analysis in determining whether Maine had met the 
necessary condition for removal from the OTR.\15\ 86 FR 23312-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We note that we received a comment alleging that CAA 
section 176A(a)(2) applies to Maine's petition by virtue of the 
reference to that section in CAA section 184(a). We address that 
comment below in the Responses to Comment section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, we proposed to interpret the inquiry under CAA section 
176A(a)(2) as permitting the EPA to remove a state or a portion of a 
state from a transport region whenever the Administrator has reason to 
believe that the state's continued inclusion in the transport region 
will not be required for attainment in the transport region, i.e., that 
the petitioning state is not significantly contributing to air quality 
problems in the region and will not so contribute if the state is 
removed from the OTR. We received no adverse comments on this aspect of 
our interpretation, and we are therefore retaining this interpretation 
for purposes of the final approval.
    We also proposed an interpretation of the phrase ``control of 
emissions in that state or portion of that state pursuant to this 
section.'' The EPA proposed that ``controls'' refers to new controls 
that would be required under CAA section 184(b) if the state or portion 
of the state were to remain in the OTR, as opposed to controls that the 
state has already adopted as required by the CAA due to its inclusion 
in the OTR. We stated that interpreting ``controls'' in this manner 
gives effect to the forward-looking nature of the provision, which asks 
the Administrator to analyze whether removal of the state or portion of 
the state from the OTR ``will'' have the effect of contributing to air 
quality problems in any area in the OTR. We are finalizing this 
interpretation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ One commenter asserted that the technical bases relied upon 
by the Agency in its proposal were ``inadequate to the task'' of 
analyzing Maine's petition, because those bases assumed the 
continued application of existing OTR controls. We address that 
comment in section III.B of this notice and in the Response to 
Comments (RTC) document for this action. Another commenter asserted 
that the EPA's interpretation of controls required us to articulate 
how CAA section 110(l) demonstrations would be analyzed in the 
future. We address that comment in Section III.B of this notice and 
the RTC document for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to interpret CAA section 176A(a)(2)'s use of the phrase 
``any area in the region,'' which we used to establish the geographic 
scope of our significant contribution analysis, to mean all existing 
areas in the OTR, including areas within the petitioning state. We also 
took comment on an alternative interpretation wherein our analysis 
would be limited to interstate impacts, as opposed to impacts within a 
state's own borders. We received two comments supporting the broader 
interpretation, i.e., that the phrase should be read to mean all areas 
in the existing OTR. The EPA will continue to assume for purposes of 
our final analysis that the phrase ``any area in the region'' includes 
any areas within the State of Maine in addition to areas of the OTR 
beyond Maine's borders. Because our analysis is that Maine's emissions 
will not significantly contribute to any nonattainment receptors in the 
OTR, including within its own borders, at this time we need not decide 
whether it would be appropriate to adopt a narrower interpretation of 
the phrase as limited to areas beyond the home state's borders.
    In summary, we proposed to interpret CAA section 176A(a)(2) in a 
manner consistent with the EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, 
and we retain that proposed interpretation for purposes of this final 
action. Applying that framework to the question presented by CAA 
section 176A(a)(2), we proposed to interpret the inquiry as requiring 
the Administrator to identify whether there are ambient air monitoring 
sites in the OTR that either are projected to be in nonattainment based 
on modeling data, or potentially struggle with maintenance or are 
currently violating the NAAQS based on monitored data, and whether the 
area petitioned to be removed from the transport region contributes 
below one percent of the NAAQS to those monitors. We retain that 
interpretation for purposes of this final rule.

D. Previous Actions

    Consistent with the 1990 CAA Amendments, nine Maine counties were 
designated as nonattainment of the now-revoked 1979 1-hour NAAQS (0.12 
parts per million (ppm)). York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, 
Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln Counties were classified as Moderate 
nonattainment areas. Waldo and Hancock Counties were classified as 
Marginal nonattainment areas.
    Maine had two nonattainment areas under the now-revoked 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard. The Portland Ozone Nonattainment area consisted of 56 
cities and towns in York, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties, along 
with the town of Durham in Androscoggin County, and was classified as 
Marginal

[[Page 7737]]

for the 1997 ozone standard. The Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo 
Counties Ozone Nonattainment Area (also known as the Midcoast area) 
consisted of 55 coastal towns and islands in Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, 
and Waldo counties and was designated as nonattainment under Subpart 1 
for the 8-hour ozone standard. Maine was designated ``Attainment/
Unclassifiable'' statewide for both the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone 
standards of 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively.
    As previously discussed, Section 184(b) of the CAA established 
certain control requirements that each state in the OTR is required to 
implement within the state. Section 182(f) of the CAA Amendments allows 
for the suspension of the OTR stationary source NO<INF>X</INF> 
requirements based on a demonstration that additional NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions would not produce net ozone air quality benefits in the OTR. 
Maine has petitioned for and has been granted the following CAA section 
182(f) NO<INF>X</INF> waivers.
    On December 26, 1995 (60 FR 66748), the EPA approved an exemption 
request for the Northern Maine area from CAA section 182(f) 
NO<INF>X</INF> requirements. This action exempted the Oxford, Franklin, 
Somerset, Piscataquis, Penobscot, Washington, Aroostook, Hancock and 
Waldo counties from the requirements to implement NO<INF>X</INF> 
control measures for existing stationary sources, NNSR for new sources 
and modifications that are major for NO<INF>X</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> 
RACT requirements, the NO<INF>X</INF>-related general conformity 
provisions, and the NO<INF>X</INF>-related transportation conformity 
provisions now contained in 40 CFR 93.119.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Transportation and general conformity requirements only 
apply in nonattainment areas and areas redesignated to attainment 
with an approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan. See CAA section 
176(c)(5). Transportation and general conformity do not apply in 
attainment areas in the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006 (71 FR 5791), the EPA approved a request for an 
exemption for a similar area in northern Maine (specifically Aroostook, 
Franklin, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington, and 
portions of Hancock and Waldo Counties) under the 1997 ozone standard.
    On July 29, 2014 (78 FR 43945), the EPA approved the state of 
Maine's request for an exemption from the NO<INF>X</INF> requirements 
contained in section 182(f) of the CAA for the entire state of Maine 
for the 2008 ozone standard. The CAA does not provide a similar VOC 
waiver process, and major stationary sources of VOC remain subject to 
NNSR and RACT requirements throughout the entire state of Maine.
    In addition to the NO<INF>X</INF> waivers under CAA section 182(f), 
Maine requested and was granted an OTR restructuring with respect to 
enhanced I/M requirements.\18\ (66 FR 1873; January 10, 2001) While the 
Maine I/M rule did not meet all requirements of the EPA's final rule 
for enhanced I/M, the EPA determined that the implementation of an 
enhanced I/M program in Maine in place of the approved Maine I/M rule 
would not significantly contribute to attainment in any other state in 
the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA's I/M rule was established on November 5, 1992 (57 
FR 52950). The EPA made significant revisions to the I/M rule on 
September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39036). 
Maine is subject to the requirements of the CAA for an I/M program 
in the Portland, Maine area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The CAA Section 176A Petition From Maine

    On February 24, 2020, the state of Maine petitioned the EPA 
pursuant to CAA section 176A(a)(2) for the removal of the state of 
Maine from the OTR with the exception of the 111 towns and cities 
listed in Table 1 comprising the Portland and Midcoast Ozone Areas.

 Table 1--Maine Towns and Cities To Remain in the Ozone Transport Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin County (includes only the following town): Durham.
Cumberland County (includes only the following towns and cities):
 Brunswick, Cape Elizabeth, Casco, Cumberland, Falmouth, Freeport, Frye
 Island, Gorham, Gray, Harpswell, Long Island, New Gloucester, North
 Yarmouth, Portland, Pownal, Raymond, Scarborough, South Portland,
 Standish, Westbrook, Windham, and Yarmouth.
Hancock County (includes only the following towns and cities): Bar
 Harbor, Blue Hill, Brooklin, Brooksville, Cranberry Isles, Deer Isle,
 Frenchboro, Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Mount Desert, Sedwick,
 Sorrento, Southwest Harbor, Stonington, Sullivan, Surry, Swans Island,
 Tremont, Trenton, and Winter Harbor.
Knox County (includes only the following towns and cities): Camden,
 Criehaven, Cushing, Friendship, Isle au Haut, Matinicus Isle, Muscle
 Ridge Shoals, North Haven, Owls Head, Rockland, Rockport, St. George,
 South Thomaston, Thomaston, Vinalhaven, and Warren.
Lincoln County (includes only the following towns and cities): Alna,
 Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Breman, Bristol, Damariscotta, Dresden,
 Edgecomb, Monhegan, Newcastle, Nobleboro, South Bristol, Southport,
 Waldoboro, Westport, and Wiscasset.
Sagadahoc County (includes all towns and cities).
Waldo County (includes only the following town): Islesboro.
York County (includes only the following towns and cities): Alfred,
 Arundel, Berwick, Biddeford, Buxton, Dayton, Eliot, Hollis, Kennebunk,
 Kennebunkport, Kittery, Limington, Lyman, North Berwick, Ogunquit, Old
 Orchard Beach, Saco, Sanford, South Berwick, Wells, and York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Maine Department of Environmental Protection provided an 
analysis purporting to demonstrate that Maine's emissions have an 
insignificant effect on nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 
other states and in those areas in Maine that will remain in the OTR. 
Maine's analysis consisted of modeling ``back trajectories'' for ozone 
exceedance days in the 2016-2018 period recorded at monitoring 
locations in southern New England and in Maine, the EPA's source-
apportionment modeling results and emissions-inventory data for Maine 
and the OTR.\19\ A more detailed description of the technical analysis 
included in Maine's petition can be found in Section V.A of the 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Back trajectory analyses use interpolated measured or 
modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central 
path over geographical areas that an air parcel travels before 
reaching a specific location at a given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Final Response to the CAA Section 176A Petition From 
Maine

A. The EPA's Assessment of Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition

    On May 3, 2021, the EPA proposed to grant the CAA section 176A 
petition from Maine (86 FR 23309). The EPA considered monitoring data, 
technical demonstrations, and impacts to air quality control regimes in 
the areas to be removed and proposed to grant Maine's petition on the 
basis that the portion of the state requested to be removed from the 
OTR does not contribute to a violation of any ozone standard in any 
area of the OTR, and that further control of emissions from that 
portion of Maine under CAA section 184 will not significantly 
contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the 
OTR. The EPA's basis for this

[[Page 7738]]

final action to grant Maine's petition has not fundamentally changed 
from the proposal. The EPA continues to believe that the portion of the 
state requested to be removed from the OTR does not contribute to a 
violation of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR, and that 
further control of emissions from that portion of Maine will not 
significantly contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any 
area of the OTR.
    In support of the EPA's decision to grant the petition, the EPA has 
determined that all areas of the state proposed for removal from the 
OTR have been designated in attainment of the ozone NAAQS since 2004, 
and the entire state of Maine has been designated as in attainment with 
the ozone NAAQS since 2007. Additionally, technical demonstrations from 
Maine's Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory 
(HYSPLIT) back trajectory analysis, the EPA's ozone source 
apportionment modeling, and emissions trends all indicate that 
emissions from the areas requested to be removed from the OTR will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance problems in 
any area in the OTR, either within or outside the state of Maine, in 
the foreseeable future. Furthermore, removing those areas from the OTR 
will not result in unchecked relaxation of existing NO<INF>X</INF> and 
VOC controls included in Maine's SIP or revoke permitted emissions 
limits at existing facilities. For these reasons, the EPA believes that 
a substantial increase in ozone precursor emissions resulting from this 
action is highly unlikely in any area of Maine or the OTR. A full 
description of the EPA's technical assessment can be found in Section 
V.B. of the proposal. The EPA's full assessment of the provisions that 
will be impacted as a result of granting the petition can be found in 
Section IV.B of the proposal.

B. Public Comments

    The EPA received 11 comments during the public comment period on 
the EPA's proposal to grant Maine's petition. This section addresses 
significant comments received regarding the need for future ozone 
monitoring in the areas to be removed from the OTR, the potential for 
final approval of the petition to increase ozone levels in the OTR, and 
potential adverse impacts that could result if removing part of Maine 
from the OTR were to increase ozone levels. The remaining comments are 
addressed in a separate Response to Comments (RTC) document found in 
the docket for this action.
I. Comments Regarding Future Monitoring
    Comment: Several commenters note that there are no future plans to 
monitor for ozone in the areas to be removed from the OTR, and that if 
the decision to approve the petition is finalized, the EPA should 
require future monitoring in those areas. One commenter asserts that 
the Agency should require quarterly or bi-annual monitoring, 
particularly in areas where there could be more industry development. 
Another commenter asserts that the EPA should establish an assessment 
plan to be carried out every few years to ensure that the ozone stays 
within the acceptable range. One commenter notes that currently there 
is limited monitoring in the areas to be removed from the OTR and that 
weakening requirements for ozone precursor pollution controls in these 
areas without ensuring that there is a monitoring system in place to 
track changes in ozone formation resulting from that decision leaves 
the EPA no way to determine what the impacts of this decision are.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters that there are no plans 
for future ozone monitoring in the areas to be removed from the OTR and 
disagrees that the monitoring system currently in place is insufficient 
to inform the Agency's decision making on this petition. Maine's ozone 
monitoring obligations as set out in 40 CFR part 58 are not impacted by 
whether portions of the state are removed from the OTR. Minimum 
monitoring requirements for ozone are based on Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas/Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA/CMSA) 
population, and how close an area's design value concentrations of a 
pollutant are to the NAAQS. In addition, every state is required to 
have at least one NCore site that must measure ozone year-round. 
Currently, there are 14 ozone monitoring sites operating in Maine with 
eight monitoring sites located in the portion of the state proposed to 
be removed from the OTR. Of these eight monitoring sites, one is 
operated by the EPA's CASTNET program, and two are operated by 
independent tribal nations. For these three monitoring sites, it is not 
within the state's purview to consider discontinuation. Although 
Maine's current ozone monitoring network already exceeds the minimum 
regulatory requirements set out in 40 CFR part 58, according to 40 CFR 
part 58.10, any modifications to Maine's current ozone monitoring 
network must be proposed by Maine and approved by the EPA Regional 
Administrator. In addition, every 5 years, Maine is required to submit 
an assessment to the EPA to determine if its current monitoring network 
``meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this part, 
whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer 
needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are 
appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring 
network.'' If, as commenters postulate, emissions of ozone precursors 
were to increase substantially as a result of the approval of this 
petition in an area that is not currently monitored, the location and 
magnitude of new emissions sources could be evaluated at that 5-year 
interval to determine whether their existence warrants additional ozone 
monitors or any other modifications to the ozone monitoring network.
    The EPA also notes that all ozone monitoring data in locations for 
which the petition requests be removed from the OTR have 2020 design 
values substantially below the current ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. The 
highest design value among these ozone monitors is 0.057 ppm. There is 
no indication, and commenters have not cited evidence, that ozone 
levels in areas of Maine away from the monitoring locations differ 
substantially from those at the locations of the monitors.

                                 Table 2--Table of 2018, 2019, and 2020 DVs for Monitoring Sites in ME With Non-Zero DVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      2016-2018    2017-2019    2018-2020   Removed from
        AQS site ID                County name              CBSA name            Local site name          DV           DV           DV          OTR?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
230010014..................  Androscoggin..........  Lewiston-Auburn.......  Durham Fire Station...           59           57           53            N
230031100..................  Aroostook.............  ......................  Micmac Health Dept....           51           51           51            Y
230039991..................  Aroostook.............  ......................  Ashland...............           52           53           53            Y

[[Page 7739]]

 
230052003..................  Cumberland............  Portland..............  Cape Elizabeth Two               65           64           62            N
                                                                              Lights.
230090102..................  Hancock...............  ......................  Top of Cadillac                  70           69           65            N
                                                                              Mountain.
230090103..................  Hancock...............  ......................  McFarland Hill........           63           64           60            N
230112001..................  Kennebec..............  Augusta-Waterville....  Gardiner HS...........           62           60           55            Y
230130004..................  Knox..................  ......................  Marshall Point                   63           61           60            N
                                                                              Lighthouse.
230173002..................  Oxford................  ......................  Bethel Smith Farm Road            0           57           54            Y
230194008..................  Penobscot.............  Bangor................  Summit of Rider Bluff.           57           56           55            Y
230290019..................  Washington............  ......................  Jonesport Public                 61           60           57            Y
                                                                              Landing.
230310038..................  York..................  Portland..............  West Buxton Fire Dept.           59           57           53            N
230310040..................  York..................  Portland..............  Shapleigh Ball Park...           61           60           56            Y
230312002..................  York..................  Portland..............  Kennebunkport.........           66           64           64            N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comments Regarding the Potential for This Action To Increase Ozone 
Levels in the OTR, and Potential Adverse Impacts That Could Result if 
Removing Part of Maine From the OTR Were To Increase Ozone Levels in 
the OTR
    Comment: One commenter asserts that Maine's petition does not 
establish a ``reason to believe'' that all areas currently within the 
OTR in Maine will not see significant additional ozone precursor 
emissions due to the EPA's approval of Maine's request. The commenter 
contends that the analyses relied on by Maine and the EPA are all based 
on the continued application of existing OTR controls, including the 
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements and offsets. The 
commenter states that the petition offers no information about expected 
additional new or expanded existing sources in the area of Maine to be 
removed from the OTR, nor does the petition assess what emissions 
increases or ozone levels would be expected from allowing new or 
expanded existing stationary sources without requiring Lowest 
Achievable Emissions Rate for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions, and 
providing offsets of at least 1.15:1. The commenter claims that the 
EPA's failure to consider the consequences of approving Maine's 
petition (i.e., the likely increase in new and modified industrial 
sources in inland Maine and the accompanying increase in ozone 
precursor emissions and in ozone concentrations) constitutes an abuse 
of the EPA's discretion.
    The commenter notes that, should Maine's ozone precursor emissions 
increase, the state may experience nonattainment of the current 70 ppb 
standard or of a more stringent standard. The commenter further asserts 
that if ozone levels increase enough to trigger nonattainment status 
(under the current standard or future standards), that would require 
all nonattainment provisions to be reinstated, including OTR 
requirements that have been waived on the basis that much of the state 
is in attainment and create regulatory uncertainty for industry. 
Furthermore, the commenter asserts that removing parts of the state 
from the OTR will cause Maine to lose the mantle of ``clean hands.'' 
The commenter states that Maine's longstanding status in the OTR has 
shown that the state ``did its part to ensure that areas within the 
State and downwind are also clean'' but that leaving the OTR will 
``eliminate that good neighbor behavior'' and ultimately be unfair to 
other states in the OTR and their neighbors in Canada. The commenter 
also points to maximum 8-hour average concentrations recorded during 
the June 6-7, 2021, high ozone event in Maine and asserts that climate 
change will exacerbate the problem of high ozone throughout the Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast states, and further contribute to high ozone 
levels in Maine.
    Multiple commenters also note that the proposal, if finalized, 
could be harmful to health and the environment if emissions were to 
increase as a result of approving the petition. One commenter notes 
that some of the counties and cities that would be removed include 
farmland and asserts that prolonged exposure to ozone would decrease 
the growth and production of crops and lead to economic instability for 
farmers in those areas. Another commenter states that the EPA failed to 
address potential adverse effects of its action on plant and animal 
life in parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas in 
Maine, and asserts that the current secondary ozone standard is not 
sufficiently protective of plants (including crops), trees, and 
animals. The commenter also cites the adverse effects of ozone exposure 
on the black cherry tree in Maine and on wilderness area ecosystems, 
which the commenter cites as important for the carbon storage and other 
climate benefits these areas provide. The commenter further asserts 
that the EPA has failed to consider possible implications of its action 
on air quality and regional haze at the coastal Moosehorn Baring and 
Moosehorn Edmunds Wilderness Areas in Washington County, or in the 
downwind Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, all U.S. Class I 
areas.
    Response: The EPA does not agree that there is insufficient 
information to finalize the approval of Maine's request. The analytical 
information described in the proposal first identified air quality 
monitors located in the OTR that either measured elevated ozone 
concentrations or were projected to have design values that violated 
the NAAQS or struggled to maintain the NAAQS. The analyses then used a 
HYSPLIT trajectory model and photochemical source apportionment 
modeling to identify whether Maine contributed to those problem 
monitors. We acknowledge that this information did not attempt to 
speculate what sources might locate in Maine or make modifications 
based on the regulatory changes that would result from this final 
action (in particular, as raised by commenter, the change from NNSR

[[Page 7740]]

requirements to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
requirements). However, other information in the record, including 
current ozone concentrations in the state and projected emissions 
trends, informs the EPA's determination that the portion of the state 
requested to be removed from the OTR does not contribute to a violation 
of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR, and that further control 
of emissions from that portion of Maine will not significantly 
contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the 
OTR. All areas of the state proposed for removal from the OTR have been 
designated in attainment of the ozone NAAQS since 2004, and the entire 
state of Maine has been designated as in attainment with the ozone 
NAAQS since 2007. Our evaluation of emissions trends and applicability 
of other existing regulatory control programs that would still apply to 
the areas removed from the OTR, discussed in more detail below, 
indicate that a substantial increase in ozone precursor emissions 
resulting from this action is highly unlikely.
    To begin, the projected emissions in Maine indicate steep declines 
in emissions of ozone precursors associated with on-the-books emissions 
controls, including mobile source controls that will continue to 
provide emissions reductions throughout the entire State regardless of 
whether portions of the state remain in the OTR or are removed from the 
OTR. Emissions trends of ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC in the 
counties to be fully removed from the OTR are provided in Table 
3.<SUP>20 21</SUP> The data indicate that NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC 
emissions will continue to trend downward in these counties, primarily 
due to reductions in onroad mobile sources. For the counties to be 
fully removed from the OTR, the emissions of ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> from onroad mobile sources are projected to decline by 
70 percent from 2016 to 2032, as compared to 22 percent for other 
anthropogenic source sectors. Emissions of VOCs from onroad mobile 
sources in the counties to be fully removed from the OTR are projected 
to decline by 53 percent from 2016 to 2032, as compared to 34 percent 
for other anthropogenic source sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Trends in NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC for individual source 
sectors for each county in Maine can be found in the docket for this 
rule.
    \21\ The development of emissions data for 2016, 2023, and 2032 
is described in the 2016v2 North American Emissions Modeling 
Platform, https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v2-platform.

            Table 3--Ozone Season NOX and VOC Emissions in Counties To Be Fully Removed From the OTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2016            2023            2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX:
    Onroad Mobile...............................................           3,318           1,581             990
    Other Sectors...............................................           6,712           5,525           5,212
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          10,030           7,106           6,202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC:
    Onroad Mobile...............................................           1,058             670             499
    Other Sectors...............................................           7,439           5,527           4,883
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           8,498           6,197           5,381
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the books mobile source controls include: Control of Air 
Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 
Standards (See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Air Pollution 
from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and 
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (See 66 FR 5002, 
January 18, 2001); and Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel (See 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). If 
additional national mobile source rules are adopted and implemented in 
the future, those will also provide emissions reductions throughout the 
entire state regardless of OTR status.
    As noted at proposal, Maine's current modeled contributions to 
nonattainment or maintenance issues anywhere in the OTR are also 
relevant. The state's highest modeled contribution to any receptor in 
the OTR that is expected to struggle with attainment or maintenance of 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is only 0.01 ppb, i.e., 0.01 percent of the 70 ppb 
standard. This suggests that the ozone contribution from anthropogenic 
ozone precursor emissions in Maine would have to increase by a factor 
of 70 for Maine to potentially contribute above the one percent 
threshold to an existing or projected nonattainment or maintenance 
problem in the OTR. This observation is made merely to provide an 
indication of the general magnitude of emissions increases from Maine 
that would be needed for existing trends in improving air quality to be 
halted and reversed to the extent that such an increase may create new 
air quality problems closer to, or within, Maine. We cannot predict 
what emissions increases or ozone levels would be expected based on 
regulatory changes associated with the EPA's approval of Maine's 
request. But the existing baseline of our analysis of Maine's emissions 
to other states informs our judgment that it is not reasonable to 
expect emissions increases on this scale or anything like it.
    As also discussed in the proposal, we recognize that by approving 
Maine's request there would be consequent changes to the New Source 
Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program in the state. However, 
while commenter is correct that lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) 
and the 1.15:1 emissions offset requirements would no longer apply to 
new major stationary sources and major modifications in the areas of 
the state being removed from the OTR, it is not the case these new and 
modified sources could construct without any regulatory safeguards in 
place.
    Specifically, the areas being removed from the OTR will be subject 
to Maine's PSD and minor NSR permitting requirements for ozone 
precursors, NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC. Both the PSD and minor NSR 
permitting programs require that permitting authorities assess the 
impact of the proposed emissions increases from new and modified 
sources on the applicable NAAQS, as required by CAA sections 
165(a)(3)(B) and 110(a)(2)(C), prior to construction. The PSD program, 
which will apply to major stationary sources and major modifications in 
the areas removed from the OTR, requires a

[[Page 7741]]

control technology review, called Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT), and an air quality analysis to demonstrate that the proposed 
new or modified emissions source will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment. Like LAER, BACT is a case-by-
case decision for the facility and examines state-of-the-art pollution 
controls, although for BACT, the permitting authority considers the 
energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, that are 
not considered in LAER determinations. However, depending on the type 
of facility and the cost effectiveness of controls, or other factors, 
there may not always be significant differences between the level of 
control that would be required under BACT versus LAER.
    Moreover, for much of the area being removed from the OTR in Maine, 
the change from LAER to BACT for NO<INF>X</INF> for new and modified 
sources is not new. As discussed in the proposal, Maine has applied for 
and obtained NO<INF>X</INF> waivers under CAA section 182(f) for nearly 
every ozone standard (all except the most recent 2015 ozone NAAQS). See 
86 FR 23315. Consequently, for the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 
8-hour ozone NAAQS, many of the counties at issue in this action were 
exempt from requirements to implement NNSR for new sources and 
modifications that are major for NO<INF>X,</INF> NO<INF>X</INF> RACT 
requirements, the NO<INF>X</INF>-related general conformity provisions, 
and the NO<INF>X</INF>-related transportation conformity provisions. 
Id. With these waivers in place, with respect to NSR, new sources and 
modifications were therefore already subject to BACT for NO<INF>X</INF> 
control, as they will be with finalization of this rule. For minor NSR 
sources and modifications in areas being removed from the OTR, the 
permitting requirements also will not change. These smaller new sources 
and modifications will continue to be subject to Maine's minor NSR 
permitting program, which does not have different requirements based on 
a location's attainment status. An important feature of Maine's minor 
NSR program is that its control technology standard is also BACT, so it 
applies the same control review that Maine requires for larger sources 
that are subject to PSD. (This is more stringent than federal 
requirements, since neither the CAA nor the EPA's regulations specify a 
minimum control requirement for minor NSR permits.) In addition, 
Maine's minor NSR program requires air quality impact analyses for new 
minor sources and minor modifications if their emissions exceed 50 tons 
per year of NO<INF>X,</INF> and Maine can require air quality analyses 
even for permits under 50 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF>. Finally, 
granting Maine's petition does not materially alter opportunities for 
public involvement in the permitting process, as Maine's permitting 
regulations contain procedures for the opportunity for public 
participation for permitting actions for both major and minor 
stationary sources under their minor NSR, PSD, and NNSR permitting 
regulations.
    Consequently, it is not the case that the changes associated with 
NSR requirements resulting from the removal of the areas from the OTR 
are as drastic as commenter suggests. For VOCs, NNSR requirements will 
be replaced by PSD for sources subject to major NSR, and the PSD 
program has already long been the primary set of controls for new or 
modified sources for NO<INF>X</INF> in much or all of Maine under the 
state's CAA section 182(f) NO<INF>X</INF> waivers for every ozone 
standard except the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, the minor NSR 
program will continue to apply BACT and, in many cases, an air quality 
assessment to smaller sources seeking permits to construct. Therefore, 
even though we cannot precisely predict whether and to what extent 
emissions will increase as a result of sources choosing to construct or 
modify in the area to be removed from the OTR, the information we have 
does not indicate that emissions will drastically increase, as they 
would likely need to do in order to have significant impacts on 
nonattainment in any area of the OTR. The projected ongoing downward 
emissions trends are due primarily to national mobile source measures 
that will continue to take effect, and new and modified stationary 
sources will be subject to PSD BACT for NO<INF>X</INF> controls, which 
has already been the primary regulatory regime for much of the area 
being removed from the OTR for decades.
    Because the EPA does not agree that it is reasonable to assume 
drastic emissions increases as a result of the final action, we also do 
not think it is reasonable to assume that the health, environmental, 
and relational \22\ consequences raised by commenters would come to 
pass. As indicated in Table 2, all air quality monitors in the areas of 
Maine that are being removed from the OTR are not only meeting the 
current 70 ppb 2015 ozone NAAQS; these monitors are all 10 or more ppb 
below the 70 ppb NAAQS. Further, health and environmental effects of 
air pollution are addressed in the NAAQS setting and revision process 
rather than in the implementation of the NAAQS. CAA section 109 
requires the EPA to set the primary NAAQS at a level to protect the 
public health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary 
NAAQS at a level to protect public welfare from any known or 
anticipated adverse effects. In assessing impacts to public welfare, 
the EPA looks at damage to trees and crops. Given the level of Maine's 
contributions to any nonattainment or maintenance problems in the OTR 
and given the current air quality at the monitors located in the 
portions of the state to be removed from the OTR, it is not necessary 
to separately analyze in the first instance each of the potential 
public health and welfare consequences commenters raise concerns about. 
These concerns are not enumerated as factors the Agency must consider 
under CAA section 176A(a)(2), and all are premised on commenters' 
speculation--with which we disagree--that ozone precursor emissions in 
Maine will drastically increase as a result of the regulatory changes 
associated with this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ With respect to commenter's concern that Maine's partial 
removal from the OTR would interfere with its ``clean hands'' 
reputation or its relationship to other states and Canada, we note 
that under the cooperative federalism structure of the Act, that is 
a consideration for the state rather than the EPA. Under CAA section 
176A(a), the Governor of a State may submit a petition to be removed 
or partially removed from a transport region, and the EPA must act 
on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the factual circumstances above that support the 
EPA's determination that emissions are not likely to increase 
drastically as a result of this action, we also note that the CAA's 
other structural requirements and protections will continue to apply in 
Maine. Any revisions to Maine's SIP would be subject to CAA section 
110(l) anti-backsliding requirements.\23\ If the EPA revises the ozone 
standard in the future, any area determined to be violating that 
standard will be designated nonattainment with the attendant CAA 
requirements associated with that designation. Similarly, the issuance 
of any new NAAQS will also trigger Maine's obligation to submit a SIP 
addressing its significant contributions to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance in any other state under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). And finally, CAA section 184 and CAA section 176A 
clearly provide that the EPA retains its authority to revise membership 
of the OTR whenever the EPA has ``reason to believe'' a state or 
portion of a state is

[[Page 7742]]

significantly contributing to nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The granting of this petition is not itself a revision to 
Maine's SIP, and all EPA-approved elements of the state's SIP remain 
in place and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments Regarding Consistency With CAA Section 184
    Comment: One commenter asserts that the EPA misapplies the Chevron 
doctrine in its statutory interpretation by failing to discuss CAA 
section 184(a), which applies the removal and addition procedures of 
CAA section 176(a)(1) and (a)(2) to the OTR, ``except to the extent 
inconsistent with the provisions of this section.'' The commenter 
claims that the proposal to remove portions of Maine is inconsistent 
with CAA section 184(b)(1)(B), which it interprets to require state-
wide implementation of RACT for sources covered by a CTG, regardless of 
whether that portion of the state is in the OTR, because if the EPA's 
proposal were finalized, Maine would only be required to have CTG RACT 
for those sources in the portions of the state remaining in the OTR. 
The commenter also claims that the proposal is inconsistent with CAA 
section 184(d), because that provision instructed the EPA to promulgate 
criteria for purposes of determining the contribution of sources in one 
area to concentrations of ozone in other areas that are nonattainment 
for ozone. The commenter asserts that because the EPA never promulgated 
such criteria, the EPA cannot grant Maine's petition. Moreover, the 
commenter argues that the EPA cannot claim that it used the best 
available air quality modeling techniques and best available data in 
its proposal, because ``[t]he determination here does not use OSAT/
APCA. Instead, it relies on weaker analyses: HYSPLIT back-trajectories 
and emissions trends.'' With respect to air quality monitoring, the 
commenter states that it is ``implausible'' that the EPA's promulgated 
air quality monitoring network requirements satisfy the requirement in 
section 184(d) to use the ``best available'' air quality monitoring 
techniques. Finally, the commenter states that the EPA cannot claim 
that it is using the ``best available'' monitoring data for its 
proposal because more current data for all OTR states are available and 
argues that the EPA has provided no basis in its record that the ozone 
monitoring network criteria have been met.
    Response: The commenter is correct that CAA section 176A(a)(2) 
governs the Agency's action on Maine's request to remove part of its 
state from the OTR by virtue of CAA section 184(a)'s application of 
176A(a)(2) to states in the OTR. However, we disagree with the 
commenter that granting Maine's request is ``inconsistent with the 
provisions of'' CAA section 184. We respond to each of the commenter's 
assertions on this point in turn.
    The commenter contends that to be ``consistent'' with CAA section 
184, whenever approving the removal of any portion of a state from the 
OTR under CAA section 176A(a)(2), the EPA would need to clearly require 
the state to prepare SIP submissions and require implementation of RACT 
for all sources of VOCs covered by a CTG throughout the entire state, 
regardless of whether those sources are located in the portions of the 
state located in the OTR. The commenter claims that ``the plain 
language of section 184(b)(1)(B)'' requires this by virtue of the 
reference in that provision to the ``state'' rather than to the area of 
the state in the OTR. We do not agree. We think the statutory context 
and legislative history support the EPA's longstanding interpretation 
that the CAA section 184(b) SIP requirements for the OTR apply only 
within the OTR, and not in the portions of a state that are outside the 
region. We recognize that CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) could be read, as 
the commenter suggests, to impose VOC CTG RACT requirements statewide, 
even for sources that are not in the portions of states that are in the 
OTR. But we do not think this is the only, or even a better, reading of 
the statute.
    First, the vast majority of the jurisdictions comprising the OTR 
are entire states--of the 13 entities that make up the OTR (including 
the District of Columbia), 12 have their entire jurisdiction in the 
region. Only Virginia, of which a very small portion of the state is in 
the ``Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the 
District of Columbia,'' did not have its entire state boundary included 
in the OTR. It is therefore not surprising that in CAA section 
184(b)(1)(B), the statute would use the term ``all sources . . . in the 
State'' to describe the extent of the VOC RACT requirement even if what 
was intended was that the OTR requirements would apply only within the 
OTR.
    Second, the last sentence of CAA section 184(b) defines the 
threshold for major stationary sources ``[f]or purposes of this 
section'' and states that such sources are subject to the requirements 
that would apply ``if the area'' was classified as a Moderate ozone 
nonattainment area (emphasis added). This requirement, which imposes 
Moderate area requirements--including NO<INF>X</INF> RACT for major 
stationary sources--applies only to those areas of a state which are in 
the OTR. Commenter's interpretation would therefore mean that Congress 
imposed a system of OTR controls that required statewide stationary 
source obligations for VOC CTG RACT but OTR-specific obligations for 
all other major stationary source requirements and I/M. We think it 
very unlikely that Congress would have set up a bifurcated approach in 
which stationary sources would be subject to some OTR requirements but 
not others, with no explanation in the legislative history (see below).
    Third, as the commenter notes, the EPA has been interpreting the 
OTR requirements in CAA section 184(b) to apply only to areas within 
the OTR since the 1990 Amendments were passed, and in the intervening 
30 years, Congress has never indicated that the Agency's interpretation 
was incorrect. See 57 FR 13527, n.10 (April 16, 1992) (``Each state in 
a transport region must adopt VOC RACT regulations for sources located 
within that portion of the State included in a transport region[.]''); 
id. (``EPA interprets section 176A as establishing a process whereby a 
portion of a State can be removed from the region and exempted from the 
requirements[.]'').
    Fourth, we do not agree with the commenter that a comparison of the 
drafting of CAA sections 184(b)(1)(A) and (B) demonstrates that 
statewide CTG RACT is compelled regardless of OTR boundaries. The 
commenter emphasizes the statute's use of the term ``areas'' in CAA 
section 184(b)(1)(A) to assert that Congress could have used the term 
``areas'' in CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) had it intended to limit CTG RACT 
requirements to only those areas of a state that are within the OTR. 
But there is a more natural reason for the use of the term ``areas'' in 
CAA section 184(b)(1)(A)--that provision on its face is a requirement 
designed specifically for urban areas that experience relatively higher 
volumes of mobile sources. The provision states ``that each area in 
such State that is in an ozone transport region, and that is a 
metropolitan statistical area or part thereof with a population of 
100,000 or more . . .'' are subject to enhanced vehicle inspection and 
maintenance requirements. The use of the term ``area'' in that 
provision naturally flows from the fact that this requirement is 
limited to metropolitan areas and linguistically fits with the second 
clause of the sentence--``and that is a metropolitan statistical 
area.'' This reason for the use of the term ``area'' in CAA section 
184(b)(1)(A) is at least as plausible as the reasoning commenter puts 
forth. Commenter's argument would have it that Congress intended--
without any other indication in the statute or legislative history--to 
require

[[Page 7743]]

just one of the OTR requirements to apply statewide, regardless of OTR 
status, while all other requirements in CAA section 184(b) are limited 
only to that area of the state in the OTR.
    Fifth, adopting commenter's interpretation would also undercut the 
purpose of the authority granted to the EPA in CAA section 176A(a)(1) 
and (2) to add or remove portions of a state to the OTR. If one of the 
major, substantive OTR requirements applies statewide, without regard 
to which portions of that state were in the OTR or not, there would be 
little purpose to providing the Agency with the authority to tailor the 
boundaries of the OTR not to include entire states. While commenter may 
view the authority to tailor transport region boundaries as somehow 
``inconsistent'' with CAA section 184, Congress did just that when it 
included only the northern portion of Virginia in the OTR by statute, 
in CAA section 184.
    We also do not think the legislative history supports commenter's 
interpretation. Nothing in the House Report accompanying the Amendments 
suggests Congress intended OTR requirements to be imposed outside of 
the OTR (e.g., application of VOC CTG RACT in the entire state of 
Virginia, as opposed to the portion of the state within the OTR). That 
would have been a drastic departure from the overall structure of CAA 
sections 176A and 184 about which we do not think Congress would have 
been silent. There are also two amendments Congress considered that may 
shed light on whether Congress was contemplating a state's inclusion in 
the OTR as being the operative condition (commenter's interpretation) 
or whether the actual inclusion of an area in the OTR was the operative 
condition for imposing OTR requirements (the EPA's interpretation). 
During the development of the 1990 Amendments, Congress considered 
creating a special permit program for small sources. In delineating the 
small sources that would need such a program, Congress identified those 
``located within a nonattainment area, ozone transport area, or subject 
to a standard under section 112 consistent with the other provisions of 
this title.'' H.R. Rep. 101-490 (May 17, 1990) (see Sec. 407) (emphasis 
added). Similarly, in drafting a version of the NO<INF>X</INF> waiver 
provision that was ultimately adopted in CAA section 182(f), Congress 
contemplated two types of determinations under which major stationary 
source plan provisions would not apply for major stationary sources of 
NO<INF>X</INF>--one type of determination for non-OTR areas and a 
different type of determination for OTR areas. While these provisions 
were not ultimately adopted in the 1990 Amendments, they shed light on 
what the legislative drafters considered to be the operative trigger 
for the application of requirements: In neither of these provisions 
does the drafted language suggest that a source's location within a 
state that was in the OTR to be the trigger; instead, both drafts 
suggest an intent that being in the OTR was the condition upon which 
the difference in the waiver requirements would hinge.
    Finally, commenter does not offer any coherent policy rationale for 
its interpretation of CAA section 184(a)(1)(B). As explained 
previously, under this interpretation, RACT for sources of VOCs covered 
by a CTG would apply statewide for any state if any portion of that 
state is in the OTR. But under the last sentence of CAA section 184(b), 
RACT for major stationary sources of NO<INF>X</INF> only applies in the 
areas of a state within the OTR. The EPA has previously explained that 
``authoritative assessments of ozone control approaches have concluded 
that VOC reductions are generally most effective for addressing ozone 
locally, including in dense urbanized areas and `immediately downwind.' 
'' 82 FR 51238, 51248 (November 3, 2017) (citing 82 FR 6517; 76 FR 
48222; and 63 FR 57381). Further,

    The EPA continues to believe that NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
reductions strategies are more effective than VOC reductions in 
lowering ozone concentrations over longer distances. The EPA 
believes that regional ozone formation is primarily due to 
NO<INF>X</INF>, but VOCs are also important because VOCs influence 
how efficiently ozone is produced by NO<INF>X</INF>, particularly in 
dense urban areas. Reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions will 
typically have less of an impact on the long-range transport of 
ozone, although these emissions reductions can be effective in 
reducing ozone in nearby urban areas where ozone production may be 
limited by the availability of VOCs. Therefore, a combination of 
localized VOC reductions in urban areas with additional 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions across a larger region will help to reduce 
ozone and precursors in nonattainment areas, as well as downwind 
transport across the eastern U.S. 82 FR 51238.

    Commenter's interpretation thus runs contrary to the EPA's 
longstanding understanding of how to most effectively reduce ozone 
levels: If any ozone precursor should be reduced on a broader 
geographic scale, it should arguably be NO<INF>X</INF>, not VOCs. But 
commenter's rendering of the statute would produce the opposite result, 
imposing VOC-reduction requirements on a broad geographic scale beyond 
the borders of the OTR, while NO<INF>X</INF> RACT is limited to the OTR 
itself.
    We also do not agree with the commenter's assertion that granting 
Maine's petition would not be ``consistent'' with CAA section 184 
because the EPA did not promulgate criteria precisely according to CAA 
section 184(d). We do not think this is a reasonable way to read the 
intersection of the statutory provisions at issue, particularly 
because, contrary to commenter's assertion, the EPA has substantively 
satisfied Congress' aims in CAA section 184(d), both in general, and 
with respect to its analysis of Maine's request. CAA section 184(d) 
required the EPA, not later than 6 months after November 15, 1990, to 
``promulgate criteria for purposes of determining the contribution of 
sources in one area to concentrations of ozone in another area which is 
a nonattainment area for ozone. Such criteria will require that the 
best available air quality monitoring and modeling techniques be used 
for purposes of making such determinations.''
    The EPA may not have issued a rule expressly addressing CAA section 
184(d) by June 1991, but it is simply not the case that the Agency has 
not issued and continually updated criteria for the purposes of 
determining how upwind contributions affect downwind ozone air quality. 
The EPA has issued multiple rules related to the interstate transport 
of ozone under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and for each of these 
rules, the Agency has put forth its criteria for determining linkages 
and contributions between upwind areas and downwind air quality 
problems (both for areas in nonattainment, per CAA section 184(d), but 
also for areas that may be meeting the NAAQS but could face problems 
maintaining the standards). In each of these transport rules, the 
Agency has used quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data 
and state-of-the-science air quality modeling.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document 
for the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, September 23, 1998 (explaining the 
EPA's use of two types of modeling to assess interstate 
contributions--state-by-state zero-out modeling using UAM-V and 
state-by-state source apportionment modeling using CAMx APCA), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/nox_sip.pdf; Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical 
Support Document, June 2011 (setting forth the EPA's use of source 
apportionment techniques in CAMx air quality modeling to quantify 
interstate contributions), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-06/documents/epa-hq-oar-2009-0491-4140.pdf; Air 
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Final Revised 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, March 2020 (reiterating the 
EPA's use of the OSAT/APCA technique in CAMx air quality modeling), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/air_quality_modeling_tsd_final_revised_csapr_update.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7744]]

    The commenter acknowledges the body of work the EPA has developed 
with respect to assessing interstate contributions using air quality 
modeling in these transport rules, but erroneously claims that those 
techniques and expertise were not used in the proposed action. Agreeing 
that the Ozone Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT)/Anthropogenic 
Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA) technique in the CAMx air 
quality model is an ``available'' tool and noting that the EPA has 
previously identified this technique to be an appropriate tool for 
quantifying interstate air quality contributions, the commenter states, 
``The [proposed] determination does not use OSAT/APCA. Instead, it 
relies on weaker analyses: HYSPLIT back-trajectories and emissions 
trends.'' This is simply incorrect. In its proposal analyzing Maine's 
request, the EPA used the same source apportionment modeling techniques 
employed by all of the transport rules. The EPA additionally looked at 
back trajectories under HYSPLIT and analyzed relevant emissions 
inventory data. We also do not agree with the commenter's contention 
that the EPA's proposal cannot move forward because it relied on 
``stale'' monitoring data, which it claims cannot be the ``best 
available.'' We note that CAA section 184(d) requires the use of ``the 
best available air quality monitoring and modeling techniques'' 
(emphasis added). We do not read this provision to prohibit the Agency 
from moving forward with an action if newer data became available or 
certified shortly before issuance of that action; and in any case, the 
Agency considered up-to-date monitoring data in the context of its 
proposal and for this final action.
IV. Comments Regarding Exempting an Area of the OTR From OTR 
Requirements for Future Ozone Standards
    Comment: One commenter asserts that the EPA cannot exempt an OTR 
area from OTR requirements for future ozone standards. The commenter 
states that under the plain text of CAA section 176A(a), the 
establishment of a transport region as well as the addition and removal 
of a state or portion of a state from that region is based on a 
demonstration with respect to a particular standard (emphasizing the 
statute's use of the term ``the standard''). The commenter further 
argues that even if the statute is ambiguous, that it is arbitrary and 
capricious to remove a state from the OTR with respect to a future 
standard when the EPA does not know when that standard will be 
promulgated, what its level will be, and whether the subject area will 
exceed the contribution threshold for that standard. The commenter 
states that because the EPA's assessment of nonattainment and 
maintenance issues is tied to particular ozone standards, the EPA may 
not exempt areas from future ozone standards.
    Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenter that CAA 
section 176A(a)(1) and (2)'s reference to ``the standard'' requires a 
reading of the Act such that the EPA's addition or removal of a state 
or portion of a state from the OTR must be specific only to one ozone 
standard. Such a reading is contrary to the larger statutory context 
and design, and is not compelled by the language of the Act. The EPA 
has interpreted the establishment of ozone transport regions, including 
the Congressionally created OTR in CAA section 184(a), to endure across 
updates to the NAAQS. We have never interpreted the Act to require a 
new reconstitution of an OTR specific to each NAAQS. Implementing the 
Act in the way that commenter suggests is required would mean that 
states would be added or removed, but only as to specific standards, 
and so a region could be a patchwork of states subject to different 
requirements depending on whether they were added or removed as to 
certain NAAQS for that CAA.
    The commenter ignores the other references to the NAAQS present in 
CAA section 176A and section 184, which as the commenter notes, cross-
references section 176A and governs the substantive requirements that 
apply to OTR states and other states designated in an ozone transport 
region. In CAA section 176A(a), the statute provides that ``whenever . 
. . the Administrator has reason to believe'' that interstate transport 
of pollutants contributes significantly to a violation of ``a national 
ambient air quality standard,'' the Administrator may establish a 
transport region for ``such pollutant'' that includes the involved 
states (emphasis added). The language governing the timing of an 
establishment of an OTR is therefore not tied to the promulgation of a 
NAAQS (unlike, for example, states' obligations to update their SIPs to 
address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport obligations 
within 3 years of the promulgation of a standard). Further, the basis 
for creating a transport region is the Administrator's belief that 
there is significant contribution to a violation of ``a'' NAAQS, not 
one particular NAAQS. That section also makes clear that the 
establishment of the transport region is for ``such pollutant,'' not 
such standard. The statutory language and structure comports with the 
EPA's longstanding interpretation of a transport region being 
established and existing across updates to a standard. Section 184 
similarly references the establishment of transport regions ``for 
ozone'' (see, e.g., CAA section 184(a), section 184(b)(1), section 
184(c)(1)).
    We do not agree that it is arbitrary and capricious to remove a 
state or portion of a state from general transport region obligations 
when they have met the required showing under CAA section 176A(a)(2) 
based on the NAAQS in effect at the time of the action. If, under a 
future ozone standard the EPA finds that there is significant 
contribution from Maine or other states to a violation of that 
standard, CAA section 176A(a)(1) clearly provides authority for the EPA 
to add such state or portion of a state to a transport region. Further, 
commenter's argument on this point would reduce CAA section 176A(a)(2) 
to a nullity. Effectively, no state or portion of a state could ever be 
removed from a transport region because there is always the 
hypothetical chance that the Agency will promulgate some more stringent 
NAAQS in the future and would be unable to evaluate transport without 
knowing what that standard is. The Congress that enacted CAA section 
176A(a)(2) could not have intended this result.
V. Comments Regarding Environmental Justice
    Comment: Two commenters contend that the EPA failed to consider 
environmental justice. One commenter contends that the EPA failed to 
consider Executive Order 12898 and notes that the EPA's EJSCREEN tool 
shows that there are potentially impacted environmental justice 
communities in Maine and other nearby states. The commenter contends 
that the counties where the EPA proposes to allow more emissions are 
also home to low-income households, and, in some instances, also tribal 
communities. The commenter points out that the areas the EPA proposes 
to remove from the OTR include populations that are sensitive to ozone 
pollution (the elderly, children and adults active outdoors, and people 
with asthma and other respiratory diseases). In particular, the 
commenter notes that Maine has a higher incidence of asthma among 
adults (11.2 percent) compared to the national average (7.7 percent), 
and that certain counties such as Androscoggin County, most of which is 
to be removed from the OTR, has an

[[Page 7745]]

even higher incidence (14 percent of all county residents between 2011-
2014). Another commenter suggests that the EPA's action may contravene 
the CAA's purpose, set out in CAA section 101(b)(1), to assure that air 
quality is protected and enhanced while supporting the productive 
capacity of all regions in the country.
    Response: Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, the EPA is directed, 
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 
environmental justice (EJ) part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 
Consistent with E.O. 12898 and the Presidential Memorandum that 
accompanies it, the EPA's EJ policies promote justice by focusing 
attention and efforts on addressing the types of EJ harms and risks 
that are prevalent among minority, low-income, and indigenous 
populations. E.O. 12898 and the EPA's EJ policies do not mandate 
particular outcomes from an action, but they require that decisions 
involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. With 
respect to this petition, the EPA determined that removing the 
requested areas from the OTR will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of any ozone NAAQS in any 
area of the OTR, including areas where there are minority and low-
income populations.
    The EPA acknowledges that the area to be removed from the OTR 
includes areas with minority populations and low-income populations. Of 
the approximately 737,000 people who live in the area to be removed 
from the OTR, approximately 5.7 percent identify as people of color, 
and approximately 35 percent are identified as low income.\25\ Maine 
has four federally recognized tribes: The Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, 
Maliseet and Micmac tribes. All four tribes include populations that 
live in the area to be removed from the OTR. Additionally, there are 
populations in the area to be removed from the OTR that could be 
sensitive to ozone, including children and those with pre-existing 
health conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 
(COPD). Maine has one of the highest rates of adult asthma in the 
United States.\26\ Asthma is a chronic lung disease with symptoms 
including wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. 
A wide range of indoor and outdoor allergens and irritants can trigger 
or exacerbate asthma, including tobacco smoke, pollen, pet dander, 
mites, mold, and air pollution from stationary and mobile sources.\27\ 
Pollutants including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> have been shown to trigger or exacerbate asthma 
symptoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool 
(EJSCREEN), which utilizes U.S. Census Bureau American Community 
Survey (ACS) data from 2014-2018. The American Community Survey 
information and data is available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs. The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
    \26\ ``Current Asthma Demographics'' Current Adult Asthma by 
State. American Lung Association. Data from Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 
2011-2018. Analysis by the American Lung Association Epidemiology 
and Statistics Unit. https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/asthma-trends-brief/current-demographics.
    \27\ ``Common Asthma Triggers'' Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/triggers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2019, the adult asthma rate in Maine was 11.8 percent, as 
compared to 8.0 percent for the United States.\28\ While higher than 
the adult asthma rate in the United States, the adult asthma rate in 
Maine does not necessarily correlate with high ozone levels. For 
example, of the ozone monitoring sites in Maine located in areas that 
will be removed from the OTR, the monitor with the highest 2020 ozone 
design value of 57 ppb (and historically having higher design values) 
is located in Washington County, a county with one of the lowest rates 
of adult asthma in Maine.<SUP>29 30</SUP> Further, other factors, such 
as the state's dense forests, high pollen levels, and heavy reliance on 
wood burning stoves for home heating, contribute to the high rate of 
asthma in Maine.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Most Recent Asthma State or Territory Data'' State or 
Territory Adult Current Asthma Prevalence by State or Territory 
(2019). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_data_states.htm.
    \29\ See Table 2 for current design values and the ozone design 
value spreadsheet located in the docket for this action for 
historical design values.
    \30\ For asthma data, see information provided in the Maine 
Environmental Public Health Tracking Program using data provided by 
the Maine Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and analyzed by 
the Chronic Disease & Maternal & Child Health Epidemiology Team. 
Available at https://data.mainepublichealth.gov/tracking/data-topics/asthma-content.
    \31\ ``Asthma in Maine'' Maine Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention Division of Disease Prevention. Maine Department of 
Health and Human Services. https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/population-health/mat/asthma-information/asthma-in-maine.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has identified minority, low-income, and other at-risk 
populations that could be impacted by this action and considered 
whether removal of the requested part of Maine from the OTR could have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on those populations. As explained above in the response to 
comments about a potential increase in ozone precursor emissions, the 
EPA believes that a substantial increase in ozone precursor emissions 
resulting from this action is highly unlikely in any area of Maine or 
the OTR. Thus, the EPA does not expect the action to result in 
disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population in Maine or the OTR, including minority, low-
income, and at-risk populations.

IV. Final Action To Grant Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition

    Based on the considerations outlined at proposal, consideration of 
all public comments, and for the reasons described in this notice, the 
EPA finds that the portion of the state requested to be removed from 
the OTR does not contribute to a violation of any ozone standard in any 
area of the OTR, and that further control of emissions from that 
portion of Maine will not significantly contribute to the attainment of 
any ozone standard in any area of the OTR. Thus, the EPA is granting 
Maine's CAA section 176A petition to remove a portion of the state from 
the OTR.

V. Judicial Review and Determinations Under Sections 307(b)(1) and 
307(d) of the CAA

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit within 60 days of publication of any final 
action. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of 
this rule will not affect the finality of the rule for the purposes of 
judicial review nor will it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. The Administrator of the EPA, hereby, 
determines that this action is subject to CAA section 307(d), as 
authorized by CAA section 307(d)(1)(V).

VI. Statutory Authority

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, 
Greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National parks, 
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur

[[Page 7746]]

oxides, Volatile organic compounds, Wilderness areas.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Subpart E, consisting of Sec. Sec.  81.455 and 81.457, is added to 
read as follows:

Subpart E--Identification of Interstate Transport Regions


Sec.  81.455   Scope.

    This subpart identifies interstate transport regions established 
for national ambient air quality standards pursuant to section 184 or 
section 176A of the Clean Air Act.


Sec.  81.457   Ozone Transport Region.

    Except as provided in paragraph (a), the Ozone Transport Region is 
comprised of the areas identified by Congress under 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a).
    (a) Ozone Transport Region boundary. As of March 14, 2022, the 
boundary for the Ozone Transport Region consists of the entire States 
of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; portions of 
Maine identified in this section under Table 1; and the Consolidated 
Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia 
and the following counties and cities in Virginia: Arlington County, 
Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Strafford 
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas 
City, and Manassas Park City.

 Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Maine Towns and Cities in the Ozone Transport
                                 Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Maine towns and cities in the ozone transport region
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin County (only the following town): Durham.
Cumberland County (only the following towns and cities): Brunswick, Cape
 Elizabeth, Casco, Cumberland, Falmouth, Freeport, Frye Island, Gorham,
 Gray, Harpswell, Long Island, New Gloucester, North Yarmouth, Portland,
 Pownal, Raymond, Scarborough, South Portland, Standish, Westbrook,
 Windham, and Yarmouth.
Hancock County (only the following towns and cities): Bar Harbor, Blue
 Hill, Brooklin, Brooksville, Cranberry Isles, Deer Isle, Frenchboro,
 Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Mount Desert, Sedwick, Sorrento,
 Southwest Harbor, Stonington, Sullivan, Surry, Swans Island, Tremont,
 Trenton, and Winter Harbor.
Knox County (only the following towns and cities): Camden, Criehaven,
 Cushing, Friendship, Isle au Haut, Matinicus Isle, Muscle Ridge Shoals,
 North Haven, Owls Head, Rockland, Rockport, St. George, South
 Thomaston, Thomaston, Vinalhaven, and Warren.
Lincoln County (only the following towns and cities): Alna, Boothbay,
 Boothbay Harbor, Breman, Bristol, Damariscotta, Dresden, Edgecomb,
 Monhegan, Newcastle, Nobleboro, South Bristol, Southport, Waldoboro,
 Westport, and Wiscasset.
Sagadahoc County (all towns and cities).
Waldo County (only the following town): Islesboro.
York County (only the following towns and cities): Alfred, Arundel,
 Berwick, Biddeford, Buxton, Dayton, Eliot, Hollis, Kennebunk,
 Kennebunkport, Kittery, Limington, Lyman, North Berwick, Ogunquit, Old
 Orchard Beach, Saco, Sanford, South Berwick, Wells, and York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Applicability. As of March 14, 2022, the provisions of 42 
U.S.C. 7511c will no longer be applicable in the following areas of 
Maine: The State of Maine, with the exception of the towns and cities 
listed in this section under table 1 to paragraph (a).

[FR Doc. 2022-02653 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>